Loading...
2. Attachment B /2 /' City of Scandia Zoning Ordinance Residential Development Options I. Options Allowed in Current Zoning Ordinance Conventional Purpose: provides a mechanism for property owners to divide Subdivision parcels into lots according to minimum lot size and width requirement for zoning district. Example: SR (Semi-rural) District-40-acre parcel • Maximum density in SR District is 8 units/40 acres 1 1111 -- 11111111 Lot Averaging Purpose: Provides flexibility in subdividing by allowing variable lot sizes, provided the overall density does not exceed density permitted for the zoning district. Example: Agriculture District-40-acre parcel • Maximum density in Ag District is 4 units/40 acres, variable lot sizes result in overall density that meets requirements 51111 1 Transfer of Purpose: allows density units to be reallocated between contiguous Density Units parcels if the parcels are: 1. In the same zoning district 2. Under common ownership 3. Meets other criteria contained in Ordinance This approach is allowed by many rural communities to preserve agriculture by allowing a farmer to subdivide a lot for family member or sell a single lot, while keeping most of the property intact for farming Example: Ag Preserve-80 total acres • Maximum density allowed is 1 unit/40 acres • 1 unit transferred to yield 2 units on one 40, and the other 40 is placed in a conservation easement with no development allowed • , Wftvcrifiq-r E.A.2,,walT __ Open Space Purpose: To encourage conservation of open space and protection Conservation of natural and/or cultural resources. Allows the owner/developer to Subdivision cluster residential units on relatively small lots, while requiring that a (OSCS) significant area that includes the resources of concern be permanently protected as open space, using a conservation easement. Gives a density bonus (additional units) to encourage use of this development option. Allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in AG (40 acre minimum parcel), SR & SFE (20 acre minimum parcel) zones. Example: Agricultural District-80 total acres • Conventional subdivision density = 4 per 40 or 8 per 80 • Ordinance allows 100% bonus = 8 per 40, or 16 per 80 - _ 2 Planned Unit Purpose: provide for flexibility in development in some zones to Development accommodate the following: (PUD) • Allow two or more principal uses on a single parcel of land • Allow mixed use developments • Allows variable setbacks, lot width, lot area & height Development Code allows a PUD to be an Open Space Conservation Subdivision (but do not have to be). Uses in the PUD are limited to the uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning district. Does not include density bonuses unless OSCS is used. Example 1: Commercial PUD in General Business Zone i-11)4 CAMMILIV-eft Ch- 12eThi t: N Offi r 1 IMP. tvIVITera4r2 LI OVE:42-- WIN [ Example 2: Residential PUD in Agricultural Zone bomminwi Ty ceN gitC4 \()c osokyrrioNt V.6211)61•11 At_ 0//eAtOr•ri- P In 1) gigin rowylpsydaNir 0°111 116 r64..i 9lorybe, ROW)Gov-n Pa_ 04.J1-r, 3 II. POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT OPTION Transfer of Development Rights Purpose: Encourage the transfer of development from one or more zones in the community ( called the "sending zones") to other zones (called the "receiving zones") to protect long-term agricultural use, natural resources or cultural resources in the "sending" zones. Sending zones are places that the community wants to preserve from future development; receiving zones are areas where development potential i. Conservation easements or other controls are applied in the "sending" zones to make the transfer permanent. Bonuses are granted in the "receiving" zones to encourage the use of this option. • This option results in a permanent reduction of density in the "sending" zones and a permanent increase in density in the "receiving" zones over what would have occurred with conventional zoning. • Scandia Task Force recommendation is that Open Space Conservation Subdivisions be required for development in the receiving zones. Example: transfer of 3 density units from a 40-acre parcel in the Agricultural Zone to a 40-acre parcel in the SFE Zone. \ . Ilit4P iNi ' . : ' AA4 23,NE Tatie • • • . . DsoirrYi• 4/40 - 145-"41 ZONE 5rE • E-tt.lE • .. ,. , . " - -• 4o ' ?mei- ' • a ri vosmoNAL. -.6Ntoci 11,/4o • wrri+ -Thlospot_ 11/40 • DPW 5fAce Co N h SCAM?I A- Sw6Ogr5100 4 • Community "readiness" for TDR A recent article in Zoning Practice (a publication of the American Planning Association) reviewed successful TDR programs around the United States. (A copy of the article is attached.) The authors identified 4 key questions that they believe communities need to answer with a "yes" to help them to determine if they are ready to adopt a TDR program. These questions may be helpful in assessing Scandia's readiness to develop a TDR program and ordinance. In order to answer these questions, the Community needs to identify areas that will be designated as "sending" and "receiving" areas under the TDR program. The Scandia TDR Committee identified the proposed Ag Core Zone as the sending area, and the proposed General Rural, Village Neighborhood and Village Mixed Use Zones as receiving areas. 