My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/09/2021 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2021
>
06/09/2021 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2021 11:39:29 AM
Creation date
6/4/2021 3:08:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
06/09/2021
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning&Zoning Board <br /> May 12,2021 <br /> Page 3 <br /> several opportunities to provide feedback on the ordinance updates at different points <br /> in the process. The work plan includes seven P&Z Board meetings and three Council <br /> work sessions leading up to Council adoption in April 2022. The discussion of the <br /> Planned Unit Development(PUD) standard is the first step in the Zoning Ordinance <br /> update. <br /> Board Comments <br /> Mr. Reinert agreed that PUD's work well in Lino Lakes. He stated too much <br /> flexibility in PUD's can result in developments that don't resemble the vision for the <br /> City. He stated he is in favor of some minimum requirements that won't turn an 80- <br /> foot lot into a 45-foot lot. <br /> Mr. Root stated that the way it is currently written it is essentially a negotiated zoning <br /> designation. He stated that he thinks this is to loose. He would like to implement a <br /> more direct connection between the underlying zone and what is allowed for <br /> negotiation in a PUD. He argued for having the underlying zone in addition to a PUD <br /> zoning overlay. This creates a better connection between the two. Mr. Root noted <br /> that he thought cluster zoning in rural areas is a good idea that can lead to more <br /> continuous open space. He suggested that there be some specific standards for that as <br /> well. Mr. Root also stated that it should become a requirement that the property <br /> owner/applicant hold a neighborhood meeting for informal comment and feedback. <br /> Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Root for a specific example of what a PUD overlay would look <br /> like. <br /> Mr. Root explained that he is most familiar with specific lot widths and areas. The <br /> overlay district would be more specific to each individual property. <br /> Mr. Reinert commented that previously it had been discussed that lot sizes be set at a <br /> certain size and disregard the shape of the lot in order to allow flexibility while <br /> maintaining integrity. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that Marketplace is an example of an existing PDO. <br /> Mr. Laden commented that he agreed with Mr. Root that the overlay district is a good <br /> direction to explore. He also concurred that the City should require the property <br /> owner/applicant to a hold neighborhood meeting before submitting a formal concept <br /> application. He asked staff if there are any examples where a PUD was done as a <br /> CUP. He stated that he wants to make sure that we are not eliminating something that <br /> has been useful. Additionally, he commented that he wants to make sure that the <br /> open space we are preserving is useable land and not unbuildable just so the <br /> developer can get smaller lots. <br /> DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.