My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/13/2021 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2021
>
10/13/2021 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2021 8:29:26 AM
Creation date
11/12/2021 8:29:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
10/13/2021
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.
/
13
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 />October 13, 2021 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Evenson commented the reduction from 65% impervious surface to 40% in years <br />past was a significant change. He wondered why the change to impervious surface <br />percentages was made. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen said, due to a Rice Creek study, the decision was made to change the <br />impervious surface percentages. However, staff has since learned the decision was <br />based on inapplicable information and if the Board desires, the impervious surface <br />can be increased to 65%. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson mentioned, while on the Planning and Zoning Board, he has never <br />recalled an applicant having too much impervious surface. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen said impervious surface on individual lots are not reviewed at a P&Z <br />level. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if impervious surface requirements are an issue at a staff level. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen shared in some instances, residents have been close to surpassing the 40% <br />impervious surface requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if any residents have wanted 65% impervious surface. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen said no. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl informed the Board staff pulled some examples from the Watermark <br />development. She said the homes were 25% to 33% impervious surface on smaller <br />lots and they did not have yard barns or sheds. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinert explained with small lots and a small impervious surface requirement, the <br />amount of land a homeowner can use is limited. He commented the home may meet <br />the impervious surface requirement during construction, but if a new homeowner <br />wants to pour a large patio they may not be allowed to do so. Mr. Reinert said on his <br />previous home, he had a large patio approximately 15 ft. in width and the length of <br />the house. He enjoyed the large patio because that was the area of the yard his kids <br />often played. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson commented due to the City’s limits on driveway size and setbacks, <br />impervious surface is also limited. He stated he would support 65% impervious <br />surface in all urban residential districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden expressed concern with increasing the impervious surface to 65% on large <br />lots. He commented if his neighbors, who live on large lots, were able to do 65% <br />impervious surface, it would equate to creating a commercial sized parking lot. He <br />asked if impervious surface requirements could be scaled per lot size. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.