1) Does the community often receive applications to allow higher density development than would be allowed under the zoning ordinance in the areas that would be identified as "receiving zones?" A positive answer to this question indicates that there may be developer demand for a TDR program. Demand is an essential ingredient in a TDR program. 2) Does the comprehensive plan include sufficient zones where bonus densities will be allowed? Bonus densities are the "carrot" that developers need to get them to use the TDR process. The community needs to identify sufficient areas where bonus densities will be allowed, and be comfortable with the densities that will result in these zones, if a TDR program is implemented. 3) Are the existing zoning restrictions for the areas you want to preserve adequate to discourage inappropriate development? The authors suggest that zoning in sending zones needs to be one dwelling unit per five acres or a lower density (1:10, 1:40, etc.). For Scandia this is a "yes". 4) Is the community willing to require compliance with TDR requirements for all (or most) development that would receive bonuses? The authors suggest that if other, easier options to obtain bonus units are available, developers will be unlikely to use the TDR process, which is more time consuming and cumbersome than other options, such as Open Space Conservation Subdivision. Is Scandia willing to make the TDR development option the only option that receives density bonuses? 5 ZE\I I N G111 CT1C . f SEPTEMBER zaog Nil AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION , s -3,,,1_,,,,,,,„Ayt1,-.11\z,:::::,%.,, ., ...,, ,,.. ' , , PRACTICEP. °. \ -44 ;-hi ,., , lir R 1 ' f 001 - • if i . r•VA, ESZ. ^,,h ',, ,t n ''. „. wv 4''' `y y`� - --a� - a- .x, s o:. " n„, „ r.s _ 7 .a ''.;t y h . x L Ac:F t' rL sa - ry. - e a r ' $ , z. .* �, t z .... "r ``rp '"'"` .5.. ,, {'yi• d + A ,---a-..„,. t i `� f ! ltlr .'.., M"''Tr { > kJ ?44 q;lf:. $ t { s, § .t•'. , +rt'k, t •e -> 3;`^c'a., . �" , 4 4: ? tey t`,, a ?sa `t 1 • 'fit• d+„ y A; Y' "�Frx ;te' f t in X F- - t 5'< L t F FS "t . ' 7 l ">-'il.f+ "q. Si 1N.3' 1.'4 t A"' A.�'.4 r` ; m 'A t t3`b' •7,.tRt + c s 'x ' _'' r! @ 4 at ,S �s o ,: y•3" ' • 4 *„ °2" zR!$a ,,yi III'& a r'� s k r ar+ {b, 'n t• `rk '' P`�+;�'s y• .� " - �;. ti y' - »- 1c- 10,' y.f 1 f,' aY �A r "`,,, ,, , �,Xy' F 1, =�t ,{ ti g Tn } Y o �� a. a& asp r • x " 11"+ � � • y i 3j' ss A .tt; • - -F ,,,a fie.'i+,' ,,r d, . j .p x -Al `'-z. „o,.k tt� iii rt t g 7•;Z:' '„"ih:, ra ;rk ` � F. BR ,':`� ,.''*� S t A l x - [ iv S nY 'tF i. .xr'. 3,n�'d-$.N,� 'x -d u•+ •• �' It . .S M�n "l vs a . ,�ge� � °Y+..' t t',:e' l rs µ• v Ef. '� ._ 4, •'" ;. , .x. z ..'tt t e r +s, 'f.i•' 1 �V1'E3� to '"'+.'.`._, : ;. � ..�<., 7� ` � „"„l..,rY%r'-,„:4-S•. ,4 „C f A I . r``�C,3,° a+> 1 e'. i"i f% 't. , k. aR to ti6"�6l `tip '1 z `'.„7,..'^rv, - , X ^xk �+w"• ,...- ''"3. • . 6+ 'z .- r`,-f ., F =1. :: ' �* >�w � i> r.cF +s u�,r3' r `'" a ',w, • w..; ,�f`,e z'- r r(- rn+r: ,, _ -.. y',+�..,' e�. s,,c r ,,*„,•..'Sv,,-•Y» e ut e +'"'+ 1- ,,,,,,s",' !Y,"_..C• 'l a '0 • M 4 r ,,•;r)-'a„"i°"'+1a : 5 ."'s�r-�+uuuf f ', 6"_} f, ,- r°t+i,^SS z t 0R{vY, ' 1 k 'w' *.., ac t A' "t' 4. " 3 ; , .. f ,erg *- Y ,e, �i "' y , $' ; Y.5.. Is 'ma y' . Y3, K4• f L f • i "fit ,'�y .{'. 4 a _ .' �` •,•fr=.,,," "M y,t'4' • ,q t,S y ) i' +s. ' It,.�..... =� �Rt'S'X''�cP'," h • �^r ' ' e .. f ist •�'` • F � #. k 1 .Y 4 i•a. - .,[+ • i•. * ,r> e; ?"f:,.ar..r-.-v_ . _. `.A.,a.. "y""tvs:n .}s... :.> - v ., --�Ar y'(: 1 .s - • is Your Community TDR-Ready? By Rick Pruetz,FAICP, and Noah Standridge A transfer of development rights program, or TDR, reduces or eliminates development potential in places that should be preserved by increasing development potential in places where growth is appropriate. TDR is used in at least 33 states and has saved look,since a plan-consistent TDR ordinance ture.But sometimes communities intentionally more than 400,oao acres of farmland,open could be preserving farmland,open space,or separate receiving areas from existing develop- space,and environmentally significant land, natural areas in their communities in one year ment to promote community acceptance,often often with minimal public funding.Despite or less. using new-town or new-village concepts, that track record,only a fraction of U.S.cities, counties,towns,and villages use TDR,pos- sibly because they assume that TDR program adoption is always complicated and time • u, a tx ;'� consuming.However,many communities are 'St positioned to create a workable TDR program ��.'r ���; wpAtri relatively painlessly. Admittedly,adoption of a TDR program can be a long,labor-intensive process when it requires increases in the development limits depicted in a community's current general i plan.However,many communities prefer a .t # ' '' t 1 TDR mechanism that requires no changes in i ` r f s ! the future density described in their general , 1 ,rx� ;z+ . . a, , s h plans(typically depicted in future land-use rt� r �`f 3 � � fit`: maps or general plan maps).We distinguish �j ' + { # 