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 4 <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that the City could require a yield plan based on the standard <br /> zoning of that particular area as well as the PUD plan. He stated that this would <br /> allow us to compare and contrast what the differences are. <br /> Ms. Larsen stated that she could not think of any specific examples of a PUD that was <br /> done as a CUP, potentially a commercial project. <br /> Mr. Laden asked Ms. Larsen to investigate whether any commercial projects have <br /> been done with a PUD/CUP combination. He reiterated that he did not want to <br /> eliminate something that might incentivize business. He commented that he was not <br /> in favor of minimum standards for a PUD. The City retains the option to deny a PUD <br /> therefore does not need to put any minimum requirements on them. <br /> Mr. Reinert commented that we can always allow a PUD to go beyond the parameters <br /> if it is a great development. Having minimum standards communicates to developers <br /> what the City wants. He stated we want standards that communicate to developers <br /> the integrity and culture of the City. <br /> Mr. Root argued that we do communicate to developers what kinds of developments <br /> the City wants through the existing zoning code and the PUD's are deviations from <br /> that which we are willing to give to benefit the developer in return for something the <br /> City gets. He added that the City should use the underlying zoning standards as a <br /> baseline and negotiate from there. <br /> Mr. Wipperfurth commented that he is all for more flexibility regarding PUD's. He <br /> agreed with Mr. Root that the underlying zoning standards should be the baseline <br /> standard. He also agreed that the neighborhood meeting is a good idea. <br /> Mr. Vojtech asked if the neighborhood meetings are required is there something we <br /> have to formally do with the feedback. <br /> Chair Tralle stated currently residents get a chance to voice their opinions. He agreed <br /> that it should be a requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting. <br /> Mr. Root clarified that the neighborhood meeting is just another mechanism to <br /> communicate what the developer is going to do ahead of the public hearing. This is a <br /> chance for the developer to listen to concerns and get input and an additional way to <br /> communicate their intent to residents. <br /> Mr. Vojtech asked how often the City utilizes the incentives for PUD's. <br /> Chair Tralle stated these incentives are used quite frequently. <br /> Ms. Larsen clarified that they are most often used for lot size flexibility. <br /> Chair Tralle asked what is considered open space. <br /> DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.