2. Development Code Update Meeting Date: 12/2/2009
Agenda Item: �
Planning Commission/ City Council
Agenda Report
City of Scandia
14727 209th St. North
Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274
Action Requested: Begin discussion of the Development Code update and give direction
on the following key issues concerning the update:
1. Roles of Commission, Council, staff and consultants
2. Recommended two-phase approach to the update
3. Development options to include in updated code
4. Zoning district options to include in updated code
5. Zoning map
Deadline/Timeline: State law requires codes to be consistent with the plan within nine
months of adoption of a comprehensive plan.
Background: • The new plan was adopted in March of 2009. The primary
implementation activities completed so far are 1) drafting
architectural design standards, and 2) study of TDR(Transfer of
Development Rights) as a potential tool for implementing the plan.
• The city's resources for this project are very limited. The 2009
budget initially included $50,000 for consulting assistance. The
need to complete the TDR study, the need to reduce spending due
to revenue reductions, and work load from other projects
(particularly the Zavoral project EIS) delayed the project. For
2010, the draft budget includes only$30,000 for professional
services for code updates.
• Limited resources will require that the city prioritize the major
code changes needed to provide basic consistency between the
plan and the code, and accomplish as much with staff resources as
possible. Staff and the city planner have worked together to
recommend a two-phased approach, described in the planner's
memo.
• We have identified key issues on which direction is needed early
in drafting the code update. The first is the development options
to be included in the updated code. The current code already
includes a fairly large number of options: "conventional"
subdivision, lot averaging, transfer of density units, open space
conservation subdivision(OSCS) and planned unit development
(PUD.) Another option, transfer of development rights(TDR)has
Page 1 of 2
11/24/09
been recommended. Consensus is needed on which of the existing
options to continue and whether or not TDR should be included in
the draft code. The planner has prepared a handout on the options
to assist with this discussion. A copy of the report from the TDR
Committee is also included with your packet.
• The new plan implies some changes to the existing zoning districts
and ultimately the zoning map. Some agreement on how to
translate the land use plan into zoning districts is needed before
drafting begins. The planner has prepared a chart comparing the
existing districts, the plan and a suggested approach to assist with
this discussion.
Recommendation: The Commission and Council should discuss the issues for the
Development Code update. At the conclusion of the meeting, it would
be helpful if another meeting date could be set. Staff suggests
Tuesday, January 26`'' (the fourth Tuesday of January) as a possible
date.
Attachments/ A. Memo dated November 24, 2009 from Sherri Buss
Materials provided: B. Residential Development Options
C. TDR Committee Report dated October 29, 2009
D. Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts
Contact(s): Sherri Buss, City Planner
TKDA(651 292-4582)
Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator
(12_02_09/cover memo for meeting materials)
Page 2 of 2
11/24/09
����hrh��� �
TKDA 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500
Saint Paul,MN 55101
�•
The rlght tima Tho ri�t PeoPla The rl�t oompa� (651)292-4400
(651)292-0083 Fax
www.ticda.can
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council and Reference: Development Code Update
Planning Commission Approach and Key Issues
Copies To: Anne Hurlburt, City Administrator
Proj. No.: 14600.000
From: Sherri Buss, RLA Routing:
Date: November 24, 2009
BACKGROUND:
The City recently adopted its new Comprehensive Plan. The plan includes a new land use map for the City,
identifies new zoning districts, and proposes changes to the standards for existing districts and to the City's
performance standards that regulate development. The City now needs to update its Development Code to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865 requires that local
governments update their codes to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of
adoption of the plan. The code update will also provide an opportunity to update the document to reflect
incorporation as a City,by eliminating references to New Scandia Township and to the County's
Development Code.
The key steps in the process to update the Development Code will include the following:
• Draft new and updated sections of the Development Code
• Public Hearing on the updated Code at a Planning Commission meeting
• Council adoption of the updated Code
WHO NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED
The Development Code is a lengthy document that has not been updated for a long time. A large number of
changes are needed based on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The update will require a signficant amount of
effort. The City Administrator and Planner will develop drafts and options for the new and amended
sections of the Code, and facilitate discussions. The City's Planning Commission and Council need to
understand the proposed updates to the code and participate in development of the updated Code. The
Planning Commission will recommend, and the Council adopt, the updated Code.