't ' y° ��-� this"plan-consistent"TDR approach from a 2 more ambitious process that calls for increases 1 1 . R s in general plan densities,often triggering in- <. '� �n S, *. ' frastructure studies,extensive environmental ` .0 king County,'Washini;ton has used TDR to preserve 138,000 acres so far, review,and community resistance,in contrast, including the 9o,oae-acre Snoqualmle Forest. plan-consistent TDR works within the develop- ment limits of the current general plan through a simple requirement,described below,which TDR BASICS With TDR,developers are allowed to ex- is inserted into the zoning code. To review the jargon of TDR,the places that a ceed a specified baseline level of development We recently wrote an article for the lour- community wants to preserve are called send- in the receiving areas in return far preserving nal of the American Planning Association that ing areas and can consist of wildlife habitat, land in the sending areas.When TDR works, ranks the factors most often found in the top watershed protection areas,forests,farmland, sending-area landowners are compensated for 20 TDR programs in the United States.From scenic views,recreational land,historic land- unused development potential while retaining that study,we isolated four questions that marks,open space,and just about anything ownership and the ability to use their property planners can use to evaluate whether their else of special significance to a community, for farming and other rural activities in compii- communities are likely candidates for speedy The places that a community finds suitable for ance with a permanent easement.Receiving- adoption of a plan-consistent TDR program. future development are known as the receiving area developers achieve greater profit from By taking the following four-question quiz, areas,Receiving areas are often places that are the higher development potential despite the planners may decide to give TOR a second near jobs,schools,shopping,and infrastruc- extra cost ofTDR,and communities are able to ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION!page 2 ..... . ...... ASK THE AUTHOR JOiN US ONLINE! About the Authors Go online from October 6 to 16 to participate in our"ask the Author' Rick Pruetz,race,(arjeVattglobal.net)is a planning consultant forum,an interactive feature of Zoning Practice.Rick Proetz,eAter,and specializing inTDR and the author of Beyond Takings and Givings Noah Standridge will be available to answer questions about this article. (Arje Press,2003),a book on TDR.More Information and updates Go to the APA webslte at vvww.planning.orrg and follow the links to the to the book are available at wmw.BeyonaTakingsAndgivings.com. Ask the Author section.From there,just submit your questions about the Noah Standridge(noah@centrusplariningcom)is president article using the e-mail link.-The author will reply,and Zoning Practice of Centrus Planning(www.centrusplanning.com),a consulting will post the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all ;firm providing rural planning strategies throughout Florida.He subscribers.This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning previously managed the Rural Lands Stewardship Program for Practice at announced times.After each online discussion is closed,the Collier County,Florida. answers will be saved in orr online archive available through theAPA Zoning Practice webpages. achieve their preservation goals as well as their the TDR option.Bonus dwelling units are those tions on the components needed for the TDR growth objectives with little or no public cost. dwelling units in excess of baseline density ordinance as sketched above. At a minimum,a TDR ordinance estab- that a developer gains by complying with the Additionally,the local government may lishes three parameters for the sending side of TDR requirement.Finally,the TDR requirement choose to adopt the TDR ordinance independent a transfer.The area that qualifies as a sending itself is the number of TDRs that developers are of an application to upzone any individual receiv- site is established by map,by reference to ex- required to retire per bonus dwelling unit.De iog areas.This approach is less likely to elicit con- istIng zoning districts,or by criteria(like prime velopers comply by buying the required num- troversy since the elected officials are only con- farmland or significant habitat.)The ordinance her of TDRs from sending-site landowners at a sidering a zoning code requirement and notthe also determines the nature of the restrictions price established by private negotiation.Alter- development potential of any specific property. that must be placed on the site before the corn- natively,developers may buy TDRs from a TDR Once communities have adopted the munity will grant TDRs to the owner.Finally,the bank or some other intermediary,a person or components of a TDR mechanism,they often ordinance states the number of TDRs that the organization that buys,holds,and sells TDRs. wait for developers to apply for future upzon- community will award to property owners when they record the required restrictions. The plan-consistent approach to TDR can PLAN-CONSISTENT