Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

developments, mixing of uses, and traditional neighborhood design impossible. Most state statutes provide for a PUD process that is a form of conditional approval. Conditional uses addressed a single designated use to which conditions were added. PUDs dealt with de- velopments that required a site plan or plat be approved. The approval of PUDs meant approval ofa site plan and a list of variations from the zoning district standards, including lot size requirements, permitted uses, minimum setbacks, or other regulations. The plan thus had a list of standards that differed from the zoning district. Upon approval the parcel was designated on the zoning map as a PUD, and the approved standards were attached. PUDs were first authorized by the courts, then state statutes and local ordinances were written to accommodate innovative develop- ment forms. These statutes and ordinances (not to mention many planners) acknowledge that PUDs produce designs superior to cookie -cutter Euclidian plans. PUDs enabled developers to alter tot sizes in order to work with the unique elements of the site without losing density, as would be the case under Euclidian zoning. The initial use of discretionary approval for PUDs was understandable. Jurisdictions had never reviewed a PUD, and there were no de- sign standards. While staff members may have read about them, they had no experience upon which to base code standards for such uses. Conditional approval provided a learning curve. Although open space was a key element in cluster developments and many PUDs, initially few ordinances required a minimum amount of open space. Standards to mix uses eitherverti- cally or horizontally were typically not present either, so there was no guidance for traditional neighborhood development. Despite the fact that clustering was supposed to allow develop- ers to protect natural resources, almost no PUD ordinances had any natural resource protection or open space or recreation standards. Getting on a bus and looking at good and bad developments in the community or area is a good way to establish standards. There are several forms of PUD regula- tions. Some PUDs are floating zones, where the developer proposes a density and mix of uses with no relationship to the underlying zoning district. A smaller group of PUD ordinances have a density standard tied to the underlying In this, photo a wall and landscaping separate low -density residential uses from ari adjacent, :. auto -oriented commercial use. zoning district. All PUD ordinances require the plans to be presented at public hearings and for the decision makers to find that the plan meets a set of subjective criteria. As with conditional uses the process is adversarial, with all the same problems of unpredictability and uncertainty. The problem is far worse because instead ofa specific use, a PUD may be a subdivision or a large mixed use development. For the most part, there are only subjective standards, like consistency with the comprehensive plan, protection of natural resources to the maximum extent, no adverse impact on property values, or no deg- radation of the neighborhood. The developer is left to determine whether a plan meets these subjective criteria. Staff members may provide guidance but have no objective standards to evaluate a plan. At the hearing, proponents and opponents often present totally conflicting opinions on whether the criteria are met. The initial assumption is that PUDs result in better design. But because PUD regulations have no objective standards, developers have no guide as to what better design is. There are lengthy adversarial public hearings, and com- munity boards often grant approval or denial. It should be no surprise that PUDs are good, bad, or indifferent in quality. It was predictable that some PUD plans would be out of character in the absence of ob- jective standards. For example, clustering could be used to develop higher density town house ZONINGPRACTICE 4.16 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION [page 6