PUD as land use?

[rsmith]

This may seem like a silly question, but do you think it's a good idea to use 'PUD' as a land use category, rather than a zoning classification or actual physical space? I've been asked to review a comp plan for a small town (pop. 5k) in a rural area, and there are some strange distinctions on the land use map, one of which is a separate category for land use.

It seems to me that it would be better (and by better I mean simpler and clearer) to use a traditional land use category in this case - residential, open space, commercial, or mixed. Maybe it would be different for a larger jurisdiction, but we're talking about three small sections of a very small town.

So what do you think? Is it acceptable to use PUD as a land use category? Wise? Depends on the situation?

[zman]

This may seem like a silly question, but do you think it's a good idea to use 'PUD' as a land use category, rather than a zoning classification or actual physical space? I've been asked to review a comp plan for a small town (pop. 5k) in a rural area, and there are some strange distinctions on the land use map, one of which is a separate category for land use.

It seems to me that it would be better (and by better I mean simpler and clearer) to use a traditional land use category in this case - residential, open space, commercial, or mixed. Maybe it would be different for a larger jurisdiction, but we're talking about three small sections of a very small town.

So what do you think? Is it acceptable to use PUD as a land use category? Wise? Depends on the situation?

With us, PUDs can differ greatly depending upon the language and uses outlined within each. To use the PUD designation as a land-use category seems to breed trouble and confusion down the line.
My short answer, I would NOT use PUD as a designation, unless PUD is considered to be only one thing and it is specifically defined as one thing within the Zoning Code.

[Habanero]

Because PUDs can encompass so many different uses I'm not sure how you could use it as its own classification, but that's just my first thought.

[SGB]

We shows PUDs as a categorie on our zoning map, and note that each PUD has its own distinct set of use and area regulations.

[Suburb Repairman]

Did they use "PUD" as a substitute designation for mixed use? Perhaps they weren't comfortable placing the phrase "mixed use" on a map or had a difficult property owner that didn't want the damned guvmit telling them what to do on their land, etc.

We show PUD on our zoning map, but not on future or existing land use maps. PUD is a set of uses, not a use unto itself.

[rsmith]

You've all reinforced what I was thinking. There's either been a mistake, or there's some other reason I don't know about. Thanks for the reinforcement.

[mendelman]

My experience that PUD-like things are usually a land use designation or a process that allows for board review for permitted "as-of-right" projects.

I lean toward PUDs being similar to a special use approval. Meaning that something is designed using the standards (setbacks, FAR, street design, etc.) of the underlying zoning district, but must conform to a paln approved during the PUD approval process.

Though, the files/backup material regarding the approval had better be well documented and accessible, because it can be an administrative nightmare otherwise.

[rsmith]

My experience that PUD-like things are usually a land use designation or a process that allows for board review for permitted "as-of-right" projects.

I lean toward PUDs being similar to a special use approval. Meaning that something is designed using the standards (setbacks, FAR, street design, etc.) of the underlying zoning district, but must conform to a paln approved during the PUD approval process.

Though, the files/backup material regarding the approval had better be well documented and accessible, because it can be an administrative nightmare otherwise.

so it is a land use designation? as in, you go out into the field, write down what is actually there, and put it on a map as a pud? not as mixed, or split it up into, say, residential, open space, etc.? where was it used - the chicago area?

[luckless pedestrian]

I agree with zman

[Senior Jefe]

I once worked for a small community where most of the undeveloped land was zoned something like PUDZ . Every new development had to go through a PUD process. Nothing was a use-by-right. However, either the community plan or area plan created a bubble map that included uses planned for those areas (residential, commercial, industrial, open space). If a developer wanted a different use they had to amend the plan before applying for a preliminary PUD approval. There should be something to guide applicants, citizens and staff as to what is an appropriate use in a general area.

[mendelman]

so it is a land use designation? as in, you go out into the field, write down what is actually there, and put it on a map as a pud? not as mixed, or split it up into, say, residential, open space, etc.? where was it used - the chicago area?

No, where I work now, it is bascially just a development approval process, but the underlying zoning bulk regulations and permitted/special uses apply.

But some munis. have them as dstinct zoning designations and the applicable bulk regulations/permitted uses are part of it.

I prefer PUD or Planned Development as a review process when the 'as of right' development process is present.

In a mandatory commission review environment, PUD as a distrcit dsignation seems fine.