TDR increase public acceptance because it essentially in the plan-consistent approach described in this article,we simplify the receiving-side implements the community's land-use goals as mechanism of a TDR ordinance to just four defi- nitions and one requirement. already approved in an adopted general plan. TDR receiving sites are defined as upzoned land,meaning land where future Developers then relinquish these TDRs prior to ings.These future upzoning applications, changes in zoning allow additional develop- final approval of the receiving site development if approved,essentially implement the TOR ment potential.This additional development project requiring the TDRs. ordinance over time.Bear in mind that adop- potential Is usually in the form of increased To provide policy support for TDR,the tion of a TDR requirement does not compel the residential density,meaning bonus dwelling general plan should state that the densities community to approve upzoning applications units.However,many communities choose to depicted for the plan's horizon may only be or make any other changes to its decision apply the requirement to increases in nonresi- possible via TDR.If such a statement does not process.The community Is still free to approve dential development capacity such as building already appear In the plan,it should be added, or deny the upzoning application based on floor area,height,or lot coverage.For this ar- However,a plan-consistent TDR program does relevant factors including potential environ- ticle,we confine our discussion to residential- not require any changes to the development ca- mental effects,compatibility with existing density programs to reduce confusion.In this pacity of the existing general plan,meaning the development,Infrastructure adequacy,and simplified TDR ordinance,baseline density is depiction of those areas suitable for an eventual of course,consistency with the general plan. defined as the maximum density allowed by upzoning.This saves communities the time However,if the upzoning is approved,the site's the zoning in effect for a receiving site prior to and expense of conducting new infrastructure new zoning will require the developer to retire the upzoning. and environmental studies as well as countless a specified number of TDRs for all bonus dwell- Maximum with-TOR density,as the name meetings dealing with residents'concerns about ing units.These retired TDRs accomplish the suggests,is the higher development potential general plan revisions.Instead,the community preservation of the sending-area land at the only available to developers who choose to use can appoint a committee to make recommends ratios stated in the TDR ordinance. ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 might prevail politically in some communities, Some communities are capable of going far particularly if the general plan did not originally beyond the plan-consistent approach to mention the possibility of the later addition of a TDR requirement.When this argument pre- TDR that we describe here by adopting a vans,communities would have to change the development capacities of their current general plan-amending TDR program. plans in order to institute a TOR program,and would not be considered TOR-ready as de- scribed in this article. The plan-consistent approach to TDR The only difference is that the community is Some communities are capable of going can increase public acceptance because it saving sending areas while it achieves the de far beyond the plan-consistent approach to essentially implements the community's land- velopment called for in its general plan. TDR that we describe here by adopting a plan- use goals as already approved in an adopted Bear in mind that plan-consistent TDR amending TDR program.For example,Chester- general plan.Hopefully,citizens will see a is not the only approach and not even neces- field Township maintained a multiyear effort plan-consistent TDR program as superior to sarily the most appropriate TDR approach for that brought citizens and developers together traditional zoning since it implements a com- any given community.For the purpose of this to meticulously plan and rezone a receiving munity's preservation goals as well as its discussion,we use the term plan-amending to area for a pedestrian-friendly,smart-growth development objectives.We realize that not describe TDR programs involving general plan village.The extensive public involvement all citizens will embrace TDR just because it is amendments that increase the development promoted acceptance and the rezoned land consistent with an adopted general plan.Many, capacity of a community's general plan.The gave both citizens and developers certainty if not most,residents are unaware that their discussion below of the Chesterfield Township, about where and how growth would occur.This community has a general plan,much less what New Jersey,TDR program highlights the advan- certainty is a significant benefit to developers that plan contains.So there will still be opposi- tages and disadvantages of a plan-amending who do not have to apply for rezonings but are tion to individual upzoning applications as