Options for development of the updated code include:
1) The Planning Commission and Council jointly meet as the group to work with staff to complete
development of the updated Code
2) The Council appoints a Task Force or Commission that includes members of the Planning
Commission and Council (and may include other members)to work with staff to complete the
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportuniry
Development Code Update Page 2 November 24, 2009
Scandia, Minnesota
updated Code. This option would require periodic meetings with the Planning Commission and
Council to update them on the process and products.
Option 1 would require fewer meetings overall, and therefore probably have a shorter schedule and lower
cost.
SUGGESTED WORK PLAN TO UPDATE THE CODE—TWO PHASE PROCESS
The Development Code is divided into three chapters:
1. Administration Chapter
• Purpose and Definitions
• Administrator Duties
• Permits
• Nonconformities
• Amendments and Enforcement
2. Zoning Regulations
• Zoning Map
� District Requirements
• Development Standards
3. Subdivision Regulations
• Administrative and Platting Procedures
• Development and Design Standards
T'he City Administrator and Planner have discussed the potential approach and responsibilities for this effort,
and in order to use the City's available resources most efficiently, are proposing a two-phase work plan to
complete the Code update.
Phase 1 would be completed in 2010. Phase II would be completed in the future, as time as resources
are available.
Phase I would include updating the following:
• Administrative Chapter
• Zoning Chapter
o Zoning map
o Methods for subdividing land and densities
o Zoning districts, including the purpose, uses, and lot dimensions and other requirements
o Development Standards–environmental standards only in Phase I, including standards for
storm water management, grading, erosion and sediment control, wetlands, tree preservation
to meet Watershed District and Comprehensive Plan requirements
o New Mining Overlay District
o Open Space Subdivisions
o PUD
• Subdivision Chapter
Development Code Update Page 3 November 24, 2009
Scandia, Minnesota
Phase II Tasks:
• Zoning Chapter
o Development Standards—accessory structures, storage, fences, lighting,parking, screening
and landscaping, signs
o Standards for Uses
o Revisions to Shoreland and St. Croix Corridor Overlay Districts
Roles and Responsibilities
• The City Administrator will update the Administration Chapter. The update will be completed
simultaneously with the updates to the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Administrator will
develop a draft for review, discussion and approval by the Planning Commission and Council.
• The City Planner will review the Comprehensive Plan and identify the changes needed to update the
Zoning Map, Zoning District requirements and standards, and environmental standards. The Planner
will develop drafts and facilitate discussions to develop and approve the Development Code updates.
• The City Administrator and Planner will work together to develop the updated sections of the
Subdivision Chapter, based on updates completed to the Administration and Zoning Chapters.
KEY ISSUES TO BEGIN THE PROCESS—DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR DECEMBER 2
We will begin the first tasks to update the Development Code at the meeting on December 2. The
December 2 discussion will include a discussion of the process to update the code,who should be involved,
and the items listed below:
• Discuss development approaches that will be allowed in the City
o Discuss which development approaches are needed to accomplish the goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. Existing and proposed development options are described on a chart
included in this packet, and include the following:
■ Conventional subdivision
■ Lot averaging
■ Density transfer
■ Open Space Conservation Subdivision
■ Planned Unit Development(PUD)
■ Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
o Discuss where will these development approaches be allowed (which districts)
• Discuss the existing and proposed Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones
o Review the Land Use Map adopted in the Comprehensive Plan
o Compare the current districts, uses and standards with those proposed in the comprehensive
plan (see attached handout)
�����r�P�� B
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
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
�
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
■ ■
■
■
1
Transfer of Purpose: allows density units to be reallocated befinreen contiQuous
Density Units ap rcels 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
r
�l�'�N�N'f
F��r
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
��
�
. ' • I�� v
� � � � • • V v ����/J
• • • • • • "�' L �.�M�T
v �-'��
u
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
M� � , (,oM�.�u AL
�n�'� - P�'`-�`+N� �u.n.
���
t��`�
av�- —
p�'Cp+ct L
Example 2: Residential PUD in Agricultural Zone
(iDMM�tNI't�' LD�7�-
��� `�"�
�{Z�tDC�•�'T1�CL ■ ■ ■ •• i GoNSBI�Anv►.t
� �il9�i�Me�►'r_
�(? U.'� • ��� �µW�rT
o���
RE'riD E►�►Tl I°�rtr ItiN t Pj
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.
