Integrated Controls

1
Integrated Controls

• Mixed Use
• Planned Unit Development
• The New Urbanism

2
From A One Trick Pony To Planning With
Sophistication
3
And So It Goes
4
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

5
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

6
Typical Plan
7
Open Space Retention
8
Cheney v Village II at New Hope
The creation of the first PUD ordinance
9
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.

10
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

11
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.

12
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.

13
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

14
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
  communitys needs.

15
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

16
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.us for garden apartments, townhouses,
  and mid rise multi-family a regional shopping
  center - lakes recreation and a community
  building known as Cross Keys

17
The Cross Keys Plan
Village 3
Recreation
Village 2
Village 1
Village 5
Village 4
Open Space
Regional Shopping Center
18
And the Storm Brewed
19
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 villages residents

20
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 dont think the trial court
  liked anything about the PUD concept

21
This Is What Mt. Laurel Felt Like
22
This Is The Trial Court Judge
His Honor Judge Brosius Celebrating the Mt.
Laurel Decision
23
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.

24
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.

25
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.

26
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.

27
So, Whats 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?

28
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.

29
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.

30
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

31
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.

32
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.