they TDR program, assured of exactly what they can build if they are proposed.However,most residents will Even though plan-consistent TDR resolves follow all the rules,including compliance with agree that the TDR component of the proposed many political concerns,there may still be the TDR requirement, upzoning does not cause any increase in devel- those who claim that this approach changes Despite these advantages,many corn- opment because the new maximum density is the rules midstream.They may argue that the m unities don't have the resources or the atten- no higher than the density called for in the gen- community already granted the density de- tion span to establish a comprehensive TOR eral plan.In fact,the amount of development is picted in the general plan without any precon- program like the one in Chesterfield.For these identical with or without the TOR mechanism. ditions like a TOR requirement.This argument places,a plan-consistent approach may be more appropriate since it allows communities to preserve land in the near-term future.Per- -,-,, •, .-,,„,„-,, : ,s, 1,,g'r''',I ;c4".."‘, 't',‘'1,:.-.";N-' - *:',,,..„-:,•;..-:',,,,t,NIA;:;.,.,,p, :,:tr-4.,-p-.- ,::,,‘,' t'','„,.; •,- • •,,, ,,,'".z:i:,.,1.2--t,,-,,',,,,,,," ,-,:•,,,,A".",,,,,;,,„.,,/,"-„„.-,,,,,,--,,,,,,,,,,t,,,,,,,,,•• •-"t•••,,,,,4,'„st,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,, - ,,,,:, „, „-• ,:---,t,,,,:-t-,-;,•-•-•,•,.`„t,,,,,,,...,:.=.;,,,z •,,,,..st.,,„,..,,,„ ,,".„:„.,t 7,":;••••:"..,. ..,7-7;",",',.,:`,, ,,,,%.$,..V.,':,..,,,'.,41.".•;'..,,,,„:*•;" Imps some of these places will prepare them- ,,,,..,.4'' ,. ,,,,.},...,-,`"` ," ";,",.',V,",'''''',4..''''''."......'", ';:.'',‘.,'•t,"d`or,''',"-'',,'',.. ''....-,'''''."',.i't,"'' ,,-`,,, -,,A1 'le '' . .*,-`•''""''''''','t.."''''..V`"",..'..","i:',,,,,1,-,I...:`,..,;:,.,''",..,'. ..^.. ,.'' ',".,'A";'...1,',,...'..'"'.."t,..',,,,,,,='.-,4.,',.i selves over time to try a comprehensive effort ••`,., `,- '.: -,-,9:.„k: --",,,rz.t-,,.„, ,,,,-,":.,, -,•,.•1.,,,..-...,st,-„":,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.-,-,„!,„:,,,,-,.,-,- ,1,,-..:4-----e,„,,,„,,,,,,,,,.z-4,-4..l'-„,-..,,. l'..;„'Ais-t,t.";'''',.:'•:.:'zi: -":,P,V.,.,'!.:11:•N•,il,.`',..,"4:.;-,••t3'..i ''''''7,:-.'1'.-- ;"''"7"''' '-',";;:i,'--4.'.--:;..:2:g ,,,,"./,',ZA like Chesterfield's. '"'',.',I s'''''':1-•"';:ft,' ,;'4-',;;•34.3.,,,ttri,4'-,'Illktt,'"'.:'''',,;,,:•,,,t.'7if,\,,s,, ,..f.::',,,,.".',4*..,,-,,.'''X'*4 . t;,410,7:1 1Ari,„,:,.A.,,, 'i,„‘'AM— i•,„-.4'4%';'r 4,..'4 k,o,f,k k, ,Y.,,,...t DECIDING IF YOUR COMMUNITY ,:,,,,.•,.4-k 1:',„.1',4-oz.,i,43.e,','7 7,,4,-ttt.,0,44,,,:v4k-v7,,---41x*";.e.::;',4,,,:,*,I.;;,,m,i,-,*.V.,..;.4.,,P,'-A":, ,„';,,,,,, ,` *'..Acpki",fafgp,;,,,,,*V0,71,0,a041a,',.•4,..,0,MA,:,,V.I;LpV,t',1...,,,A,as.pp 1441,„,W$.11 ., ;.,,,-,,,n4,441/4-,,,,e,A4.1,13%.,t,,':-:'., IS READY FOR TOR ,r,,Zi,,,,;:jt.,.::.;•:4'ils.,•,41age..gitit:Zal'ORkillii,Miirl.`.1t14'-;7i-1.;,,'-1, 4 Ilth;V:IAT.W.tiv,90t-, , z.", The foundation for the following quiz is our r,,,,,,r.„."„:„ ,•:,.,:i..,,,,s,-,;,:?,,:tx4,-„,, , ,,,,,,i;,,,,ls,J. study,'What Makes Transfer of Development ie ,•,,,, , i'lisn-,I ...,,:•;',1;;;,,„:„y:.,,,:1".,‘.,;,iniiti:.,!tf:4 1.=,' '''''' Rights Work?Success Factors from ResearLh ii,,1:;-, 4':•.:''', ,)"-'-'-' 1 -1' ,.;;It."4,2`,"!•-,„,•;iN ..-4.,;..'rt.',,, --e,\'`i, ,,,,,ae, and Practice,"which appears in the Winter iitgitts:;-,1,;,:,:11 -i;,::„ ;Lt? i-• ..,91,',,:,i,i14.iit:''C'‘, 'i-4':'71''it'';',i'; s-.;'1,,,OtttOf'Itt " 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Plan- 4,,. -,..:!--,,,,,4f1 nIng Association.In that paper,we Identified ,••,' et;Y;."k.) - ,iir„.:-i 2 fv". 1' ,;t: .41„ ', lt‘:4 i.,1:'":;...`:: ' '-: is:yi.-.:,-: and ranked to success factors found in the 20 yi,',,,',,,,',/ " ,,, ,- ‘kkit4ct,..,'....:, ,'` ',,',.''''''. A, •';').4 ?t-Aw If'Oth,47:‘,7,-,, .;,: U.S.TDR programs that have preserved the s', ;•• , , , -, .t.,,'N,Th. '..- 'T.' 'I ,.4,;""gt.,11„,v,...e., ,,,,,, ..,,,, ,4 ,,Iii,,f, ,,..;,,-, .,.,,, ,*'\',,f,, ,,'":', :'''` ,',:".' •',.'r;'..i,,:::,_.,'s' J,•,,''„t /.., ,V,4,,k(0110.-.;•-,'P:),Afts:1'.?"..!'`;•14,,,V4:-% greatest amount of land.Using the results of ..,,,`,,,.•\'' .,''''.',‘:":,',''..',,,-'1'!, ,,;1;,:liv'-';;"\•:";,'p,": ,': ,::-Nf%‘.,.1,--•-*:::tr,' Y':',..1,- -4.0,5n,'',:4 : that study,we developed the four-question ,,-, ' ,,,,, •-,,•''s,,'.$:',, ,'t,...,..`A,•.i*,, „vs N, ,,,,,,,,;,,..-' - lt,•:;,1'44":"" .‘e,k. , 1-110+4,7',',. • r lu..- --.• , ,'..`-•' ': ''.' r . '; , •„./' :,','T' ,,,,:''''- .,--.: ." '44'1-:`-,.117, ,: •V.1 quiz below to evaluate whether a community , ;:,, ;,-„,, i„, „ ,,,,, 1.`.:t" ,, ,,,:,''• 's s V••,". ",,,, •,ol. , , '-- e* '''''''''''''''' ''' ''''..'1''''''' '- ';'-"; '' 'v. -44:-:' ' ' '''•l'' ./ is"ready-made"for plan-consistent TDR.Some •'` *,-,.,1- 0 C.hesteifield Township New jersey preserves agricultural land through readers will have no trouble answering these a Plan-amending TDR program,allowing developers to achieve four questions without hesitation.However,if planned densities when they comply with all regulations,Including TDR you are inclined to say maybe to any question, requirements, you may find it helpful to refer to notes that follow each question. ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4 Question it:Does your community often receive is a crude approximation of the acreage that allow the community to incentivize the transfer applications for upzonings? could be preserved by your TDR program annu- of development rights without changing the TDR programs can work when developers want ally.If this seems like a meaningful amount of maximum density set forth In the general plan. to exceed many types of development restric- preservation,you should answer yes to Ques- Specifically,a community can allow,if needed, tions.But to minimize confusion,this paper tion z. more than one bonus dwelling unit in a receiv- focuses on changes in land-use regulations For example,let's assume that the zoning ing area for each dwelling unit precluded in a that allow increased residential density.Appli- in your likely sending area requires five acres sending area without exceeding the general cations for upzonings indicate developer de- per dwelling unit and that you estimate that plan's development capacity.This enhanced mand to exceed the limitations imposed under your community issues building permits for 20 transfer ratio improves the conditions for a current zoning.This demand is one of the two dwelling units each year that are made possible viable TDR market by making the TDR price high essential Ingredients in a successful TDR pro- by upzonings,Assuming one TDR is required for enough to attract sending area landowners gram,as discussed in"What Makes Transfer each of the zo bonus units and assuming each yet low enough to motivate developers.Con- of Development Rights Work?"If developers TDR represents five acres of preserved land, sequently,a yes response to this question is a positive indicator for two of the most important -Ar? success factors identified in our JAPA article: r zkt p receiving areas customized to the community T and market incentives. NOTE:Some respondents may be able to answer Question z without extensive thought `tt because their general plans either designate iF no areas or many areas as appropriate for future upzonings.However,for communities • , in the middle of this continuum,we offer t ct , � ' the following suggestion:Consider whether �" the areas designated in the general plan for (. future upzonings are capable of sustaining the bonus dwelling units that you consider c aY i9 1 necessary to achieve a meaningful rate of `T r, , • reservation For example,let's continue the assump- ' lion that you want to preserve at least too Q The receiving area of Collier County's TDR program is the new town of Ave acres per year and that this preservation rate Maria,which surrounds a new Catholic cathedral and university. will require the transfer of zo TDRs per year, which represent 20 dwelling units resulting from upzonings.Assume thatyou estimate are typically satisfied with the development your hypothetical TDR program would preserve that your general plan designates r,000 acres potential available under current zoning,they zoo acres of land per year.If a preservation rate appropriate for an upzoning from one unit per will have no need to exceed that density limit if of zoo acres peryear seems worth the effort of Five acres to two units per acre.If developers it ultimately becomes baseline density under a adopting a TDR program,you would answer yes want to maximize this potential,a total of TDR program. to Question t. 1,800 bonus units would result(z,000 x 2 NOTE:Some respondents may be able 2,o0o minus a baseline of z,000 divided by to answer Question z without much reflection Question 2:Does your community's current five,or 200,yields a maximum potential in- because their communities experience either general plan indicate an adequate number of crease of 1,800 bonus units). very few or very many applications for upzon- areas appropriate for future upzonings? However,you may want to create a more ings.However,for those who fall in the middle If your general plan designates areas that are conservative estimate by,for example,assum- of those two extremes,we offer the following appropriate for upzoning,your community can ing that developers only want to upzone half suggestion.Estimate the number of dwelling readily make these areas into potential TOR re- of this area and that they only want to build at units built in a typical year made possible by ceiving areas.This can relieve you of the need an average density of one unit per acre.These upzonings.Assume,for this exercise alone, to identify,discuss,and agree on individual more conservative assumptions still yield a that your program will grant one TDR for each receiving areas.The plan has already identified total of 40o bonus units(5oo x i=5ao minus dwelling unit precluded by easement in the them.To use them,a provision is added to your a baseline of Soo divided by five,or zoo,yields sending area and that each TDR will permit one zoning code that requires each unit resulting a maximum potential increase of 400 bonus bonus dwelling unit in the receiving area.Then from a future