[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Center Planning Information Bulletin PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD): TOOL OR TRAP? Coastal Zone Laboratory Great Lakes Resource Management Program HD University of Michigan 211 M5 P63 1974 RUARY 1974 MAY 2 8 w4 As a service to the citizens of the State of Michigan, the Coastal Zone Laboratory of The University of Michigan, with financial support from the Michigan Sea Grant Program, has prepared the following.Planning Information BulZetin No. 2.@.'This series of publications is designed to provide useful information to citizens, developers, and.planning officials who are dealing with the complex problems of wise shorelands development and use. As the problems associated with accelerated growth become., more complex, increasing attention will be given to the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) as a regulatory device. There are certain problems associated with PUD ordinances that should clearly be understood prior to their adoption. This bulletin was prepared at a preliminary guide to the subject for those considering the use of PUD. It is not intended as a complete discussion of the topic, but hopefully will stimulate interest in the topic and provide a basic understanding so that more. detailed sources can be understood readily. The publication "Planned Unit Development Ordinances," available'from the American Society of Planning Officials, was of particular value in preparing this bulletin and should be consulted by anyone seeking further information on the subject. Ln The Coastal Zone La boratory at The University of Michigan 7Z would like to receive comments and suggesti ons on the material presented in this series. Communications should be addressed to Peter C. Ryner Coastal Zone Laboratory 1101 N. University Building University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 7.64-5264 INTRODUCTION To protect the health, safety, and, welfare of the public, the state of Michigan has granted. each political unit certain reg,ulatory powers. Principle among these powers are the right to-establish zoning ordinances, subdivision controls, and building codes. As more people attempt to, use a fixed amount of land and water resource, conflicts arise. As a result, there is an increased need for the use of these public regulatory powers. In many cases the situation is so far reaching that federal and state action has been taken, or will occur, if local government should fail to respond-. The regulatory a,pproach most often used by local government is that of zoning. Zoning developpdas l.arge numbers of people moved from rural farmlands into urba.n industrial centers shortly after the turn of the century. To prevent fire, disease, or serious nuisance, as well as to promote efficient patterns of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational use, urban communities began to designate where various types of activity should be located. By the late 1920's many cities were preparing complex maps that designated patterns or zones of activity; and zoning refered to the establishment and administration of these zQnes of activity. PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE RIGHTS If government is to have any power, people must giye up some of what are conceived to be their natural individual rights. SInce-the establishment of the United States there has always been a problem.of giving government the powers it needs to protect -the general public without infringing too strongly upon the rights -2- of the individual. Zoning reflects this problem perhaps more than any other type of public regulation. In order for government to establish patterns of land use, it must modify or preclude certainrights of the individual property owner. Zoning' continues to be used and, in fact, expanded, because certain rules have been adopted which tend to protect both, the rights of the public and the rights of the individual. While these rules change over time and from state to state, the principle common to all of them is that the right of the public to restrict private property uses must be limited. The basic tests which the public must meet in its use of sudh regulatory powers are that such regulation be necessary and that such regulation be reasonable. The regulation is necessary if it clearly protects the health, safety, or welfare of the public. Thus a property owner can usually be prevented from mainta ining a fire hazard or generating noise, water, or air pollution. But a property owner could not be prevented from building a house just because some neighbors do not like the owner. While there are many tests for what is reasonable, a commoh'one is to see if the regulation is not so severe as to constitute an actual taking of the property, e.g., preventing the owner from putting it to any use. In such cases the property would have to be purchsed rather than regulated, or else the regulation dropped. But beyond these general rules, it is generally recognized that no regulation can fit every specific situation. If a general regulation was applied uniformly in every situation, some people would benefit unfairly and others would suffer unnecessarily. To avoid unreasonable hardships and to be 'fair, zoning ordinances are adminisiered in connection with a variance system. Through this system, individuals ar6 allowed to present the circumstances of their specific -3- situation and seek modification of or exemption from the requirements of the regUlation. By granting variance in cases that warrant it, the regulation is much more flexible. When a community is changing and growing, a certain amount of flexibility tends to benefit both the individual and the public. However, When communities are exposed to