05-01-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 17, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson indicated PUD’s were a great tool for larger parcel developments. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu then presented the Commission with a handout on the definition of a PUD and questioned if the City had any PUD’s currently in place. Associate Heller reviewed the location of several PUDs within the City, noting the Walgreens, Realife and movie theater developments were each within a PUD. She commented the PUD process allows for some give and take between the developer and the City, and noted that the PUD process typically streamlined the development process. She then discussed PUD agreements noting each PUD had a document on file with the City describing what is and is not allowed on site. Discussion ensued regarding past PUD developments in the City of Mounds View. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu questioned why the parcels along County Road 10 had not been rezoned to PUD to spur development. Chairperson Stevenson stated that there were not many parcels large enough available along the corridor to rezone to PUD, and most are privately owned. Associate Heller indicated the rezoning of property was typically completed in conjunction with a development project, and not prior to. Developers know that rezoning is typically part of the development process. She reviewed different ways that cities can help guide development in certain areas without changing the zoning code. The City of North St. Paul has created a Master Plan for one of their commercial corridors, and designated various district areas to assist with the redevelopment process. She noted the City of Arden Hills has written “guiding plans” for certain zoning districts. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu questioned the minimum size a parcel had to be for a PUD zoning designation. Associate Heller stated a residential PUD was three acres, a senior housing PUD was two acres, and a commercial PUD was five areas. She commented there were very few single parcels along the County Road 10 corridor that fit these requirements. However, there is potential for development along the corridor since there are some willing sellers. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu was in favor of reducing these restrictions to spur redevelopment along the corridor given the fact the parcels were currently fully developed. Chair Stevenson stated he wanted the corridor to have a sense of continuity and with a large number of smaller developments, this may be difficult. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu discussed the potential of combining the Robert’s and sandwich shop parcels for a future redevelopment. She commented that this would make the properties more attractive for potential developers.