upzoning to comply with TDR units).This 40o bonus-unit capacity should multiply your estimated annual number of bo- requirements,effectively making these plan- theoretically generate the required zo bonus nus units by the amount of sending area land approved places into potential TOR receiving units per year for zo years,allowing you to needed per dwelling unit.The resulting number areas.These ready-made receiving areas also answer yes to Question z, ZONINGPRACT►CE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page ', ,4 n `"tom .,t fit' 1 of adopting a TDR program,you would answer not change your PUD ordinance and require ja i • • .. r r. yes to Question 3• TDRs for all dwelling units permitted in a PIJD � 73' { Q Gn'Z 'Y4 t A; + 5 that exceed the maximum density of the under- ,, .. �., ` � ,, Question q:Is your community willing to re- lying zone. 't:; l j , `, :. quire compliance with TOR requirements For " it` s F I° !.: ''' ' '4 � all(or most)development in excess of current SCORING THE QUIZ ,;.4 ,.r,>., ,' \`, zoning limits? A yes response to all four questions suggests , ,, L V:r.. This question is designed to test whether your that your community is TDR-ready,meaning �t h' , ,,' h•f community will require TDRs for all or most that a plan-consistent TDR program could be tb tG „ ;h k I ti .?; . bonus dwelling units or whether other mecha- adopted with only moderate time and effort,If ,44 \ f;,,,' ','",� t nisms are in place(and are likely to remain in you responded no to one or more questions,it •� rF, ?n f,;44� . place)that allow developers to achieve bonus does not mean that your community is not suit- densitywithout buying TDRs. able for TOR.Rather,no responses indicate that 4�• �i y` ,,s 4i `�. .• '?• To offerjusta few examples,some com- it will probably take more work to adopt a suc- ti ., ,fi : �� ir ... ' ,,ial i munities offer bonus density when developers cessful TDR program.For example,if a commu- ` r Pi ii f t ' Z t- i include certain amenities in their projects or nity rarely receives applications for upzonings, t t ,r =;sf�`i,^• � i<,i ._,,,:i..., provide community benefits,Many communities demand for additional development can still grant density bonuses when developers cluster be created,but it will likely require a cam re- ,i rl4 `y, `- houses or use a planned unit development ap- hensive plan revision with substantial public - 1, - . proval process.Needless to say,developers will involvement.A major planning effort of this 72• .1 ` ' not pay forTDRs if they can get bonus density freescale is extraordinaryb 4 Livermore,Cali notut,in our opinion, forria,saves agricultural land by repairing (or more cheaply)using an alternative to TDR. suggests that a community is not TDR-ready, TDRs fo all dtiveliir g units NOTE,:To offer some guidance in answer- ing this question,we would suggest that you NEXT STEPS resulting from densi±y answer no if your community already has one of If your community is TOR-ready,it means increasing upzonings. these alternative density-bonus techniques and adoption of a plan-consistent TOR mechanism Question 3:Are the existing zoning a ,>44 k s ,;, restrictions for the areas you want to preserve �� > �t rr r ''a' ' �! Y x�g adequate to discourage inappropriate `' development? a , "'.0' 4 ,e k,'* ' Question 3 is designed to test whether the + ' �" ,� : J !i ii F ,ta zoning that currently applies to your sending `, ,+i ,. ' \ i`r'" , areas is well suited to a workable TOR program. ' `T / 'ems In our/APAstudy,we found that 18 out of the x' a� ;-" 20 leading TOR programs in the nation have sending-site zoning that limits on site develop- „;ram i ment to no more than one dwelling unit per five acres.Consequently,we would suggest that 1— - you respond yes if your sending-site zoning is one dwelling unit per five acres or more,If your """'•" � „ sending area zoning allows higher density, consider repeating the evaluation method de- ' - $ scribed in the note to Question z,The following ''., . note provides an example. In Berthoud,Colorado,additional dwelling units achieved via upzoning are subject to a TDR requirement,which developers can satisfy by paying NOTE:Assume the zoning in your likely a density transfer charge, sending area requires only one acre per dwelling unit and you estimate that your corn- munity issues building permits for zoo dwell- you strongly believe that your community will could occur relatively quickly,Nevertheless, ing units each year that are made possible not change these techniques so that developers some work is still required even in TDR-ready by upzonings,Assuming one TOR for each of cannot easily circumvent a TOR requirement.For communities.Your community,often with the the zoo bonus units and assuming each TDR example,your community may have a ROD code help of a citizen advisory committee,or CAC, represents one acre of preserved land,your provision that permits developments to exceed must make decisions on the most appropriate hypothetical TDR program would preserve zoo the maximum density limit of the underlying components for the receiving sites,sending acres of land per year.if a preservation rate zoning district.You should answer no to Ques- sites,and compliance procedures.Early in of zoo acres per year seems worth the effort tion 4 if you believe that your community would the process,the elected officials should ide- ZONiNGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ipage 6 »a '4-4.4 - is q; community embarks on a plan-amending TDR ,' * program like the one described for Chester- -. l: ,t r i + fil field,New Jersey, ,� at-,a,i "` ' `' a ZONING REVIEWS �3`�a. a4# 4 �� Again,plan-consistent TDR sadly right for all communities.But it can cre ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND t: <; �`„y `<<'(i e-,.. Y t ate a workable preservation tool,in one year HOUSING COSTS r ts•K i r 3, 4# or less,in communities that are TDR-ready. Arthur C.Nelson,MICE',John Randolph, .