rapid development pressures, requests for variances can become the rule rather than the exception. Shoreland communities, in particular, face the danger of losing control of the future of their area as variances begin to undercut sensible and necessary restric- tions. Yet during periods of rapid development, there seems to be no rigid regulation that can provide necessary public contro 1, accommodate changing ideas of construction and design, and avbid harming the individual. Variances seem to be a necessity, both as a matter of law, and as a matter of common sense. Yet typically they are exceptions to the regulations of the community and tend to diminish public rights and objectives. As more and more communities and developers have found themselves entangled in this type of conflict, both groups havesought some new approach to public regulation of land use. An increasingly popUlar concept has been the Planned Unit Developmeht (PUD) ordinance. Supporters of this concept assert that it can provide the developer with the flexability he needs to incorporate modern economic and technical concepts and to provide the community with a creative planning tool that is much better than traditional subdivion control and zoning. Such claims are impressive, and this bulletin will attempt to Provide some idea as to whether PUD can be of value in the management, of shoreland areas. -4- QUESTION #1: WHAT IS PUD? POD is an attempt to use the zoning variance concept but with greater control and frequency. --PUD i� a process of review and regulation. PUD is basically the same as typical zoning and subdivision contro], but it works on a project by project review basis that tunes the public regulations to the specifics of a proposed development. The regulations established at the time of project review replace previous rigid regulations. Rather than establish a set of rules which might need adjustment through a variance, it is assumed from the beginning that a variance will be needed. Therefore, specific regulations are established only after the public has seen a proposal. PUD ordinances can be used with types of development, such as shopping centers, industrial parks, or large subdi- visions. The objective in such cases would be to es tablish a review process that considers additional or special information which public regulation of such developments might require. PUD ordinances can also deal with certain Zocations that represent special planning problems, such as steep hillsides or erodible shorelands. In'such instances a PUD ordinance could be used to establish a very careful review process to insure that the proposed development recognizes and does not surpass the tolerances of the location. TYPICAL PUD Many planners seem to feel that there is no typical Planned Unit-Development ordinance: it is a flexible concept -5- that c.an a:pply to.a,great number of s.ituations. However, to a. majority of deveZopers a.-nd. to. a..@ niumber. of citizens, there indeed. is a. typi@cal pattern,. EXAMPLE.: A developer wants to@build a 400 unit residential project,nea,r the shore, in townhouse clusters, on 40 acres of land. In many shore-land communities such a project would require a variance from existing regulations which preclude clustering, townhouses, and high densitie.s. From the viewpoint of the development industry, PUD supposedly offers a means of protecting the public interest while still allowing the developer to proc-eed with his plans. In a typical PUD situation the developer would submit his proposal to the commu nity for consideration. Working under certain rules established in the PUD ordinance, the community and the developer would enter into negotiation once t,he community had looked at the plans. In a give-and-take bargaining.session, local officials would agree to let the developer build at higher densities, in clusters, and in townhouse configurations, in return for certain concessions.. To get approval, the developer might have to agree to bury all u'tilities; protect.a marsh on the 40 acre site; plant a row of trees as a screen.between the project and an adJacent public road; provide free, improved recreational facilities for resi-dents on the site; and construct a bicycle path separate from., but adjacent to., the road system of the'project. This is, in fact, how Planned Unit Development ordinances are often used.. As the advocates of PUD regulations assert, there would,seem to@be soMethi:ng for e.-veryone in@such an a,ppro.ac.h. It is not surprising that most large-scale developers and urban planning organizations support the concept, for i,t allows a new.kind and scale of development which typical zoning and -6- subdivision control often precludes. But there are limitations 16 (see QUESTION #2). SUMMARY: Planned Unit Development ordinances establish a process"of project review that is similar to a variance request hearing. However, a variance is granted on grounds other than hardship, and when granted it may amount to a major@zoning or land-use alteration, by affecting the use of several hundred acres of land. It is much more formal than the variance process, with more information, more rules, and hopefully, more association with community planning efforts. The developer tends to favor the PUD approach, at least for large developments, since it allows him to obtain initial approval for an entire project at one time--th.is alone can be worth several thousand dollars in saved time. By.avoiding rigid, pre-determined standards it also tends to encourage innovative design and construction concepts which allow the developer to save costs and keep abreast of market demand. As typically used, it also tends to let the developer increase his profits by building at more concentrated densities than were