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 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.
Integrated Development Regulations and Development Controls
Planned Unit Development
The New Urbanism
John Keller - 2003
Genesis of the PUD
Open Space Retention
Cheney v Village II at New Hope
Legal Test of the First PUD 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
Phases, Villages and Development Plan at Village @ New Hope I II and III
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.
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”
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.
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
Regional Shopping Center
The Planning Commission holds 5 separate hearings to review the Planned Unit and receive public input. It was bitter and divisive
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.