Why you need to care about (and help stop) PUDs
Why you need to care about (and help stop) PUDs;
“Planned Unit Developments”.
With all the outrage we’ve voiced lately about governmental decisions being made without our input (such as the Las Olas Boulevard fence and the Homeless Feeding Center), we need to be especially vigilant about how future development projects may impact our quality of life too.
Developers in Fort Lauderdale have (for years) become accustomed to having free reign in deciding what gets built and where. They decide what future projects will be most profitable, and then lobby our elected officials to get approval of those projects. This has (in many cases) left us with a “patchwork” appearance to many parts of Fort Lauderdale.
About eight years ago, a piece of legislation was written (with lobbyist’s help) called PUD, or “Planned Unit Development”. It is essentially a way for developers to get around existing zoning ordinances.
PUD’s or “Planned Unit Development” allows for “development incorporating planning initiatives that achieve unique or innovative development that is not otherwise permitted”. In other words, it bypasses existing zoning laws if a developer can convince someone that part of their plan is unique or innovative. Of course, what is described as “unique or innovative” would vary from person to person.
“It’s a giant loophole that developers have created for themselves”, one neighborhood activist mentioned to me recently. “Worse, as soon as one developer gets a project approved using that logic, then others can use that approval as justification for even larger projects of their own, in other parts of town. Why even have zoning laws?”
Even with the decline in development, there are numerous examples of PUD’s being currently used to try to “shoe-horn” large projects into relatively small spaces. Many people have expressed concern over the Bahia Mar project. The developer is using the Planned Unit Development (PUD) loophole to propose a taller set of structures along A-1A than the current zoning laws allow. Although the current property (as is) certainly shows its age, care must be taken to insure that any planned development proposals are part of (and integrate into) an overall larger “Destination” plan for the area that incorporate parking, mass transit, vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
And since this property (owned by the City), is leased to the developer for a 50-year period, we need to make sure that whatever project is approved will provide the greatest financial benefit to the City over the optimum period of a new lease.
Another PUD-inspired project is the expansion of First Presbyterian Church along Las Olas Boulevard, near 15 Avenue. This project is clearly beyond the scope of what the zoning laws allow. There is nothing unique or innovative about the project except that it would increase traffic and congestion into a historic area that needs to be better protected.
But the church is using its connections with a local developer and elected leaders to try to muscle this oversized project (including a five-story parking garage, classrooms, gym, etc) into a fragile residential neighborhood. Church leaders are saying that since it is their property, they should be able to put in what they want. WRONG! This is nothing more than a special interest group using bullying tactics to try to get their way over the objections of their neighbors. To have this sort of bullying come from a so-called “religious organization” or church is frankly, quite hypocritical. The Planning and Zoning Board will be hearing arguments again on this issue this week; let’s hope they voice a resounding “NO” on this proposal.
Besides a PUD moratorium, we need to encourage our Mayor and Commission to become more proactive to the long term development needs in our City. We must embrace future development, and our Mayor and Commission need to become an active part of that development process. They need to:
· identify areas in our City where large, multi-use development projects would help an area (such as the Sistrunk area, the 13 Street Corridor, and the South Andrews Business District).
· “roll up their sleeves” and get actively involved with developers and property owners, providing financial incentives (tax relief) to those who turn vacant or underused parcels into part of an overall larger project (a “Destination”) that provides jobs to local residents, enables new businesses to start and helps project Fort Lauderdale into more of a forward-thinking city.
One thing’s for sure. If our elected officials continue to act in a “react” mode to every little project that comes before them, we’ll never see the large multi-use development projects that our City needs. It will be more patchwork projects that benefit only the Developer.
Just as you have done in the past, (in voicing your concern over the Las Olas fence, the Homeless Feeding Center, and in the future of spend-aholic City Manager Gretsas), so too should you make your voice heard over the issue of “Planned Unit Developments”. Call the Mayor’s office (954-828-5003) and tell Jack Seiler: “Put a moratorium on future Planned Unit Developments!”
