Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked if that is part of the PUD. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated the future land use map includes it in the PUD. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked whether there would be three acres left on either side of the properties in <br />question for a PUD. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated it does not look like there would be three acres on either side. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson indicated that the total area designated as PUD from Groveland Road to Spring <br />Lake Road is approximately seven acres. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated it was between seven and eight acres. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson indicated this would be a substantial PUD and the largest one left in the City <br />and to take the very heart of that PUD out means the City loses the ability to make any of that a <br />PUD. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland said he has a problem with the fact the proposal cannot be a PUD and, if <br />this is approved, it would not be in accordance with what the future land use plan calls for. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson commented that approval of this would mean that the City is forever left with <br />individual lots on Highway 10. <br /> <br />Ernie Zelinka, a n agent with Coldwell Banker who is also involved with this development, <br />addressed the Commission and asked if the City is proposing to take an eight acre parcel split by <br />two roads and turn it into a PUD. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson explained that the entire area on one side from Groveland Road to Spring Lake <br />Road is between seven and eight acres. He then said the City is trying to get away from the <br />individual lots on Highway 10 for future development. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelinka said there is no reason why it has to be one eight acre PUD. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller indicated that a PUD needed to be three acres. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelinka indicated they are not asking for a PUD. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson explained that by taking the middle out of that section neither side has three <br />acres left for a PUD. He then said that when the City looked into what it wants for the future of <br />Mounds View it was determined that those seven acres of individual properties should be <br />combined and designated as a PUD and by approving the proposal the City loses the ability for a <br />future PUD. <br />