Integrated Development Regulations and Development Controls
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 35

Mixed Use Planned Unit Development The New Urbanism John Keller - 2003 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 84 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Integrated Development Regulations and Development Controls. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development The New Urbanism John Keller - 2003. From A One Trick Pony To Planning With Sophistication. PUD is an integrated, mixed use approach to physical development

Download Presentation

Mixed Use Planned Unit Development The New Urbanism John Keller - 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Integrated Development Regulations and Development Controls

Mixed Use

Planned Unit Development

The New Urbanism

John Keller - 2003


From a one trick pony to planning with sophistication

From A One Trick Pony To Planning With Sophistication

  • PUD is an integrated, mixed use approach to physical development

  • A tract is planned as a whole, scaled into different units or villages, and granted flexible design capability to achieve a more common sense approach to development

  • The PUD is an overlay zone


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Genesis of the PUD


Hallmarks

Hallmarks

  • The hallmark of the PUD is that the overall development density remains the same as in neighboring area but it is arranged so as to maximum common open space


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

  • Mix of integrated uses

  • Maximum ratio of each use to the entire development

  • Common open space and OSR

  • Innovative space design and FAR

  • Concentration of infrastructure

  • Homeowners’ association

  • Phasing

  • Designed as an integrative whole


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Typical Plan


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Open Space Retention


Integrated open spaces

Integrated Open Spaces


Village design plan

Village Design Plan


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Cheney v Village II at New Hope

Legal Test of the First PUD Ordinance


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

  • In December of 1964 borough council began considering the passage of a new zoning ordinance to establish a PUD district in New Hope.

  • Council consulted with members of the Bucks County Planning Commission on the text of the proposed ordinance, held public hearings, and finally on June 14, 1965 enacted ordinance 160 which created the PUD district

  • They amended the borough zoning map, rezoning a large tract of land known as the Rauch farm from low density residential to PUD.

BACKGROUND


The ordinance

The Ordinance Permits

Maximum of 80% residential

Maximum of 20 percent commercial/office

Minimum of 20% open space

Residential density max. is 10 d.u./acre

No traditional yard or setback requirements

Structures must maintain 24’ separation

No townhouse may contain more then 24 units

The Ordinance


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

Phases, Villages and Development Plan at Village @ New Hope I II and III


Mixed use planned unit development the new urbanism john keller 2003

The Developer

  • The Rauch Development Company applied for a medium density PUD with mixed retail commercial uses

  • Neighboring residents appeal to BZA and then brought a law suit

  • The trial court reverses the board, holding the ordinance invalid for failure to conform to a comprehensive plan and for vesting too much discretion in the New Hope Planning Commission


The appeal

Did The Borough Abuse Its Authority

The PUD district had been under consideration by council for over six months

And had been specifically recommended by the borough planning commission, a body specially equipped to view proposed ordinances as they relate to the rest of the community

The court held that the board, within its sound discretion, could have concluded that council passed the ordinances with the proper overall considerations in mind.

The Appeal


The spot zone question

Is A PUD (Overlay Zone) Spot Zoning

A PUD is a floating zone, but it is brought to earth by a specific ordinance upon application of the developer.

A PUD does allow development standards that are different than traditional zoning districts “but we think that the well reasoned discretion of the Borough is not abused by allowing innovative planning”

The Spot Zone Question


Ultra vires argument

There Is No Authority For Creating A PUD under Pennsylvania Legislative Authority

One of the most attractive features of Planned Unit Development is its flexibility

The chance for the builder and the municipality to sit down together and tailor a development to meet the specific needs of the community and the requirements of the land on which it is to be built

This would be lost if the Legislature required exacting standards before any developer could happen upon the scene to tailor a specific agreement that meets the community’s needs.

Ultra Vires Argument


Conclusion

PUD is not an abusive of authority

Exact standards are not required – only maximum and minimum guidelines are needed

Although the PUD is not specifically authorized by planning legislation, it is clear that the power lies well within the power of the local community

Conclusion


Rudderow v mt laurel n j

Rudderow v Mt. Laurel N.J

  • This is an early case (1972) testing the due process of the PUD process

  • Mt Laurel carefully crafted a PUD ordinance and it was based on the New Jersey enabling legislation authorizing the PUD form of land development regulation

  • In 1969 a developer made a PUD application for a 5 villages, 162 acre project - with 972 low and medium d.u’s for garden apartments, townhouses, and mid rise multi-family – a regional shopping center - lakes – recreation and a community building: known as Cross Keys


The master plan

The Master Plan

Village 3

Recreation

Village 2

Village 1

Village 5

Village 4

Open Space

Regional Shopping Center


The storm brews

The Storm Brews

The Planning Commission holds 5 separate hearings to review the Planned Unit and receive public input. It was bitter and divisive