Earl Rynerson
Reader Comments
I know you probably have a very long email list so I want to thank you for helping us get the word out on PUD’s
??What Are the Essential Duties of Goverment?? Certainly not to be a developer. The PUD is an excellent tool for acieveing city goals, if the City had some. Look at the beach! No coordinated view of the International Hall of Fame and the Bahia Mar project exists. A Master Plan is available and totally different. I disagree with the notion that the city should be planning these areas, Sistrunk for example, and putting what they want. The City should “react” to private and public enterprise. The city should set the fianacial and regulatory atmosphere to be agressively friendly and let the markertplace and the people determine the growth. An ecletic mix of uses and properties gives character to a city, not a homogeneous all look alike theme. It’s like the ridiculous term, “neighborhood compatibility”. Good thing your neighbor doesn’t live in a cave. You could only build a similar or compatible cave. Today you can only build the same thing thatis there. So much for change!! A lot of City land for development of low income housing and a new grocery store, is vacant in the Sistrunk area. The city is “helping ” the area. Carlton Moore had development ready to go and the city was an impdiment more than a help.. The housing authority is pitiful and the city has no business in low income housing. The marketplace should take care of this. The Bahia Mar project and the Presbyterian Church projects may not offer unigue experiences, but a thought out project that allows INTEGRATED use of the land to maximum advantage is better than disjointed , haphazard development with the city as a director. Does anyone really believe the city is qualified to determine and drive development?? Of course not. Look around you at the unremarkable architecture and sameness. No character at all. It’s a shame the architecture or logo that marks this city is a circular concrete column at the beach and Las Olas. There is no other architectual element to distingusih this city.
??What Are the Essential Duties of Government??
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Local government MUST play an active role in establishing “Destinations” in our City. The very point you raise about sameness, and disjointed haphazard development is the RESULT of allowing Developers a free reign to build where they want. Look at all the ugly strip malls in our city. Each one thought up by a developer/property owner.
Throughout history, all great cities have been built with foresight and a development plan that was adhered to. Not in Fort Lauderdale. Over the years we’ve produced dozens, if not hundreds, of costly land use and zoning development plans all paid for by the taxpayer to “Consulting Groups”. Very few ever get completely implemented. Developers want to build a project that provides them the most profit. Government should want developers to build projects that provide beauty and functionality to the City. These two goals rarely intersect.
Our “leaders” need to change their mindset and start getting more actively involved in what gets built and where. Only then will we have a City that can be termed progressive.
Earl
Earl…… dpn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!…
Many parcels have taken advantage of the PUD rules ( it’s an accepted planning concept used all over the U.S.) to redevelop otherwise undevelopable parcels … the artist/teacher housing behind the Police Station is a good example of how the PUD zoning can be put to good work ..
the First Pres. proposal should be compromised down to a more reasonable size and design and be given the green light…
Hey Tim!
(I haven’t thrown any babies out recently, as I recall.)
Your point is taken. But I believe that there is generally no need for the PUD. Planning and Zoning (and the Commisison) provide variances to projects all the time; they’ve done it for years. They don’t need the PUD to do that. All that legislation does (in my humble opinion) is to strengthen a developer’s hand by adding an air of “legitimacy” to an otherwise bad development project that could be too big for an area. I feel it also weakens neighborhood groups. True, the PUD can be used to help certain areas, but those cases are the exception, not the rule.
The Presbyteran church will tell you they have already reduced the scope of their development project; they can’t reduce it anymore and have their future operational plans met. In my opinion, they should then move those operations to another part of town where there is plenty of land available. How about the Sistrunk area?
Earl
We should find our own “look” if you will. Such as South beach did. After they managed to destroy almost all of thier beach front with gigantic buildings and when the nearly went broke, they decided to fix up the old deco buildings and make it what it is today. It has what is now considered The South Beach look. It’s unique to them. Mind you, it didn’t happen over night. There was lot’s of fighting to keep the old art deco buildings up. Builders at the time wanted them down, to put up new monstrosities I’m sure, but the public finally won. I’ve wondered many times what our look should be. Palm Beach has a special look also. Very upscale, quiet. Sort of what Palm Beach has always been. Ft. Laud. is just made of mish mash the way it’s coming together. I don’t see it’s personality.
