08/11/2021 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented a summary of changes to the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Lindahl requested the Planning & Zoning Board review changes as recommended by staff and provide feedback. Upon receiving feedback, the draft will be revised and reviewed again in December with the other ordinance updates. Board Comments In reference to section 1007.04(4), Mr. Root said the term ‘guidelines’ is not appropriate as the verbiage implies recommendation or suggestion. He interpreted the ordinance to be more restrictive. He suggested utilizing a phrase akin to ‘recognized standards’. In reference to section 1007.04(4)(a), Mr. Root stated the phrase ‘presumptively appropriate’ is not accurate. He said we need to be clear the items listed are recognized standards defined by the City. In reference to section 1007.04(6)(c)(3), Mr. Root explained since the phrase ‘open space’ can be used to reference natural areas or developed park areas, he recommended utilizing the term ‘useable’ exclusively when referring to park areas. He requested a definition of the term ‘useable’. Furthermore, he wanted clarification as to what parts of the open space can be used. In reference to section 1007.04(9)(b), Mr. Root commented there should be notification requirements regarding the neighborhood meeting, specifically who gets notified and by what means. He asked for clarification as to what a presented concept plan should look like at a neighborhood meeting. He recommended making a record of the meeting in order to ensure neighborhood concerns are addressed. He said at the neighborhood meetings, residents should be reminded they can attend and comment at any publicly held meeting during open mike or during the project’s public hearing. In reference to section 1007.04(9)(d)(5)(h), Mr. Root asked, in regards to the market feasibility study, who would deem it necessary. He recommended this section should be moved to section 1007.04(2)(h) with other public benefits as recognized by the City. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(b), Chair Tralle stated he would like the Planning & Zoning Board members invited to the neighborhood meetings. In reference to section, 1007.04(1), Mr. Wipperfurth commented he prefers the wording of the original text because it accurately addresses each point for the purpose of the PUD. He also appreciated that the original text mentions the comprehensive plan as it is important to emphasize the comprehensive plan could be different from the existing zoning guidelines. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(b), Mr. Wipperfurth liked the idea of conducting a neighborhood meeting, but he questioned if it would be too early in the process to have the meeting prior to the concept plan. He said it would be more beneficial to have the meeting after the concept plan review and before the preliminary plan review in order to give the developer more time to assemble his/her plan. In order to hasten the construction of a park, Mr. Wipperfurth recommended, as a requirement of the PUD, applicants submit a timeline of the park’s construction. He commented it is unacceptable for a park’s construction to take 1-2 years. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(e)(5)(a), Mr. Wipperfurth asked