What is it with Planners and Planned Unit Developments?
Lee Nellis said:
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.
I recently submitted the following to the editors of the APA's Planning Magazine:
What is it with Planners and Planned Unit Developments?
A few years ago, I attended an APA Mobile Workshop that visited an award-winning transit-oriented development in a commuter rail suburb of a major Midwestern city. As has been the case with almost every such development I've visited, when I asked about the zoning codes governing this new development I was told that everything that I was admiring had been developed as "Planned Unit Developments", i.e., as negotiated exceptions to the prevailing zoning codes. In the midst of all of this excellent "smart growth" development, one vacant lot stood out like a sore thumb. When I asked the Planning Director why that plot had not been developed like the others his response was, "That guy brought me three plans and I rejected them all!" I had to stifle the urge to respond with: "Why don't you just tell him what you will approve?"
More recently, I contacted planners in two cities that are noted for their work on Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and asked if they could point me to the CPTED provisions in their zoning codes. In both cases, the response was the same: "We haven't codified our CPTED policies; we prefer to negotiate with developers to incorporate CPTED elements into their designs".
Why can't good design principles be codified into municipal zoning ordinances? It's as if the entire planning profession has adopted the attitude that "I don't know how to define good development, but I know it when I see it!"
There are a number of problems with this approach.
First, from the perspective of an elected official, there are no guarantees that the planner's vision will be consistent with the community's vision. By the time a proposed development reaches the Planning Commission or the City Council, the parameters of the PUD have been painstakingly negotiated between Planning Staff and the developer without ever having been vetted by the community. At that point, community representatives can give the proposal thumbs up or thumbs down, and that's about it.
Second, the degree of alignment between the development proposal that's brought forth and the community's goals and values is too dependent on the skills and values of the particular planner negotiating the provisions of the PUD. Most of the good smart growth development that I've seen around the country has been driven by a handful of visionary planners who knew what they were doing. They possessed the communication skills needed to sell their vision to their community and the perseverance needed to see their vision executed through to completion. What happens when that visionary moves on? Unless the visionary's insights are codified, there is no assurance that his successors will remain true to the original vision.
Moreover, not every community can have an "all star" planner to guide its vision. Without "role model" zoning ordinances to serve as road maps, most municipal smart growth initiatives will fall far short of their potential.
Most importantly, zoning ordinances are a city's primary means of communicating its design and development standards to the development community. When an outmoded zoning ordinance advertises performance standards that are not in keeping with the community's current development vision the ambiguity increases the development community's "Entitlement Risk", "the risk associated with securing approvals, zoning and permits critical for the project to be built and occupied".[1] The increased risk discourages the development community from pursuing any type of development on the land in question, let alone forms of development that are consistent with the community's vision. Developers cannot afford to waste their time or capital on project proposals with a low chance of regulatory approval. If an outmoded municipal zoning code specifies a 50' minimum setback, no developer in his right mind is going to waste time developing a pedestrian-friendly design proposal with building entrances set at the sidewalk. Time and time again, developers tell me: "Tell us what you want, and that's what we'll bring you." The appropriate place for us to tell the development community what we want is in carefully considered comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances that are adopted with the consensus of our communities. We'll never get significant volumes of smart growth development until developers can build it "by right" with little risk of disapproval.
If cities are, in fact, becoming more receptive to smart growth development patterns (and I think we are), why aren't more of us publishing smart growth zoning codes as an incentive to the development community to bring us smart growth development proposals?
First, there are few good model ordinances - APA ought to be helping with this. There are more and more good examples out there all the time, but finding one that's appropriate for your community is still a hit or miss proposition.
Second, I believe that many city staffs like forcing developers through the PUD process, because it provides leverage to negotiate concessions such as additional right of way for street improvements.
Finally, we cannot discount the fact that the PUD process creates the ideal form of government for the visionary planner: a benevolent dictatorship - with the planner as benevolent dictator.
Steve Elkins is a City Councilmember and former Planning Commissioner in Bloomington, Minnesota.
________________________
[1] "The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development", page 85; Dittmar, Ohland, et al; Island Press, 2004.
Definitions of the four types of real-estate development risk were contributed by Real Estate Development Professor Steve Chamberlin of the University of California at Berkeley
