|
<br />Changes in permitted uses and in the
<br />density and intensity of use are obvious can-
<br />didates for inclusion in a list of changes that
<br />should be listed as major, though any element
<br />in the development plan that is essential to
<br />the character of the. planned unit development
<br />should be included, such as open space, traf-
<br />fic and pedestrian circulation systems, design
<br />elements, and the jobs/housing ratio, if one is
<br />included.
<br />
<br />FAILURE TO DEVELOP AND ZONiNG REVERTER
<br />Problems will arise ifthe planned unit develop-
<br />ment is not developed, or if development
<br />begins and is not completed. It is not typical to
<br />require a developer to provide bond or security
<br />to guarantee completion of a development,
<br />though some communities have adopted
<br />requirements of this type. To deal with this prob-
<br />lem, the ordinance usually includes a period of
<br />time during which the development must be
<br />completed, either for the entire development or
<br />for each phase if development is to be in
<br />phases. The ordinance may then require. the
<br />reversion of the zoning for the planned unit
<br />development zoning to its original zoning if the
<br />planned unit development is not completed dur-
<br />ing the designated time period.
<br />Many ordinances provide for a reverter to
<br />the original zoning without an additional hear-
<br />ing and action by the legislative body, but this
<br />procedure is doubtful. Most courts hold that an
<br />automatic reverter clause ofthis type .is invalid.
<br />An ordinance should require notice and hearing
<br />and a decision by the legislative body.on a
<br />rezoning as the basis for terminating the zoning
<br />for a planned unit development
<br />
<br />CONTROL FOLLOWING COMPLETION
<br />Once a planned unit development has been
<br />completed, any land use or additional devel-
<br />opment should be controlled by the
<br />approved development plan. Failure to
<br />include this provision may mean the devel-
<br />oper can ignore the development plan in its
<br />development of the project (see, e.g.,
<br />Cherokee County v. Martin, 559 S.E.2d 138
<br />(Ga. 2002), in which the developer was
<br />allowed to build.an apartment complex not
<br />shown on the plan because the county did
<br />not specify compliance with the site pan as
<br />a condition of PUD zoning).
<br />
<br />SUBDIVISION AND RESALE
<br />Problems of continuing control are created if
<br />a planned unit development is subdivided
<br />
<br />after the final development plan has been
<br />approved, or if all or part of the develop-
<br />ment is sold or leased. These events may
<br />create compliance problems. Subdivision
<br />may sever areas of the project that do not,
<br />standing alone, comply with the develop-
<br />ment plan.
<br />It is important in this situation to distin-
<br />guish between existing and new develop-
<br />ment Severing part of a developed project
<br />through subdivison, sale, or lease should not
<br />create compatibility problems at the new
<br />perimeter or other problems because the
<br />development plan will still apply. New devel-
<br />opment is a different matter and needs atten-
<br />tion in the ordinance. The density of new
<br />development in the severed area, for exam-
<br />
<br />The approval of
<br />numerous planned unit
<br />developments and
<br />master planned
<br />
<br />communities can create
<br />
<br />serious recordkeeping
<br />
<br />problems, making the
<br />
<br />monitoring and
<br />
<br />enforcement of the
<br />
<br />PUD ordinance difficult
<br />
<br />pie, must not be allowed to increase the den-
<br />sity authorized for the entire development.
<br />Nor should it result in a decrease in common
<br />open space or preserved natural resource
<br />areas.
<br />Part of this problem can be handled in
<br />the subdivision ordinance, which can
<br />require subdivision approval for the resub-
<br />division of a planned unit development"or
<br />its resale or lease if this creates a new sub-
<br />division. This ordinance can also provide
<br />that the planning, commission shall not
<br />approve a resubdivision, sale, or lease
<br />unless the newly subdivided, sold, or leased
<br />parcel meets all ofthe requirements of the
<br />ordinance and complies with the develop-
<br />ment plan, but this restriction may not be
<br />practicable in many instances.
<br />
<br />Another alternative is to make the final
<br />development plan the controlling document
<br />for the entire project, including any resubdi-
<br />vided, sold, or leased parcel.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />More than 20 percent of all homes in this
<br />country are built by the nation's top 10
<br />builders. This is an flmazing statistic. It high-
<br />lights a growing concentration in the home
<br />building industry that is changing the shape
<br />of land development because large builders
<br />build at a large scale. Planned unit develop-
<br />ments and master planned communities now
<br />make up the largest share of new develop-
<br />ment in many suburban areas and contribute
<br />to the growing demand for infill development
<br />in urban centers. In California alone, one law
<br />firm had 204,000 units of housing approved
<br />in PUDs and master planned community
<br />projects when interviewed for this report.
<br />These trends call for a new look at PUDs and
<br />master planned communities as a zoning
<br />strategy.
<br />
<br />
<br />VOL. 24: NO.6
<br />
<br />Zoning Pracjc2 1= a month!y PUbUc3tion of the
<br />
<br />American Planning ?..5sod:at~on. Subscriptions
<br />arc 2\ISHabie for '::'75 (U.5.) End S'lCtG (foreign). 11\!.
<br />
<br />P5ui Farmer, r.D.IC.", L"1ecutiv€ Direc.t~:t; WiUiam R.
<br />Ketn: .4IC?~ Director :::f'Res:.=an:h.
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (JSSN 1548-0135) is produced at
<br />.ll,P~.. Jim Schwab. Ale?, Editor; Michael Davidson,
<br />Guest Editor; Julie Von Bergen, AssiSTant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton: Design and Production.
<br />
<br />CopyrighT @2007 \:ty i~.,mericon Planning
<br />,A,S5ociation, 122 5. Michigan p.,ve.., Suite 1600,
<br />Chicago, IL 60603. The Ameiican Planning
<br />P\55ociation 21so has offices at 1776
<br />M2ssachusetts Ave., N.V\/.: Wa.shington, D.C.
<br />20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may
<br />be reproduced or utilized in any form OJ by any
<br />means, eiectronic Dr mechanical: induding photo.
<br />CDpying~ recording, or by 3ny information storage
<br />and retiieval sYSLern, without permission in writing
<br />from the'\merican Planning ?.55ocia,tion.
<br />
<br />Printed on :2cyded pape:) 1ncludiDg 50.jo~'c
<br />
<br />re'::"y'd:=n fioei and in%., pcstc0flsumerw=sts.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTiCE 6.07
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING AS50CIATIO~ I 2'~ 7
<br />
|