previously allowed. QUESTION #2: WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF PUD? There are a number of problems with Planned Unit Development regulations. Since they are of such great impor- tance in evaluating the concept, some time will be spent in their discussion. *PUD as a substitute for ptanning PUD has been refered to as "wait-and-see" planning. In the typical PUD negotiation, most of the regulations that will apply to the-proposal in question are developed during the -7- revi7ew process. This-has led.some communities to believe that they.can protect the interests of the community by just demand'ing whatever regulations seem appropriate, withoUt the ,need for any complex-planning process. In particular,"this .aspect of PUD becomes quite attractive for a township that has little experience in creating a comprehensive plan and a small bu.dget. The problem is that in this kind of "reactive" planning, the community is always one step behind the deve'loper. When deaUng with a,major developer who may have as many as fifteen or twenty staff members working on a single project, being one step,behind can create serious problems. The possi,ble result may be that the community comes out second best in each negotiation, loosing more than it g@tins. 1. Without a plan, the community administrators of the PUD ordinance have no -guidelines for negotiation, and t-he developer has no idea of what might be expected of him. This usually means that the process takes more time and that the community is very likely to make mistakes. 2. Without a careful-ly prepared plan the decisi.ons of the negotiation process end up being the plan., but without the benefit of comprehensive information. It is not really a question of being able to get away without:planning, as some communities might think, ,but how the plan is created. Spur of the moment, fragmented decisfGns,;without citizen input, tend to @hurt the community; and the community, not:having,a p1an,@has a hard time-knowing what problems are- emerging and what decisions have been made. 3. Without some basic plan, providing the community -8- representatives with some negotiating guidelines, the developer can take the community to court if he does not like the results of the bargaining process, on the charge that the administrators have been arbi- trary and capricious. Without specific procedures and guidelines to work with, there is little,chance of countering this charge. And on the other hand, citizens of the community can take the administrators to court if they feel that the developer has been given too much. Without specific procedures and guidelines for the negotiation process, based upon a comprehensive community plan, the administrator is left unprotected. 4. Cities and townships are no longer working within a vacuum of home rule. Waiting in the wings are major federal and state land-use regulations. If the community does not have detailed and well-founded plans and objectives, there is increasing likelihood they might be.imposed by higher units of government. Furthermore, planning and administrative funds, which may be available through land and*shoreland management programs, will not be available to th e community that fails to have any plans, guidelines, or objectives. PUD can Zead to citize'n.distrust of-officiaZs Public officials should recognize that the flexible negotiation process of a PUD ordinance can lead to the suspicion of abuse. If the project in question is a controversial one, it will be important for the official to Protect himself from any suspicion of dishonesty which the PUD negotiation might arouse. *One of the best forms of administrative protection, -9- especially in complex cases where a major development is involved, is to have a strict.set of procedures.and criteria by which the negotiations are conducted. As any official knows,-there i-s no absolute protection against some degree of citizen dissatisfaction. But it is important to realize that PUD ordinances can lead to some serious problems of distrust unless certain precautions are taken. *PUD negotiations lead to a loss of public control Vthout basic limits and preferred directions for 'community development, as discussed in a comprehensive plan and reflected in procedural guidelines, from the beginning a PUD negotiation tends to be biased toward the developer, who can use the negotiation to avoid regulation of the community. The community -is in real danger of giving away that which it should be, protecting and of'.getting that which it doesn't really need or should be getting anyway, without a need for any concessions. CONCEPT: UNLESS THE COMMUNITY IS WILLING AND ABLE TO DEVELOP A STRONG COMMUNITY PLAN, GOOD PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES, AND A PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO HELP IN THE PUD NEGOTIATIONS,'PUD ORDINANCES MAY NOT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. *PUD,negotiations may be too generous to the developer Too often the community assumes that it must give the developer certain bonuses or concessions: an assumption that developers encourage. It is often felt that the developer cannot be required to 'protect valuable historic sites or natural areas, or provide open space and pleasant design unless variances are granted. This is not.necetsarily the case. _10- All developments should protect valuable community amenities and meet basic design and engineering criteria. This need not and should not be a matter of bargaining, but' instead, be a basic prerequisite to allowing any development in the community. While PUD'regulations can provide flexi-., bility, this flexibility should be used to favor the-commun'.ity, not just the developer. PUD concessions might lead to :erious maintenance