Gladys-
What about a Venetian look? We call our City the “Venice of America”. The architecture of Venice is unique and beautiful. Many of the more recent buildings/condos that have gone up adjacent to Federal between Broward and Sunrise have a similar look. Why not try to replicate that appearance in future developments?
Earl
I’m with you on this one Earl! Something needs to be done, and fast!
We need elected official with some back bone
No one questions the church’s ownership of the parcels in question. Ownership, in turn, implies certain rights of use. But not all rights, at all times, and in circumstances unforeseen by those who bought the first parcels, long ago.
The parcels First Pres would like to build on were acquired in piecemeal fashion, beginning at a time when the whole Las Olas/Colee Hammock area was much different. It isn’t the church’s fault that Fort Lauderdale grew greatly during the time preceding the PUD application. But it’s true that the expansion envisioned by the church can’t appropriately be shoehorned into the existing area.
Real estate purchases that seemed foresighted a few generations ago now are in effect white elephants: the church has every right to determine how its property will be used, but the uses now contemplated should be taken off the table for reasons of unsuitability and far-reaching unintended consequences. This is the price the church must pay for not having acted sooner, or differently.
The church here is like any other business or any household. It deserves no special consideration; it can do good works anywhere. Scripture doesn’t specify the Las Olas/Colee Hammock neighborhood.
The church’s options aren’t very good in this economy. But this is a circumstance that should be approached prayerfully and with an eye to the good of the community, rather than in the spirit of “We can and will steamroll this through.”
I agree 100% Brenda!
Earl
Earl, good thought. We are the Venice of America, why not be opposite of Art Deco and South Beach. Go Euro! I’ts upscale and romantic. Don’t know how the Europeans will feel about it since they are probably tired of the look and want to see American. Canada has a European look in Quebec and so does Buenos Aires, Argentina. Whenever I hear about either of these cities, I also hear that they look European. We don’t have one of those in the US. Maybe we can start with Ft. Laud./boating capital of the world? Use our creative juices and see where it takes us?
Thank you, Earl, for continuing to educate our neighbors regarding PUD’s.
Tim, you should ask the Sailboat Bend residents what they think of the PUD in their neighborhood - ” the artist/teacher housing behind the Police Station …”? It is my understanding that they were and are against the development; it doesn’t fit within their historic area.
We in Colee Hammock want to learn and profit from past zoning mistakes and NOT repeat them. Residents in Colee Hammock, Circa 1916, Ft. Lauderdale’s FIRST residential community laid out by Mary Brickel wants to be preserved with NO PUD in Colee Hammock. As resident we have the right to expect our homes to continue to be located within the tranquil hammock in which it exists. Massive buildings, parking garages and more traffic generated by a gym and 300 ft long family life center are not compatilble with the single family homes. This is a treasured downtown residential area adjacent to the New River and deserves to remain one of the most desired residential communities in Ft. Lauderdale. If Ft. Lauderdale doesn’t preserve it’s variety of residential components, there will be no Ft. Lauderdale.
NO PUD in Colee HAMMOCK!
I agree with you, Ann. I feel that this type of project proposed by the church would serve everyone better (the church goers and the neighborhood), if it is built somewhere else, outside of Colee Hammock.
Earl
Thank you Earl for all you have done and are doing. We need more people like you to keep us so well informed.
Earl, the objections to the PUD as a system of real estate development are currently an attempt to block specific projects eg. Bahia Mar and 1st Pres.
Here on Ft. Lauderdale Beach the Central Beach Alliance worked diligently and openly to get numerous aspects of the Bahia Mar PUD changed. The PUD system worked and in the end we got a project that is good for the City, reduced and compromised size, improved appearance and partially met objections of the nearer neighbors.