‘T Ta=,4 Joseph M.Schilling,Jonathan Logan,James ti4 RESOURCES M.McElfish Jr.,and Newport Partners,LLC (2009;island Press;262 pp.;$35) www.BeyondTakingsAndGivings.com. Daniels,Tom.zo07."Zoning for Successful The effects of traditional zoning and subdivi- ` ` f Transferable Development Rights sion controls on housing costs have been well . Programs."Zoning Practice,December. documented in recent decades,but until now, `' McConnell,Virginia,Margaret Walls, relatively little was known about what Impact and Francis Kelly.2007.Markets for environmental regulations have on housing Preserving Farmland in Maryland: affordability.According to the authors of En- Making TDR Programs Work Better. Queenstown:Maryland Center for vironmental Regulations and Housing Costs, _ as the effect of environmental regulations on the i QAs an example of plan amending "'` "° Pruetz,Rick.2003.Beyond Takings cost of residential development has changed and Givings:Saving Natural Areas, little in the past 3o years,despite assump- program,al;jurisdictions within Farmland and Historic Landmarks with the one-million-acre New Jersey tions to the contrary.While the authors do not Transfer of Development Rights and Pinelands conformed their plans Density Transfer Charges.Marina Del deny the reality that all regulations add cost and codes to a new regional plan, Rey,Calif.:Arje Press. to the development process,they use data which is implemented in part gathered from a case study of Metropolitan Pruetz,Rick,and Noah Standridge.2009. through TDR. "What Makes Transfer of Development Washington,D.C.,and focus groups in Dallas, Rights Work?Success Factors from Denver,and Tucson to make the case that the ally articulate whether or not they are willing Research and Practice"Journal of the magnitude and nature of these costs as they American Planning Association,75(0: relate to stormwater controls,site remedia- to treat all units arising from upzonings as 78_87, bonus units and therefore subject to a TDR tion,wetlands permitting,habitat protection, requirement.If so,the CAC can develop recam- Roddewig,Richard j.,and Cheryl and open space set asides has been mischarac- A.inghram.1987.Transferable mendations on all the components outlined terized and misunderstood.Nelson et al.offer Development Rights.Planning Advisory above—what areas should qualify as sending Service Report no.poi.Chicago: some much-needed ammunition for local sites,what should constitute preservation, American Planning Association. planners on the front lines of the fight over how many TDRs should be granted to pre- Walls,Margaret,and Virginia McConnell, land-use controls,but the authors punt on served land,how many bonus units should be 2007.Transfer of Development Rights the issue of how to increase efficiencies in awarded per TDR,and If developers should be in U.S.Communities:Evaluating the development review process as a means given a choice of compliance though cash-in- Program Design,implementation,and to decrease the overall costs of regulatory lieu payments as well as TDRs.These aren't Outcomes.Washington,DC:Resources compliance. snap decisions by any means.But they are for the Future. considerably easier than those needed when a VOL.26,NO.9 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association.Subscriptions are available for$75(U.S.)and Siam(foreign) W.Paul Farmer,FAICP,Executive Director;William R.Klein,MCP, Cover photo:West Hempfield Township, Director of Research Lancaster County,Pennsylvania,uses Zoning Practice(ISSN 1548—at3S)is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,ArcP,and David Morley,Arc>,Editors; ?DR to save prime agricultural land, Julie Von Bergen,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,Design and Production. sensitive environmental areas,and community Character,as represented by Copyright©2oo9 by American Planning Association,122 S.Michigan Ave.,Suite t600,Chicago, IL 60603.The American Planning Association also has offices at t776 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W., this covered bridge over Chic!cies Creek. Washington,D.C.20036;www.planning.org. 0 Copyright 2006 by Rick Pruetz; All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any design concept by Lisa Barton. means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper,including 50.7o%recycled fiber and io%postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION tpage 7