�t ' �a . / —` „'1 �.
. . / _' . \ '
: L'� L�
, ',. '�•R� PHtQf,GL�
��� ' . . � �c�nNE , _ < , .
• 4�ir►r�.�/�o .� 1�v�
� �N�
� E , • S�E
. ,, �NE
�r
.
►
��,w � .
, • �
. - s�p I t�1..
' 1',�IGT
. fA I�VEr.lflorvRL
30�M�� ��/4v
•W tf7+ '11zlrJ5�
1��
' QP�J SPhG� LoNy.
, �'J�I/�" Su.b On�ts i o r�
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 "carroY' 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
, � �� A
: , , .
, , • • l �
,�
� -
�` � ;
- Da .�.TC;.N'.
� . . �;�o:,"'
�
� � a ... -s�+.v.�.%�'�$,,,. ::vFu�+FS�- �'��-
. v;r� �Y'� .J
�' .APr�.;_
5^>,. .:
� ��'� T �� �, � � �, ,�� '�"
�A' ^
�PRACTICE i'� t . � �� � ��� ;.-
� " '�` . �.�
� � ,r � bv
' '=�' � , :m;, ,
��'; � `� �� • �
� � � � r`
'�� � � �' ;�
- +�
s �� i •:
- 4'���� ,,Y ... {`7. 1 -�}�� ;�
t
�
f ' �L�
.., . . � � �il I
1
A...�%�� ...;3� ��� I�..,5� a-#';Z��
,� .
"� � �F�,��N{�'�`�`}+� Y 3- . ' Y� � . .
,�+Y� �/ :.4�v y t $./'� ,a.�i&� `t'�` �I� .
fi.. N P�St i,¢� g �q g l �-•` ,�l �, . ��
��ny t �1.� "i @ r .2 K�y: � � . 7�
� / �� R L'. t : ' . �.. '.t 1 �� �
'R"'^� .�+ . �'R v' - 1 � \ k . ..
�a .s �a`t�.. ?'i-4 .+ .�, � z � r.� �,m 1 z> ,� �...� �,`� . � _
y .�M`,�F,.�� a�e � !�` M��"'�f�a,,yv��b ��,� •� '��'y�,�? .' n ,. I
'r.�ik R-' �r3Y��t'� �r Je'�f„h e'+`V�` cT, ax, ,J�`.. ; � m: 3rf�� .
a
.X t1' .� �rr'roJ�.,`�+" �.� t� �y .. ,�, ��Iz ,�L ��r>
�yxr � au`'r �y{,df�!�r �3'�,�x�7„��� � a n� C�s. i� ,,
�q �'``¢ y�� �;.�-,,,z .�: ;�ya� �
J��s�.� b"�`S ,�'k'v ,::.tPaT . �. 2�'. 4F
�� ��`� �����r � �,.
s��,t���� ."K+r � � m�„i�`^oF
'�.�, �p ��.. ''�� �+c'`-c ,� ',� � �. . lic�.w'
"4 r� �'(�p�_�'�` , r�y��' ' _
�. fu8n � � � �' .
-^t r _ ��'. 1 �� yC4w��ra' �y �9 . � �. � •'°` ��1�.
� ����' .,�r,�'�F <�fy� �., "� . � ;:a. � ' i s,� y '.
- .,� 2�'��-,.+�f C��r������ M F`".,:�3� 8j° k+f�r... " 1 q {��:,,._ . � P �. ��5:
� gr��,-'�" �a� `���"`�",,,c„� � ,�R`'�o �` j� � �' e �t.��� �~� .
� � ��� a'*���d �v � �� s���. i t,
x' �`" � ���"�r;+� t���� � �i'. r L r ,��" ,,��d"v. y �' �:�i, `��i �'s+s�
art�� .�,m�,u�-����i f -r,,�, ''r � �r �;c i #�1. �+ S • �`r'� .�,
'n'" � 51 :y�'�'w���„_` I �k } �X �� � S.'j a � d [� µ� � . '�.i�i`�' �T4� '�
_.s cr'. : �r i°t' �:r F 2' 'G t.rP.��i . �`_ ...