The previews

After 5 hearings the township gave preliminary approval for Cross Keys

Residents sued and the trial court set aside the tentative approval

The trial court's conclusion was that "the ordinance is invalid in that it does not provide for specific districts as required by the statutes and Constitution of this State.“

The court also found that the regional shopping center is invalid because it goes beyond what is necessary to serve the village’s residents

The Previews


The main feature

The trial court also invalidated the PUD on two additional findings

There was a slight miscalculation in determining the maximum area that could be used for commercial

The minimum open space calculation was less (slightly) than contemplate by the general PUD ordinance for Mt. Laurel

In other words, I don’t think the trial court liked anything about the PUD concept

The Main Feature


Appeal n j supreme court

Is PUD Authorized – Do You Need Specific Zones?

The obvious advantage emanating from the use of P.U.D. is its flexibility in enabling a municipality to solve some of its existing zoning problems, and meet its future community needs with the land remaining for development

To require P.U.D. ordinances to establish specific districts wherein a P.U.D. may be authorized, would destroy the very purpose and philosophy for its creation.

Appeal - N.J. Supreme Court


Serving specific needs

Can You Only Build Commercial to Serve the PUD Residents?

Again, we find the trial court took too narrow a view of the enabling statute. Such construction by the trial court would continue existing, and create additional, "Euclidean" zoning problems and nullify the legislative intent.

We construe the statute to authorize municipalities, where warranted, to permit commercial uses in a P.U.D. project beyond that needed for the residents within the planned community.

Municipalities, as part of their comprehensive zoning plans, may properly anticipate and provide for the present needs of the public now residing in the areas surrounding the planned community, as well as the reasonably foreseeable future needs of the public they anticipate will move into the area and require servicing.

Serving Specific Needs


Miscalculation of space standards

The miscalculation of acreage designed for commercial use is too insignificant to affect the legality and adequacy of the ordinance

Found that the ordinance adequately meets the requirements on designation of required open spaces.

It is obvious that the Legislature gave municipalities the right to determine the extent of open space deemed desirable and necessary.

There is ample support in the record for the township's finding of fact that the open spaces designated in "Cross Keys" were adequate and reasonable.

Miscalculation of Space & Standards


Award winning picture de jure

Award Winning Picture De Jure


Lutz v city of longview wa

The time frame is 1973

The developer purchases a 4 ½ tract acre and files a PUD for 2 a building development with with 28 d.u.’s

The tract was zoned low density R-1

Under the Longview ordinance, the city delegated to the planning commission the authority to approve an application for a PUD in the municipality

The ordinance contains no provision whereby the city council is required to approve or review the decision of the planning commission

After a public hearing by the planning commission, the PUD was approved.

Lutz v City of Longview WA


So what s the big deal

The major issue is whether the city council had the authority to delegate to the planning commission final approval of a planned unit development which thereby affixed the concept to a specific tract

Its clear that the Planning Commission, in most states, is given the total power to approve physical development – but not the rezoning

Does not the PUD as a floating zone involve a rezoning and thus the adoption of an ordinance?

So, What’s The Big Deal?


Appeals court analysis

The PUD achieves flexibility by permitting specific modifications of the customary zoning standards as applied to a particular parcel

The developer is not given carte blanche authority to make any use which would be permitted under traditional zoning

Under the Longview ordinance the PUD is not affixed, at the outset, to any particular area

Therefore, this device is a floating zone. It hovers over the entire municipality until subsequent action causes it to embrace an identified area

Appeals Court Analysis


Findings

What is the legal nature and effect of the act of imposing a PUD upon a specific parcel of land?

Court holds that it is an act of rezoning which must be done by the city council because the council's zoning power comes from the statute and that is what the statute requires

It is inescapable that application of the PUD to this tract constituted an act of rezoning

Before the PUD was authorized, the tract here was limited to low density single family residences primarily

After authorization of the PUD the permitted use is the erection of two large buildings

One of them 55 feet high, consisting of 28 living units, containing 46,900 square feet

The change in permitted use is obvious.

Findings


Conclusion of law

All amendments, modifications or alterations to the comprehensive plan are determined in the same fashion

Only the legislative body is empowered to adopt a zoning map and ordinance. Obviously the state has vested the authority to zone and rezone solely in the city council

The City Council has no authority to delegate this power

Christians zero– Lions one

Conclusion of Law


One last point spot zoning again

The trial court said that the PUD actually constituted spot zoning

This contention is without merit. Spot zoning has come to mean arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, and not in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

One Last Point – Spot Zoning Again


Form based zoning

Form Based Zoning


  • Login