Overuse and Abuse of PUD?

[Lee Nellis]

While it was invented to address very large mixed-use projects, I have noticed over the years that many jurisdictions use PUDs for minor projects (recently I heard of a town using it for accessory apartments!) and for single use developments.

Given the complexity of most PUD procedures this seems like a real abuse of the tool, and suggests to me that communities do not know how to introduce some flexibility into their regulations without making a huge production of it. So, I am looking for examples of the overuse and abuse of PUDs, as well as for any more theoretical thoughts about this particular planning tool.

[SGB]

Are most of the municipalities that misuse or abuse PUD regulations without professional planning staff?

[Chet]

(edited)

The City I used to work for is in the process of approving PUD zoning for an existing industrial user. The company wants to expand but can't meet the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district, and there is no hardship basis for a variance. They included four other parcels in their "district" in order to meet the minimum area requirements for PUDs, even though they don't control them and there are no plans to develop any kind of unified "district". Classic abuse of PUD and a classic end-around of the appeals process.

[Lee Nellis]

Thanks for the example, Chet.

Many of the communities that abuse the PUD do not have a professional staff, but I think a majority of the cases I have seen were actually recommended by planners who were trying to solve a problem the quick and easy way.

[Joe Iliff]

I've worked for two communities that had PUD's (we call 'em PD's) out the yin-yang. More than half of each town was a PD of some kind or another. Often it wasn't for a large-multi-use development. Instead it was just to tweak an existing district to accomodate something either the user or the city wanted out of the development.

[BKM]

Until 1999, my employer was guilty of the PUD for every single project offense. At one point,. we had something like 295 planned unit development districts. Needless to say, administration was a nightmare-and for little real benefit from a planning standpoint.

We basically canned them all when we re-wrote the Zoning Ordinance in '99.

[mike gurnee]

Until I got here, the PUD was used as a way to spot zone, or rather contract zone. When working a PUD site, the board would "declare" what the underlaying zone should be--and then limit the types of uses. A major grocery store (OK, THE grocery store) is in a single family zone. The PUD case "declares" that the underlaying district is highway commercial. Development is limited to grocery stores. It sort of backfired when they wanted to install a drive up pharmacy...and had to go through a revised PUD plan to get it.

While it should not be used for individual lots, I see some merit for areas as small as 5 acres sometimes.

[Repo Man]

In my previous job we used them sparingly, and almost exclusively for major redevelopment areas or multi-family housing. In order to avoid the use of them on a small area as a way to get around trying to obtain a variance our zoning ordinance had “recommended minimum” setbacks which allowed the Plan Commission to reduce or increase the required setbacks in commercial districts. Businesses seemed to like it because it gave them the ability to expand if necessary and residents seemed to be ok with it because the commission could increase buffers between residential and commercial properties. However that community was completely built-out and some flexibility was necessary to accommodate any redevelopment. In a community with lots of undeveloped land recommended minimums probably wouldn’t be a great idea.

[michaelskis]

When I was in college we did a project on the local hospital that used PUD's to expand, it made it look bad, and there was no growth plan at that time. Now (partly thanks to my class mates) they have an "institunal overlay district" for the University and Hospital.

[The One]

I've worked in jurisdictions that used PUD's for everything, from 1 acre industrial property to 300 acre residential single family (cookie cutter) housing, talk about headaches I remember one place I worked that had dozens of huge residential PUD's (each with hundreds of homes) and every time we had a proposed modification, we had to spend hours getting it in the correct format and spending huge amounts of administrative time. Not to mention those old PUD's that included what should have been private covenants (making us the enforcer of stupid internal rules...) Bad PUD's are the direct result of planners that have been poorly (or not at all) trained in their use (not to mention when they should be used). The ratio of bad PUD's to good PUD's that I've seen so far in my career is about 90:10.

I agree with what others are saying, if you have an up to date code, there should be very limited use of the PUD, and only when it provides a significant benefit for the community. Oh, and jurisdictions without skilled staff and plenty of them should avoid these things completely if possible...

[Suburb Repairman]

My TOWN NEXT DOOR has a fairly serious case of PUD abuse. it is basically used by the tract-home developers like KB homes to increase the level of density in their neighborhoods by reducing the lot sizes. Dispite the fact the TOWN's regulations for PUDs list allowing mixed-use & more creative development patterns as the primary reason for their existance. I bet PUDs account for more than half of their recent development. Bleeeh

[Gedunker]

We have virtually reached build-out so the PUDD (as they are known in Indiana) process has been very useful as we redevelop the city -- allowing certain flexibilities where they are warranted and assuring development issues (including uses) are addressed in detail. I would say we have done a lot of PUDDs but none that have been egregious.

[H]

You should never abuse your PUD. Overuse? Maybe. Not abuse...never


We called em PD's also. And they are just a way to get higher density.

D: "What does RL-1 mean"?