,_{ ���C°'����crx�-� � c ,.'�. ._M1�' ,��tr S�F�''9�' t
�'�-P�'�+r ��f ��-�.r ,A�,, x a'� ,i4 i . � . ..,d.Y'
,,tu �` £-�--� �H� i x , k 's •+;,�F e '�r��, Ml�i"�` a�� 'i� s�.'� :� � ' \.
. � � �, � r• .�. s �,'��T'.,���'�t � ,�r - i . .g' r' ..
��', ..�,'-r.� �, . r y;.. e .yw � .ee��o v c,,�z 1.� T.� �� `*�.'�`-"
'� �'c°''�'������2'�..a' � { �""t,r.t ��:t r� s. 5�A �a r f.,��.�`. i ��_
xa- r�q��.."{ �.
��}�,�+�� �����'��,�t.���-�� �� '�R � � ��:J f'�{ tZy .
ry � S F r. :Rr � i y�F �� ,
< w� ,.:,p 1 3+�� 4 'o�•. „i,':
^Y��"'�'S'. � :.�a �, n r] t.r �,, 4r �ht ,c ��
15 Y�ur Community TDR-Ready?
ByRickPruetz,F,arcP, and Noah Standridge
A transfer of deve�opment rights program, orTDR, reduces or eliminates development
poten#ial in places that shauld be preserved by increasing development potential in
places where growth is appropriate.
TDR(s used(n at]east 33 states and has saved iook,slnce a plan-consistentTDR ordinance ture.But sometimes communities Intentionally
more ihan 400,00o acres of farmland,open could be preserving far►nland,open space,or separate receiving areas from existing develop-
space,and environmentally signlficant land, natural areas in their communities in one year ment to promote communityaaeptance,oRen
often with minimal public funding.Despite or less. usfng new-town or new-village concepts.
that Vack record,only a fraction of U.S,cities,
countles,towns,and vlllages use TDR,pos- � � �����,���t 4� � ��-r t '^ 4i�r��` i� "�1x a
sibly because they assume thatTDR program �s�,�� �'��� f���,��.,��, �r},��'�,�-�`�`� '"" ����'r;,,�_ `� '
adoption is always compllcated and tlme ���'�'�""` '` "'�' - �'��. 2 '
_ .�:�_
consuming.However,many communitfes are s � ;a�-' `y�`-�
Positfoned to create a workable TDR ro am `'��"`�-} -f s
P 3m .�2 SW ,,.�, ,� �,
relatively painlessly. �
Admittedly,adoption of a TDR program
can be a long,labor-intensive process when it
requires increases in the developmenY limits
depicted in a community's current generat
plan.However,many communities prefer a :
TDR mechanlsm that requfres no changes in
the future density described in thefrgeneral � `°
'.� �-
plans{typically depicted fn future tand-use � '""
maps orgenera!plan maps).We dfstinguish � �, ��% � ��` � F,'�• �
I r � , :,� , .
thfs"plan-consistent"TDR approach from a � `' � � ~t >: r,
more ambitious process that calls for increases � �` ��s' k`a �`
`s �lr: . r ' ,
in general ptan densities,often triggering in-
frastructure studies,extensive environmentat a p . • . -. �• . . - : ... . � .
review,and community resistance.In contrast, . .. ... . .. . -
plan-consistentTDR works w3thin the develop-
ment limits of the current general plan through �
a simple requirement,described below,which TDR BASICS Wlth TDR,developers are allowed to ex-
is inserted fnto the zoning code. To reviewthe jargon ofTDR,the places that a ceed a specified baseline level of development
We retently wrote an article for the lour- community wants to preserve are caEled send- in the receiving areas in retum for preserving
nal of theAmerican Planning Association that ing areas and can conslst oFwildlife habitat, land in the sending areas.When TDR works,
ranks the factors most often found in the top watershed protectlon areas,fnrests,farmland, sending-area landowners are compensated Por
2o TDR programs in the United States.From scenlc views,recreational land,historic land- unused development potentlal whlle retaining
that study,we isolated four questions that marks,open space,and just about anything awnershfp and the abiliry to use their praperty
planners can use to evaluate whethertheir etse of specia!slgnlficance to a community. forfarming and other rural activlties fn compli-
communities are likeiy candidates forspeedy The places that a community finds suitable For ance with a permanent easement.Receiving-
adoption of a plan•consistent 7bR program. future development are known as the recefvfng area developers achieve greater profit from
By takingthe foltowing four-question quiz, areas.Receiving areas are often places that are the higherdevelopment potential despite the
pianners may de�ide to glve TDR a second near jobs,schools,shopp(ng,and infrastruc- extra cost ofTDR,and communfties are able to
ZONINGPRACT�CE 9.09
arreRiuw�annn�assoannop�yage z
i
.