problems s for the community The recreational facilities, open spaces, roads, and utilities of a PUD residential project are often maintained by the residents of the project, through:a Homeowner Association (HOA). As the expenses of this maintenance increase, the HOA may not be able to handle it, and the community may be forced to take over such services. This may represent a financial burden that the community is ill-prepared to Teet. But beyond that consideration is the fact that, during the PUD negotiations, variances may be allowed for roads and other project services. These variances may come back to haunt the community that is now forced to maintain substandard utilities. Road clearing equipment, fire trucks, or garbage trucks may not be able to use the roads because they are too narrow or too steep, or have curves that are too sharp. Perhaps pipes or wires are of a gauge or material that is incompatible with community equipment. CONCEPT: THE ABILITY OF HOA'S TO MAINTAIN THE SERVICES OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT ARE QUESTIONABLE. SOME HAVE WORKED, BUT OTHERS HAVE NOT. THE COMMUNITY WOULD DO WELL TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM THE EVENTUALITY OF HAVING TO MAINTAIN SUCH SERVICES BY INSISTING THAT CERTAIN MINIMUM STANDARDS,ARE MET. THE DEVELOPER ATTEMPTING TO SAVE COSTS AND USE NEW MATERIALS MAY OBJECT. BUT, WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, IT IS THE HOA AND THE COMMUNITY THAT WILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MAINTENANCE, NOT THE DEVELOPER. 'PUD,bargains can be broken The developer may go bankrupt, leaving a project only partially completed; or, after having received approval of the entire project, the.developer may significantly change some portions of it so as to significantly alter the overall project. It is important that the community protect itself in case the developer should fail to live up to his part of the bargain. A violation on one or two single family lots may not be too important. However, if one is talking about a major planne d unit development of several hundred acres, even a minor-alteration could have severe regional impact. Revision I clauses that negate the variance upon failure to meet agreed conditions, performance bonding, and other techniques are available. -But it is difficult to design these protective devices and extensive legal consultation may be required. If the community is unable or unwilling to e-stablish these Tegal protective devices, it should avoid the flexibility of PUD ordinances. PUD regulations can be used to the benefit of the community, andmost of the problems mentioned can be avoided. But-before.di.scusstng some of the very positive aspects of PU.D which should be carefully considered by all shoreland communities, there is one ultimate limitation of PUD regulations which for a great number of,communities is the single most important factor in determining if the PUD ordinance will or will not,be successful. -12- PUD ordinances require time., money., and people A major development can have serious positive or negative impacts upon the community and must be reviewed with great care if mistakes are to be avoided'. By regulating these large developments within a PUD process, special review can be assured. But special review requires considerable time, money, and professional staff. If the review process takes too long, the developer may abandon the project or move it to a different community, and this can represent a serious loss for the community. Also, most large projects are designed by a large professional staff. The developer will not appreciate "tinkering" with his design concepts, especially by what he might view as non-prof,essionals, when he has spent several thousand dollars in th eir preparation. Many of the potential problems that can result from a development are complex and m ay be "counter-intuitive"; professional input will be necessary if the community is to be able to state its interests in technical-terms and if it is to be able to translate the technical dimensions of the proposal into social, political, ecological, economic, and legal te rms which the community can understand. Special surveys or studies may be required, and not all of. them will or-should be provided by the developer. What this means isAhat to use PUD and get the results that the planning literature promises takes.more money, staff, and time than many shoreland communities usually commit to the regulation of development. To put it in precise terms, FLEXIBILITY COSTS MONEY. The more flexible the community wants to be, without losing everything it has to the developer, the more it will cost to make sure that no mistakes have been made. Every point of negotiation raises the price. One danger of this is that the community may find itself -13- unable to ma..tch,the.capabiliti-es of the developer; but rather than withdrawing from the negotiati-on;process and reverting,to a limited.,. standard-, set of regulations, they continue to use the PUD approach, but now rely upon and react to the informa- tion and recommendations of the developer. CONCEPT: THE COMMUNITY THAT RELIES SOLELY UPON THE INFORMA- TION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE HE HAS A BETTER STAFF MUST BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PROBLEMS THAT MAY RESULT. PUD REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH "IF IT CAN'T BE DONE RIGHT, IT SHOULD'T BE DONE AT ALL." SOME COMMUNITIES WISH TO ADOPT ONE OR MORE PUD ORDINANCES BECAUSE PUD IS FELT TO BE "MODERN" OR "SOPHISTICATED." PUD IS ALSO EXPENSIVE, AND RISKY IF NOT DONE WELL. QUESTION #3: WHAT ARE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF PUD REGULATIONS? f The most important feature of PUD ordinances