Some of these neighbors want NO development AT ALL. Generally the CBA membership felt that for the good of the City these neighbors should accept compromise. After all, when their condo or private home was built it partially blocked someones view. In the end the CBA voted to accept the PUD AS CHANGED. Change worked, the PUD system worked.
Hi Fred, I haven’t spoken to you in awhile… I am glad that the Bahia Mar project was modified to meet most of the resident’s suggestions.
I am of the opinion that any City (especially Ft Lauderdale) must have development and re-development. Those that want no development at all are on a self defeating path, I feel. Our city must continually change and improve. This should be part of an overall plan that provides us a better quality of life and provides new opportunities for businesses and jobs.
But two bigger questions remain:
1. Is the PUD even necessary? Our planning and zoning laws should be suffficient to manage the scope of projects when they come up and give residents an opportunity to review any project. Why should we need to have an additional layer of legislation that (according to many) weakens our exisiting Planning and Zoning laws?
And 2. Why does our local government insist on operating in the “REACT” mode when they should be pro-actively working with developers? We need our City officials to guide development into those underdeveloped areas of our City, and providing financial incentives to develpers and property owners to help them to build in those areas. CRA’s alone won’t do it.
The problems we have now (over development in some areas and not enough development in other areas), are a direct result of our City government sitting back and letting developers build where they please. Our neighborhoods are often the first casualties of this inaction. We need to provide more of a guiding hand here if we want our city to reflect a more progressive urban environment in areas beyond just downtown and the beach…
Earl
Las Olas needs help. The church center is too large. Similar private, residential with commercial on ground floor at Las Olas and 15th have been rejected due to size and density.
Build parking garages on the parking lots north of Las Olas and reroute traffic there. Wrap lots with appropriate commercial space to keep them nice looking. Invest in the area as a shopping destination and the people will come. Consider making Las Olas No Cars one day a week and develop it that way. Right now it is floundering due to mismanagement by the LOC.
Pud’s are not the problem. The question is, “in established neighborhoods where predominately there is small parcels, what allows the assemblage of those small parcels into large parcels that become PUD projects”???
A well used phrase that will help get that answer is , “the project will create more jobs and revenue for the City”. The 110 Congress 2007-2008S.48: Private Property Protection Act. To summarize this Act, Any acquireing party that particapates in a taking or condemnation of any real property interest that is NOT FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC PURPOSE is ineligible for Federal Funds. Under this Act, Slums, or Blighted areas are NOT consided,”FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC PURPOSE”. Therefore the politcaly correct wording of today is,”the project will create more jobs and revenue for the City”. This wording meets Federal criteria for Public Use or Public Purpose. In 2006 Florida’s legislative commission to study the use of Eminant Domain and ways of riening n abuse, then passed House Bill 1567. The new law signed by the governor requires localities to wair ten years before transfering land taken by eninent domain from one owner to another. That sounds like a step in the right direction, right? Wrong!
In reality Florida did not want to give up Federal Funds and did not want to wait 10 years. Therefore lets change a few Florida Statues:163.335(3)S.F., 163.335(4)S.F., 163.335(5).F.S., 163.356F.S., 163.358F.S., 163.370F.S., 163.360F.S………
Trickle down therory comes into play with Fort Lauderdlae, Florida Code of Ordinances>> Charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Floida>>Appendix B. - Other Speccial Acts>>Division 2.- urban Renwal>>Sec. 201 through Sec. 219.
Which brings about City of Fort Lauderdale, Planning & Zoning “Central Beach Master Plan, Draft”, page 5.
Note the large City owned parcels,specifically the “Alhambra Lot”, particularly 3026 Alhambra St.(Maynard Condomminium. Whereas 11 out of the 21 condos in that complex is owned by Lauderdale Waterfront Alhambra Associates, LLC, who that.
If on page 5 Alhambra lot is owned by City, is City Lauderdale Waterfront Alhambra Associates, LLC????