I
� � , . � �
. . . � .,- . . ., .. • . , • ... . . . .
. • � •r •. . . .• � i � . . .
�i � • � • � � � � � • � �
r � � � � ■ � •
� • � �
� � •
� � �
r � �
� • � �
� � i �
�
i � �
� �
� � �
achleve their preservation goals as well as thefr the TDR option.Bonus dwellfng unifs are those tions on the components needed for the 7DR
growth objectives with iittle or no public cost. dwelling units in excess of baseline densiry ordinance as sketched abwe.
At a minfmum,a TDR ordinaoce estab- thata developer gains by complying with the Additionally,the local govemment may
Iishes three parameters forthe sendfng side of TDR requirement.Ffnalty,the TDR requirement choose to adoptthe7DR ordinance independent
a transfer.The area that qualifies as a sending itselF fs the number of TDRs that developers are of an appticallon to upzone any(ndividual recelv-
slte is established by map,by reference to ex- requlred to retire per bonus dwelUng unit,De ing areas.Th(s 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 officlals are only con-
fartnland or significant habitat)The ordinance berofTDRs from sending-site landowners at a sidering a zoningcode requirement and notthe �
aiso determines the nature of the restrictlons price establlshed by privaie negotiation.Alter- development potential of arry specific property.
that must be placed on the sRe before the com- natively,developers may buy TDRs from a TDR Once communities have adopted the
muniry wiil grantTDRs to the owner.Finally,the bankor some other intermediary,a person or componen[s of a 7DR mechanlsm,they often ,
ordinance states the number ofTDRs that the organization that buys,holds,and sells TDRs. wait for developers to apply for future upzon-
communitywill award to property owners when
theyrecordtherequiredrestrictions. The p�an-0011S1$tell� �p�JfOaC�'i t0 T�R Call
PLAN-CONSISTENTTDR increase public acceptance because it essentially
In the ptan-conslstent approach described
inthisardcie,wesimplitythereceiving-slde implements the community's land-use goals as �
mechanfsm of a TDR ordinance to just{nur defi-
�rt�o�sa�dane�eq���eme�t. atready approved in an adopted general plan.
TDRrec�Ivings)tesaredefined as �
upzoned land,meaning land where future Developers then relinquish these TDRs prior to ings.These Future upzoning applications,
ciianges in zoning allow additional develop- flnal approval of the receiving sfte development ifapproved,essentially implement theTDR
ment potentfal.This additlonal development project requiring the TDRs. ordinance overtlme.Bear In mind that adop-
potential is usually in the form of increased To provide pollcy support forTDR,the t�on of a TDR requfrement does not compel the
resfdential density,meanfng bonus dwelling general plan should statethatthe denslties cammuniryto approve upzoning applications ,
units.Howeve,many communities choose to depicted for the plan's horizon may only be or make any other changes to tts decis€on
apply the requlrementto increases in nonresi- possible via TDR.lfsuch a statement does not process.The comm¢nlry Is still Free to approve
dential development capacity such as building alreadyappear In the plan,it should be added. or deny the upzoning applfcation based on
Floor area,helght,or lot coverage.Forthis ar- However,a plan-consistentTDR program doPs relevanL fattors including potential environ-
ticle,we confine our dtscussion to residential- not require any changesto the development ca- mental effects,compatibilfty with existing
denslty programs to reduce confusion.In this pacity ofthe existing general plan,meaning the development,ln(rastructure adequacy,and
slmplified 7DR ordinance,baseflne densJty is dep(ction ofthose areas suitable foran eventual of course,consistency with the genera!plan.
