05/11/2011 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 11, 2011 Page 3 A PPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7 :58 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson . Motion carried 5 - 0. Mr . Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of Amending Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following revisions to the proposed document as discussed by the board: • Pg. 2 -1, Subd. 1: Paragraph C: add “or” after “Subd. .” and after “Subd. 1 0”. The intent is that at least one of the information sets listed in the sentence is required. • Pg. 2 -3, Subd. 1: Delete Paragraph J, regarding the 12 -month waiting period for application resubmittal. Board Members did not see a valid reason for this re quirement. • Pg. 2 -4, Subd. 2.B.4: change word “must” to “may.” Board members agreed that an applicant is encouraged to attend meetings but not required. • Pg. 2 -5, Subd. 2.B.7.d: a dd reference to LOS levels. Board members felt it necessary to define the LOS levels in the document. Pg. 2 -5, Subd. 2.B.7.d.2): remove “or E”, a typo. • Pg. 2 -9, Subd. 2.B: Delete Paragraph 1 4, regarding the 12 -month waiting period for application resubmittal . Board Members did not see a valid reason for this requirement. • Pg. 2 -13, Subd. 4: The replacement text regarding variances handed out at the meeting, based on the new state statute, replaces Subd. 4. • Pg. 2 -24 , Subd. 6.B.3.f: add text “as de termin ed by city” to end of sentence. Board Members agreed that a “qualifie d professional” leaves too much room for interpretation . • Pg. 2 -33, Subd. 6.D.4 : Paragraph c., remove “or E”, a typo • Pg. 2 -33, Subd. 6.D.4: Delete Paragraph g, regarding LOS requirements. This paragraph is no longer necessary due to the improvements to the I -35W/Lake Drive interchange. • Pg. 2 -50, Subd. 10.D.5.b: Delete requirement of 25 -foot setback unless necessary for some reason. Board members asked staff to d etermine if a 25 -foot setback is required for a reason. If not, the y requested delet ing t he setback requirement. The Board considered this too restrictive, e s pecially in the case of a PUD when the City should allow for a creative design.