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
•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
Genesis of the PUD
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
Typical Plan
Open Space Retention
Integrated Open Spaces
Village Design Plan
Cheney v Village II at New Hope
Legal Test of the First
PUD Ordinance
•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.
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
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
Phases, Villages and Development Plan at Village
@ New Hope I II and III
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 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”
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.
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
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 multifamily – a regional shopping center
- lakes – recreation and a
community building: known as
Cross Keys
The Master Plan
Village 3
Recreation
Village 2
Village 1
Village 5
Village 4
Open
Space
Regional
Shopping
Center
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Form Based Zoning