defined as the maximum density allowed by upzoning.This saves communitles the time However,ifthe upzoning is approved,the slte's
the zoning in effectfor a recelving site priorto and expense of conducting new infrastructure new zoning wlll requ(re the developerto retire
the upzoning. and environmental studies aswell as countless a specified oumber oPTDRs for all bonus dwell-
Maxlmum w)th-T1JR dens)ty,as the name meetlngs dealfngwith resfdents'concems about ing uoits.These retired TDRs accompUsh the
suggests,is the hlgher development potentlal general plan revisions.Instead,the mmmunity preservation ofthe sendfng-area land at the
onty available to developers who choose to use can appoint a committee to make recommenda- ratios stated in the TDR ordlnance.
20NINGPRARICE 9.09
AMFRI[ANpUWN1NGAS50CU17)ON�pageg _
. I
Some communities are capable of going far mightprevailpolivcallyinsomecommunit(es,
particularly ifthe general plan did not originatly
beyond the plan-consistent approach to mentionthepossibilityofthelateraddftionof
a TDR requiremenY.When thfs argument pre-
TDR that we describe here by adopting a vails,communitieswouldhavetochangethe
development capacities of their current general
plan-amendingTDR program. plansinordertoinstituteaTDRprogram,and
would not be considered 7DR-ready as de-
scribed fn this article.
The plan-conslstent approach to TDR ihe only dlfference fs that the community is Some communities are capable of going
can fncrease public acceptance because It saving sending areas while it achieves the de- tar beyonc!the ptan-consistent approach to
essentially implements the commanity's land- velopment called for in lts general plan. TDR that we descrtbe here by adopting a plan-
use goals as alreadyapproved in an adopted Bear in mind that plan-consistent'i'DR amendingTDR program.fror example,Chester-
general plan.Hopefully,citlzens will see a Is not the only approach and not even neces- field Township maintafned a multiyear effort �
plan-consistentTDR program as superiorto sarily the most appropriate TDR approath fnr that brought citizens and devetopers together
traditional zoning slnce it implements a com- any given community.For the purpose oFthis to mettcutously plan and rezone a receiving
munfty's preservation goals as welt as its dfscussion,we use the term pfan-amending to area for a pedestrian-friendly,smart-growth
development objectives.We realize that not describeTDR programs fnvolving general plan �page.The extensfve public invoivement
all citlzens wtll embrace TDR just because it fs amendments that increase the development promoted acceptance and the rezoned land
consistent�with an adopted general plan.Many, capaclty of a community's general plan.7he ga�e both citfzens and developers certainty
if not most,residents are unaware that thely discusslon below of the Cheste�i'ield Township, a6out where and how growth would occur.Thfs
communiry has a general plan,much less what New Jersey,TDR program hfghllghts the advan- certa(nty is a significant benefitto developers "
that plan contains.So there wfli still he opposi- tages and disadvantages of a plan-amending who do not have to apply for rezonings but are
tlon to individual upzonfng appllcations asthey TDR program, assured ofexactlywhatthey ean build ffthey '
are proposed.However,most resldents wlll Even though plan-cons(stentTDR resolves follow ali the ruies,Including compliance with
agree that the 7DR component of the proposed many politfcal concems,there may still be the TDR requlrement.
upzoning does not cause any increase in devel- those who claim thatthls approach changes Despite these advantages,many com-
opment because the new maximum denslty is the rules midstream.They may argue that the munities don't have the resources orthe atten-
no hlgherthan the density called For fn the gen- community already granted the dens(ty de- tion span to estabtish a comprehensive TDR
eral plan.In fact,the amount of development ls picted In the general plan wfthout any precon- program like the one 3n Chesterfield.For these
identical with orwlthoutthe TDR mechantsm. ditions Ilke a TDR requirement.This argument places,a plan-consistent approath may be :
more appropriate slnce It allows communities
to preserve land fn the near-term future.Per-
haps some ofthese places wlll prepare them-
selves over time to try a comprehenslve effort
llke Chesterfield's.
