05/12/2021 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala commented that it depends on where the project is located. In a more developed area, more people are notified. Often times the City will go a little further than what is required based on the context of the area. Mr. Vojtech commented that determining how the City utilizes resident feedback should be used to help decide how far the City should notify residents. The more people the City reaches the more feedback we will get. Chair Tralle commented these meetings are informational and should be treated as such. He stated that he did not think that we need to establish minimum standards on lot size because we have the existing zoning code. He stated the PUD’s have been working well when using the existing zone standards. He agreed that only buildable land should be considered open space. Mr. Reinert agreed with Chair Tralle that the open space should be buildable land. Ms. Lindahl commented that the board should consider wildlife corridors where upland open space can be next to wetland corridors or other water features. She stated that there is some value to maintaining wetlands and corridors that could be filled by the developer and just making sure that is not counted the same as upland. Mr. Root commented instead of the term “buildable” he preferred using the term useable. Mr. Laden asked if a developer can fill a wetland if it is in an area that is designated as a wetland corridor in our comprehensive plan. Mr. Grochala stated that they can still impact that area. You can’t require the dedication of property, but you can use the PUD to expand and get a bigger piece of that that wetland corridor than you would normally get through straight zoning. He stated there are ecological issues why you may want to preserve something. With our wetland management corridor with Rice Creek we get some buffers automatically but there are instances where you can benefit from some of that open space that might not all be upland. Ms. Larsen stated that Natures Refuge is an example where a PUD was used to bring the lots closer together thus preserving the wetlands. The PUD incentivized the developer to not impact the wetlands, which have value to the City. She agreed with Ms. Lindahl that there is value to allowing open space to be non-upland next to wetland corridors. Mr. Grochala commented that it’s a trade-off for useable upland but he doesn’t want to rule out that there may be some other ecological values out there that should be preserved.