P: "One unit an acre, unless you do a PD and then you can get up to 5 units an acre".

D: "So it basically means 5 du/ac"?

P: [sigh]"yes"[/sigh] :rolleyes:


Sidenote: we had an 'administrative determination' that there was no min. PD size.

[Trail Nazi]

Some of the developers I know use the PUD to circumvent the regulations. It drives me nuts how they abuse the concept of the PUD and build crap.

[thinknik]

Around here PUD's are treated like contracts for upzoning. When a land developer or expanding institution wants to do anything to bypass the requirements, out comes the PUD to the rescue. It wasn't until recently the City Council, who has to approve them, figured out it needed to question the wisdom of the PUD policy.
So we have a lot of residual lame-o PUD's. More disturbing is that they are usually all mixed up in annexations and result in Comp Plan changes.

Because they are created by contract, flexiblity to change them like zoning is gone.

In the 90's government officials of Lake County, Florida finally figured out that they and their planning staff had given out so many PUD's they were going to go broke providing infrastucture to them. So they naturally fired their whole planning staff.

[GeoTech]

While it was invented to address very large mixed-use projects, I have noticed over the years that many jurisdictions use PUDs for minor projects (recently I heard of a town using it for accessory apartments!) and for single use developments.

Given the complexity of most PUD procedures this seems like a real abuse of the tool, and suggests to me that communities do not know how to introduce some flexibility into their regulations without making a huge production of it. So, I am looking for examples of the overuse and abuse of PUDs, as well as for any more theoretical thoughts about this particular planning tool.

Our town has a Planned Unit Residential Development Zoning District (Floating Zone) that has been truly abused over the last twenty years. Of the eight PURD's that they have approved, none actually meet the requirements of the Code.

We are currently rewriting the entire zoning code and will be removing this floating zone option and writing in more mixed use options in the actual base commercial zones and be adding a Traditional Neighborhood Districts option.

I do think that there is a need for a PUD option in rapidly growing regions that are creating new neighborhoods (500-1,000 units over one hundred acres or more). It all comes down to the wording and design of the code and how it is enforced.

[H]

Nut abuse...never

OMG ...that was was to be "But" with a "B" not "Nut" with a "N"...the "B" and "N" are next to each other on the keybooard. ....it was not meant to be so foul... I apologize. Mod if you could edit or delete that, it might be a good idea, so it is not so blue. whoops.



Mod note Giff57: Done

[nerudite]

The City of Davis, CA, which is usually well-regarded in terms of planning is a freak for Planned Developments. Almost every development I worked on when I was there was a PD, even tiny little 4 unit projects. It's a highly regulatory town, so I don't think the PD was used as much for flexibility but rather for total control of everything... the City looks pretty nice though, and the larger PDs do mix uses pretty well.

[THOFF]

While it was invented to address very large mixed-use projects, I have noticed over the years that many jurisdictions use PUDs for minor projects (recently I heard of a town using it for accessory apartments!) and for single use developments.

Given the complexity of most PUD procedures this seems like a real abuse of the tool, and suggests to me that communities do not know how to introduce some flexibility into their regulations without making a huge production of it. So, I am looking for examples of the overuse and abuse of PUDs, as well as for any more theoretical thoughts about this particular planning tool.

We recently had an owner of a PUD submit an amendment to the PUD. The amendement besides not being allowed in any other zoning district is not even allowed in any other zoning district.

Of course it was for a car dealer. Who moved as part of a TIF in town.

In addition after giving comments to our senior planner that the original PUD had not been complied with the department director did not want to bring this up to the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Go figure.

[Zoning Goddess]

Here's my opinion, which TN and SC may or may not agree with. In our jurisdiction, PUDs were used whenever we had last-minute applications from influential developers and we were told to GET IT ON THE AGENDA. It was a catch-all for bad development, railroaded thru by the P&D director and Planning Manager.

There were some good, mixed-used PUDs over the years, of course, but it's become a band-aid recently.

[tsc]

Our town board waived all the elements of a proposed PUD...that make it a PUD. It was a scam for the developer to get though. Our PUD consisted of senior apartments and a rec center...nothing else.

[Lee Nellis]

Thanks all! Any additional PUD horror stories will be cheerfully accepted.

[vaughan]

I'm sure that the words "Duck Creek" send chills down your spine, Lee.

[solarstar]

No horror stories here (at least not in relation to PUDs!) - we're a bit paranoid about them. They go through such a stringent review and the elected officials are very, very wary of granting them, but it is used as a way to make sure a developer sticks to his promises (ok, ok, a bit like contract zoning!) Fortunately, our code only allows mixed-use PUDs for 8-acre plus sites, which cuts down on the individual, spot-type ones.

[Lee Nellis]

The forces of light prevailed on Duck Creek (a large proposed PUD sitting on the western border of Yellowstone National Park), but of course we never prevail for long before the same ideas come back, re-packaged. Maybe the new package will be a little better.