Laserfiche WebLink
~. <br />-, <br />~f <br />~ ~ " <br />~. _ ~ <br />J~ 4 J ' - / , ~r- Building Our Community <br />`Y Editor: Lee A. Syracvse,AlP <br />Does the Planned lJnit-C~evelopment Fay its Way? <br />The `cost-revenue study {what it costs .the com- <br />munity to service each (and-use versus what each <br />Cand-use returns to tile. community in, taxes}.`has <br />shovsfn that. the single-family detachc;d heame rarely <br />'~"carries" itself, primarihr due to the cast of <br />educating children from this.type. of residential <br />dwelCing `unit. Afrartments and commercial land " <br />uses, on the: other hand, gen2ralCy contribute mc?r4 <br />rnoney to the public coffers than :~vhat it casts to <br />~u~~iy ii76m vviih pus~iic services. i nerefol~e, it is <br />poss'cb(e to assemble: a PUD containir7y ~ blend ~f <br />single family homes, apartments and cammercia! <br />land. uses which vaould present little, if any, <br />financiaf burden to the comrrcunity in which it is <br />Located. <br />Is the C'tunned Unit DQvaCopment For lnveryone? <br />The answer is an emphatic no! One of .the reasons <br />for the inception. of the PUD was tc~ provide a <br />variety of 'living stylES to the buyer in order to <br />meet his needs and desires. As such, it Vrould be <br />inconsistent to present the PUD as a means of <br />providing a greater pausing choice, and then press <br />to have all-future development exclusively within <br />the PUD <envetope. The PUU should not be <br />considered the fine( and aIC-encompassing solutic~r7 <br />to residential development. Gn the other hand, its <br />assets,, compared to those of traditional deve!np- <br />men:, should be fully comprehended. and fairly <br />eva(uatPd. <br /> <br /> <br />