is that they call for special review of development projects, with special procedures;and criteria. While these special procedures can lead to,density bonuses or other concessions for the developer, they can also lead to a stricter set of regulations and density restrictions below the normally allowed figure. EXAMPLE: SHOPPING CENTER Let us assume that a developer wants to construct a major shopping center of 110 units combined under one roof on 300 acres of land. Let us also assume that the community, during its comprehensive planning process, has decided that major shopping centers could generate serious problems, thus requiring special regulations to safeguard the public. However, it became clear to the community that shopping centers tend to vary so much@' that it was not possible to establish a workable set of standard regulations. The next best thing was to list certain questions that would have to'be answered, certain conditions, that would have to be met, and, as a final safeguard,- a procedure of regulation in the form of a floating PUD zone, that would apply to any shopping center of.over 4 acres or 3 units. During the review process required under the PUD ordinance, the shopping center sponsors might have to provide detailed information on soil conditions and drainage patterns, guarantee special landscaping a.nd drainage work, contribute money to the increased cost of traffic control. In fact, sponsors might be told that, given the proposed scale of the project, it could not be located at the proposed site; either a more suitable location would have to be found, or the project would have to be reduced by 20%. PUD could be used to require standards more stringent than those contained in the general zoning and development reg ulations of the community, if it is necessary to protect the public interest. The community does not have to grant concessions. EXAMPLE: SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT A PUD zone could be established as a strip along all shores of a bay, river, or lake. The strip might be 500 feet wide along a bay, 250 feet wide along a lake, and 150 feet wide along a river. In typical zoning the uses that would be allowed and those that would be prohibited are designated within the ordinance. But in a PUD ordinance there might not be any uses that a re strictly prohibited. Instead, there would be a review of all proposed developments and a list of -15- conditions which any potential development would have to meet. Scenic, geologic, chemical, and biological studies could be used to develop standards to protect water quality and other elements of public concern. The great advantage of a PUD approach, over that of typical zoning and subdivision control, is that it tends to provide fewer direct restrictions upon the property owner and is specific in listing the needs and objectives of the community. if the developer is willing or able to meet the health, safety, and welfare criteria of the ordinance, then he can build; whereas rigid regulations might have to preclude development altogether in order to be sure of meeting community objectives. It takes more time, but it can result in better planning and better development. PERFORMANCE ZONING Using a PUD ordinance as suggested in the above examples is very similar to performance zoning. The idea of performance zoning is to list certain standards that any activity must meet. thus, within a particular zone a certain water quality and a certain noise level might be required, anddevelopment might be allowed so long as it could meet these standards. CONCEPT: In performance zoning the public does not regulate private property, saying what can and cannot be done with it. Rather, social, economic, political, scenic, health, and environmental conditions which are listed are felt to be essential for the welfare of the community. These conditions vary from zone to zone depending upon the natural and social conditions of each area. Within each zone the public, identifies conditions or costs it will not let individiuals impose upon the public. IN PERFORMANCE ZONING THE PUBLIC IS NOT -16- TELLING THE INDIVIDUAL WHAT HE CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY: THE PUBLIC IS TELLING THE INDIVIDUAL WHAT HE CANNOT DO TO THE PUBLIC. SO LONG AS HE CAN KEEP FROM INFLICTING THESE UNACCPTABLE "COSTS" OR IMPACTS UPON THE PUBLIC, THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAN DO AS HE PLEASES. 1. By focusing on the public rights that are being protected, performance zoning provides the community with a great deal of legal protection. The courts are less likely to strike down a solid public objective than a particular restric- tion upon land designed to obtain that objective. Also, there is less chance of error and less chance of abuse. 2. By stating the objective that the community is after, the developer is given the opportunity to come up with new methods of achieving that end. If there is a chance for a more attractive and popular project, this can lead to developments that benefi't everyone. Rigid rules based upon traditional approaches to construction, design, and planning, rather than upon the basic interests of the community, can prevent or discourage important improvements that help the community as much as the developer. EXAMPLE: SEWERS As a last example of how PUD and the performance approach to zoning can be used in shoreland areas, it seems appropriate to consider the issue of sewers, discussed in Planning Information Bulletin No. 1 (January, 1974). In that bulletin' it was suggested that sewage lines should be constructed and -17- y in concer. alloted onl * t.with the development of sufficient open spaces, schools, recreational facil'ities, parking space, electricity and heating oil, solid waste.dispos.al, and all of the other elements commonly contained in a comprehensive management program. One way of establishing a procedure to insure that this. is done would be to establish a sewage PUD zone in each township@and city. If a developer wanted to attach to the sewage line, or if a present user wished to increase his discharge into the system, it would fall under a PUD review process specifically designed to insure that all of the appropriate factors are considered prior to approval. Within the typical interceptor sewage system, each governmental unit has only a limited amount of excess capacity: care must-be taken so that this excess is not used too soon. CONCEPT: A PUD ORDINANCE OR FLOATING PERFORMANCE ZONE COULD BE ESTABLISHED WHICH WOULD APPLY TO ANYONE- WANTING TO ATTACH TO THE COMMUNITY SEWAGE SYSTEM. