Planned Unit Development (PUD) Unzoned Zoning

What’s a “PUD?” Planned Unit Development If residential, it may be called Planned Residential Development PRD If Commercial, it may be called Planned Commercial Development PCD If industrial, it may be called Planned Industrial Development, PID This type of development exists in contrast to “subdivision”

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated Sometimes a lot! Homes set back from the street

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated Sometimes a lot! Homes set back from the street

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated Sometimes a lot! Homes set back from the street Usually with automobiles dominant

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated Sometimes a lot! Homes set back from the street Usually with automobiles dominant Commonly without sidewalks

A Standard “Sub-division” A single use With homes well separated Sometimes a lot! Homes set back from the street Usually with automobiles dominant Commonly without sidewalks With frequent use of Cul-de-Sacs

A PUD can have . . . A mix of land uses Residential Office Commercial/retail

A PUD can have . . . A mix of land uses Small if any setbacks

A PUD can have . . . A mix of land uses Small if any setbacks With buildings close together

A PUD can have . . . A mix of land uses Small if any setbacks With buildings close together With automobiles hidden and sidewalks present

No driveways But with side walks

A PUD can have . . . A mix of land uses Small if any setbacks With buildings close together With automobiles hidden and sidewalks present And different types of residences

A PUD offers the developer the opportunity of relaxing “standard” requirements and allows design to the site, with the market deciding the nature and mix of the development.

Why not . . . just get rid of zoning or “inflexible” regulations rather than enacting them and then allowing exceptions? Those “inflexible” regulations are the default. Developers can have them relaxed if they submit to detailed site plan review [enemata to some developers]. PUD does this. A developer submits the plans for a site and those plans then constitute the relevant regulations.

Frankland v Lake Oswego, 517 P.2d 1042 (Or. 1973) Adjoining property owners, challenged an apartment building in a PUD But, isn’t PUD supposed to allow mix uses?

Facts Property originally zoned single family Half-acre lots Cut a deal with Lake Oswego for annexation by phase as a PUD Four phases Phase IV is the subject of the litigation 55 acres that contained property zoned apartment, in accordance with the PUD plan.

Lake Oswego’s PUD ordinance requires Submission of “architectural sketches” of the buildings proposed to be built showing The types of buildings to be built Their prospective location Their general height and bulk in relation to the other on-site development and on adjacent land. The buildings actually constructed did not look like the “architectural sketches.” Adjoining landowners protested the 80 unit apartment building.

Lake Oswego Planning Commission – “Looks OK to us!” City issued building permits Plaintiff put defendant on notice and filed suit Trial court dismissed the suit with prejudice; the neighbors appealed. Appeals court reversed and remanded. Appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Oregon Supreme Court “We are aware of the need for flexibility in planning, but flexible planning does not, in our view, justify delegation of the planning function to a private developer, nor does it allow a developer to build without regard to plans as presented to the appropriate planning authorities.”

“[B]ecause the . . . apartment did not comply with the sketches, that structure violated the final plan and the zoning ordinance which implemented that plan.” “We . . . find that under the ordinance a developer must submit sketches of actual structures to be built, and he is thereafter bound by these plans and may later change them only by complying with . . . procedures in the ordinance.”

What happened next? Remedy . . . Should Plaintiffs receive payment equal to their loss of property value, or should The building be torn down? “We . . . remand this suit to allow both parties to introduce evidence relating to the issue of which remedy – injunction or monetary damages – is proper.” The case settled!

Sounds similar to the Villas at Pinecrest Lakes, doesn’t it?