PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:EXAMINING APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREACarissa Schively Slotterback, PhD, AICP, Associate Professor & Director

Matthew Malecha, Research Assistant

Urban and Regional Planning Program

Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

APA Minnesota Conference

September 29, 2011

Research Overview

Examine use and outcomes of PUD use PUDs are widely used Important tool for flexible development Accomplish numerous outcomes (e.g.

conservation, affordable housing, mixed use, environmental review mitigation)

Opportunities for collaborative approach No systematic evaluation

Research Overview

Initiated in response to community interests through Community Growth Planning Assistance Center (CGPAC) at Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) at U of M

Funded by CURA and CGPAC

Working with advisory group

Research Questions

1. To what extent does PUD ordinance content vary across communities (e.g. purpose, applicability, interface with other ordinances, submittal requirements)?

2. What is the nature of PUD decision-making processes (e.g. developer/community-driven, use of negotiation, public engagement)?

3. What are the outcomes of PUD implementation (e.g. changes in proposed projects, “good” planning outcomes)?

Methodology

Context/Sample Randomly selected municipalities

7 counties + “collar” counties in MN

65 municipalities (1/3 of metro) – across 4 Met Council types

Varied population, staff capacity, and nature of development Developed (e.g. St. Paul, Columbia Heights, Bloomington, Osseo)

Developing (e.g. Woodbury, Rosemount, Waconia, Andover)

Rural – Agricultural (e.g. New Trier, Columbus, Lake St. Croix Beach)

Rural Centers (e.g. North Branch, Elko New Market, Belle Plaine, Lindstrom)

Communities represented in ordinance review sample

Methodology

Analysis1. Literature review

2. Collect and review PUD ordinances – content analysis

3. Conduct interviews with staff responsible for ordinance implementation

4. Review recent PUD projects Challenge – some disconnect between

cases for ordinance review and interviews, dropped Rural Ag for interviews

Previous PUD Research

Previous research Early 1970s through 2000s (APA, ULI) Themes:

Perceived benefits (flexibility, mixed use, preservation, open space, aesthetics, improved process, etc.)

Possible drawbacks (complexity, lack of safeguards, etc.)

Typical ordinance content (requirements, process, mechanics)

Themes found inform ordinance review process Typical content Benefits – internal, external, process

Preliminary Findings: Ordinance Review

Desired/stated benefits (generally found in introductory or purpose statement) Most mentioned

Flexibility (72% of ordinances in sample) Efficient land use / reduced costs (66%) Conservation/Preservation (64%) Improved or high quality site design (63%) Compatibility (55%) Creativity/Innovation (55%)

Little or no mention Satisfaction of market demands, cost-effectiveness for

residents, mix of scales, encouraging a better organized/financed developer, affordability for developer (no mention)

Increasing tax revenues, restoring main streets, improving community identity, improving social interaction, reduction of maintenance costs (one mention)

Development Category

Flexibility (72%

overall)

Efficient land use / reduced costs

(66% overall)

Conservation/

Preservation (64% overall)

Improved or high quality

site design (63%

overall)

Compatibility (55% overall)

Creativity/ Innovation

(55% overall)

Developed communities (22 communities)

73% 77% 68% 64% 59% 55%

Developing communities (14 communities)

79% 93% 85% 79% 50% 71%

Rural Center communities (16 communities)

81% 63% 69% 81% 75% 75%

Rural Agricultural communities (13 communities)

54% 23% 31% 23% 31% 15%

Most frequently mentioned benefits, broken out by Development Category

Highlighted percentages do not denote significance, merely noticeably higher/lower values. Testing may be done in the future to check for significant differences.

Preliminary Findings: Ordinance Review

Mention of specific content in PUD ordinances 9/10 in sample discuss the application process and

contain a purpose statement.

94% of the ordinances mention specific criteria, standards, guidelines, or requirements that apply to PUDs (unrelated to the application process). Range of standards for minimum PUD project area

no minimum – Wayzata 1.5 acres – St. Paul 4 acres – New Brighton 10 acres – Robbinsdale 20 acres – Dellwood 75 acres – Nowthen

Preliminary Findings: Ordinance Review

Mention of specific content in PUD ordinances

60% discuss permitted, conditional, and/or prohibited uses within the community’s PUDs.

Only one community (Scandia) had a PUD ordinance which described incentives for developers who choose the PUD option.

Preliminary Findings: Ordinance Review

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

Summary 39 of 52 interviews conducted thus far

(phone/in-person) Interviews addressed:

History of PUD use in the community Mechanics of the PUD ordinance PUD process Nature of PUD projects

Interviewees completed brief surveys related to ordinance content and project outcomes of PUDs in their community

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

Use varies - 0-75% of projects in the past 10 years went through the PUD process.

Majority expect use of the PUD to increase in the future - primarily due to the desire/need for flexibility. e.g. for communities with large wetland areas,

flexibility allows for continued development while protecting fragile ecosystems

e.g. for developed communities, flexibility is needed to develop the few remaining parcels and support redevelopment

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

What would interviewees change about their current PUD ordinance? Change the way PUDs are classified Clarify language in the ordinance No change

PUDs most commonly classified as conditional uses, standalone districts (often requiring rezoning), overlay districts, or a variety of ‘hybrid’ combinations. Most cities are pleased with their current

classification

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

Pre-application discussions are very common among cities in the sample

Ordinance may require a pre-application discussion (or process) – sometimes informal

Important for addressing concerns in advance of application – more efficient process, addresses 60/120 day rule

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

Negotiation – an important aspect of the PUD process Elected officials like it – gives them more discretion Several cities discussed codifying negotiation

process e.g. Minneapolis uses a point-type system

PUDs are primarily initiated by outside developers City staff is often involved, however, in guiding them

toward a PUD rather than traditional development

PUD ordinances often work in concert with other parts of the code (e.g. design guidelines, shoreland ordinance)

Preliminary Findings:Interviews

Challenges

Private infrastructure: most communities mentioned negative experiences (e.g. private roads being turned over to the city after HOA membership changes)

PUD process can be time consuming

Tracking/enforcement can be challenging with a small city staff, few resources

Ordinance language can be ambiguous

The Real Experts…

Meg McMonigal, AICP

Planning & Zoning Supervisor, City of St. Louis Park

Tom RiedeselTown Planner, White Bear Township

Kevin Ringwald, AICP

Director of Planning & Development, City of Chaska