Over the past weeks, I’ve been reflecting on what made the Champion PUD process so difficult and contentious. I have no doubt that everyone involved would like to prevent this from ever happening again.
Please note, my intent is not to revisit or relitigate the Champion PUD process, but to help ensure that we avoid similar issues in the future.
We allow Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in the City of Plymouth because, when done well, they can deliver benefits that are not achievable through traditional zoning. We’ve had successful PUDs, typically on large parcels of land where the public benefits were clear and tangible. As the city becomes more built-out, PUDs become more difficult for the following reasons:
- Limited Land Availability
Large undeveloped parcels are typically the most suitable for PUDs - Established Neighborhood Context
PUDs that introduce higher density or mixed-use elements may disrupt established neighborhood character or zoning patterns and often strain existing infrastructure such as parking and traffic circulation due to limited available land. - Harder to Demonstrate Public Benefit
With limited land, it is not possible to offer greenspace, protection of natural resources or offer items such as parking.
Unfortunately, because of these reasons we need to expect that potential PUDs will face scrutiny. The PUD process relies on discretion by the planning commission to consider the value of the public benefit along with determining acceptable allowances to zoning ordinance. It may sound obvious, but one way to minimize scrutiny is to minimize the discretionary decisions.
In reviewing the Champion PUD, I realized that the core issue wasn’t the number of discretionary decisions, it was that the development was evaluated using RM-2 standards even though it is zoned R-1. This occurred because the Future Land Use Plan identified the site as “Mixed Use Low Density” which, despite not being codified in the zoning ordinance, appeared to justify applying RM-2 criteria because the description for this land use in the Master Plan stated: “This land use allows for single and multi-family uses to continue and be established.” In my research, I have consistently found that while the PUD ordinance acts as a rezoning mechanism, the starting point for evaluating a PUD proposal must be the current zoning classification of the parcel.
This created confusion and concern among residents, who saw the project being evaluated under a zoning classification with higher density and more permissive standards than the actual R-1 zoning in place. Because the Mixed Use Low Density category had not been formally codified through a zoning ordinance update, it should not have served as the basis for applying different standards.
To prevent this from happening again, I believe the current Master Plan draft must be revised to clearly state that land use categories in the Future Land Use Plan must not guide zoning decisions until they have been formally codified through a public zoning ordinance update process. I have attached two graphics to show my areas of concern with suggested edits.
The Champion PUD taught us difficult lessons. Let’s use them to improve our processes, starting with clear guidance in the Master Plan.
Leave a Reply