Transcript Religion and Regulation - College of Architecture

Integrated Controls
Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development
The New Urbanism
From A One Trick Pony To
Planning With Sophistication
And So It Goes
Planner Unit Development




The planned unit development is an integrated,
mixed use approach to physical development
Essentially, a large 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
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
Hallmarks of the PUD








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
Cheney v Village II at New Hope
The creation of the first
PUD ordinance
Background


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, amended the borough zoning map,
rezoning a large tract of land known as the Rauch
farm from low density residential to PUD.
The Ordinance

The Ordinance Permits







Maximum if 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 Developer



One year later the Rauch Development Company
applied for a medium density PUD with mixed retail
commercial uses
Neighboring residents brought suit
The trial court reversed the board, holding the
ordinances 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

Presented as it was with evidence that 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, we hold that the board, within
its sound discretion, could have concluded that council
passed the ordinances with the proper overall
considerations in mind.
Other Issues

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.
True, 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. But all 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 on
planning legislation it is clear that the power lies well
within the power of the local community
Rudderow v Mt Laurel, NJ



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
village, 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 Cross Keys Plan
Village 3
Recreation
Village 2
Village 1
Village 5
Village 4
Open
Space
Regional
Shopping
Center
And the Storm Brewed
Happenings in Mt. Laurel




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
Other Findings

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
This Is What Mt. Laurel Felt Like
This Is The Trial Court Judge
His Honor
Judge Brosius
Celebrating the Mt.
Laurel Decision
The 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. Such was not the legislative intent. We hold
Laurel Township's P.U.D. ordinance, as enacted, to be valid.
Serving 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.
Space Calculations?


The miscalculation of acreage designed for
commercial use is too insignificant to affect the
legality and adequacy of the ordinance
So, too, we find the ordinance adequately meets the
requirements on designation of required open
spaces. Here, again, 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.
Lutz v City of Longview – Wash.




The time frame is 1973
The developer purchases a 4 ½ tract acre and files a
PUD for 2 building development with with 28 d.u.’s
The tract was zoned low density R-1
By the terms of article 3, 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 Issue?



The major issue in this case 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?
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.
Analysis

What is the legal nature and effect of the act of
imposing a PUD upon a specific parcel of land? We
hold 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,
containing46,900 square feet. The change in
permitted use is obvious.
So, If It Is a Rezoning, What
Happens Next?




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 lose this one – Lions win
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.
Conclusions

In summary, we hold that the Longview ordinance
validly authorizes a project of the nature involved
here, but that final approval must be made by the city
council. The approval of the planning commission
merely constitutes a recommendation to the council.