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REGULATION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE TO DISCOURAGE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY FURTHER GROWTH IS IN LINE WITH THE BUDGET, FACILITIES, AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES'OF THE COMMUNITY. IT IS A WAY OF ESTABLISHING SOME DEGREE OF RATIONAL CONTROL OVER WHAT CAN BECOME AN OVERWHELMING SITUATION. -18- QUESTION # 4: WHAT PRECAUTIONS CAN BE TAKEN TO AVOID MISUSE OF PUD? The administrators of a PUD ordinance should have to support their final agreements with a developer on the basis of findings'of fact, with records kept of all agreements, and with a policy of full public access to such records, If a major concession is to be granted, there should be a clear demonstration that such a concession is based upon a. pubtic, rather than a private, need. Also, there should be proof that the concessions being granted are the best means of meeting this publ ic need, as compared withalternative solutions. Developers are often given concessions in return for dedicated or donated property. Some limitations should be placed upon the uses that can be made of this public property. Just calling it open space is not sufficient. The open space and recreational am enities of a new development should reflect and blend in with existent community patterns. Checklists should be provided to PUD administrators and to developers which make sure that critical community elements are protected: recreational facilities household energy supply water supply water and air quality sewage treatment capacity scenic amenities solid waste disposal capacity cultural amenities traffic capacity of area roads available jobs available parking governmental capacity available schools court capacity police and fire protection budget medical and dental service -19- CONCEPT@ THEGREATEST SAFEGUARD AGAINST MISUSE.OR FAILURE OF PUD ISJO START WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS. THROUGH THIS PROCESSNECESSARY PRECAUTIONS-. CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND PROVISIONS MADE FOR CO- ORDINATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WITH MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND COMMUNITY GOALS. FINAL.THOUGHTS Many shoreland citizens have never heard of Planned Unit Development ordinances or performance zoning. For them, it is hoped that this bulletin will provide some basic understanding of the concept. But there are many others who have actually worked with PUD ordinances. Many of these people feel that PUD is automati- cally associated.with1large', residential, clustered developments.. and, for this reason, oppose PUD as the first step towards further large-scale urban-type development-in their community. If nothing else it is hoped this bulletin has made clear that PUD does not have to be used for such developments; it can be one of the best tools for prot.ecting the shoreland community while allowing that growth which is desired and which can use the community resources without damaging them. Most important, PUD is no better than the planning that precedes and updates the PUD ordinance, the administration of the ordinance, and the enforcement of its provisions. Communities must realize that poorly done PUD negotiations can lead,to very costly mistakes. PUD is at best a tool--riot a solution. It can help to attain the goals of comprehensive planning, but it is not a substitute for- such planning. -20- Sources of Additional Information llanned,lnit Development Ordinances,by Frank S. So, David R. Mosena, and Frank S. Bangs, Jr.. American Society-of Planning Officials, Report No. 291, May,-1973. Chicago. Planned Unit Development: New Communities American Style by Robert W. Burchell. Rutgers University, New Jersey. 1972. PUD: A Better Way for the Suburbs by Maxwell 0. Huntoon. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D. C. 1971. Local and*regional planning commissions and community planners should,be consulted. They can provide additional sources of information, advice,.and experience. Legal advice is f the community intends to adopt a PUD ordinance. should be part of any community regulations, but s of particular importance in avoiding the multitude of possible mistakes associated with PUD. Private consultant firms can provide additional help---from'the design of a comprehensive planning program to the negotiation with developers. County, state, and federal agencies can provide useful information, not only about PUD ordinances and comprehensive planning, but also about soil types, solid waste disposal, traffic control, and other matters of.public concern which can help in the PUD process.. *Produced and distributed by The University of Michigan Sea Grant Advisory Services is ordinance. -21- US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Robson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER LIBRARY 3 6668 14101 6917