DECIDING IFYOUR COMMUNIN
IS READY FOR TDR '
,�., ,;� The foundation for the following qulz Is our
, .''' ' .. ~ `�E�.�a.'�' 'L^-�. .Y' ���. 'S y{ .G ��- :
�� ����^s.�. � � '`` �`��• study,"WhatMakesTransFerofDevelopment
r r�` Rights Work?Success Factors from Research
' , ; -,., ` and Practice,"which appears in the Winter
* �F� r zoogissueofthe/ournaloftheAmericanPlan-
ningAssocJadon.In that paper,we identified
h �,.,
and ranked io success factors found ih the zo
' � . U.S.TDR programs that have preserved the .
� �: greatest amouni of land.Using the results of
�'� that study,we developed the four-questlon
quiz below to evatuate whether a community
is"ready-made"forplan-consistent7DR.Some
� - . � � - . - • . � , readers will have no trouble answering these
. � . - . d� . .• . . • .- • ..• , , four questions without hesitation.However,if
� • •� .• . . � , . �. you are inclined to say maybe to any questfon,
� you may find It helpful to refer to notes that
Pollow each questlon.
ZONINGPRARICE 9.09
AMFRICAN PIANN(RG ASSOCIA710N�page 4
Question s:Does your community often receive is a crude approximation of the acreage that allow the communityto incentivize the transfer
appticationsforupzoni�igs? couldbepreservedbyyourTDRprogramannu- ofdevelopmentrightsw3thoutchangingthe
TDR programs can work when developers want ally.If this seems like a meaningFul amount of maxfmum density set forth in the general plan.
to exceed many rypes of development restric- preservation,you should answer yes to Ques- Specifically,a community can allow,if needed,
tions.Sut to minimize confusion,this paper tion 1. more than one bonus dwelling ttnit in a receiv-
focuses on changes in land-use regulations Forexample,ieYs assume that the zoning ing area for each dwelling unit precluded tn a
thatallaw Increased residentfal density.Appli- in your Ilkely sending area requires five acres sending area without exceedingti�e generat
cations for upzonings indicate developerde- per dwelUng unit and that you estimate ihat plan's develogment capacity.Thfs enhanced
mand to exceed the limitations imposed under your community issues buildi ng permtts Eor zo' transFer ratio improves the condttlons fnr a
current zoning.Th3s demand Is one of the two dwelling units each year that are made possible viable TDR market by making the TOR price high
essentlal(ngredfents 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 unfts and assuming each yet low enough to motivate developers.Con-
of Development Rights Work?"If developers TDR represents five acres oFpreserved land, sequently,a yes response to this questlon is a
� � � , _ p ost important
ositive indicator for two ofthe m
��� � �' success factors identified in ourJAPA arUcle:
' ; - ` . Y� �� recelving areas customized to the community '
� and market incentives. I
�'' NOTE:Some respondents may be able to !
, .
answer Question z wlthout extensive thought
because theirgeneral plans either designate '
i � � no areas or many areas as appropriate for '
, �
:? future upzonings.However,for communities
tn the mlddte of this continuum,we offer
� - `'4� the fallowing suggestion:Consider whether
��a:�
._ � ,-4 � , the areas designated in the general plan for
- �'"., ��` future upzonings are capable oFsustaining
the bonus dwelling units that you consider
necessary to achieve a meaningful rate of
preservation.
Fot euample,leYs continue the assump-
tion thatyou wantto preserve at least ioo
�
� -, . � . �• . .. , . , , acres peryear and that this preservation rate .
• . . . . , . wlll requlre the transFer of zo TDRs peryear,
which represent zo dwelling units resultfng
from upzonings.Assume thatyou estimate
are typically satisfied with the devetopment your hypotheticalTDR program would preserve that your general plan desfgnates i,000 acres
poiential available under current zoning,they ioo acres of land peryear.If a preservation rate appropriate For an upzoning from one unit per
wlll have no need to exceed that densilylim3t if ofxoo atres peryear seems worth the eftortof five acres to two units peracre.If developers
it ultima#ely becomes baseline densfty under a adoptinga TDR program,you would answeryes wa�t to maximize this potent(al,a total of
TDR program. to Question i. i,800 bonus units would result(i,000 x z= ;
IYOTE:Some respondents may be able z,000 minus a Daseline of i,000 divided by
to answer Question 1 without much reHection Questlon a:Does your commun€ty's current ��E,or soo,yields a maximum potential fn-
because their communitfes experience elther general plan Indicate an adequate numberof crease of i,800 bonus units).
very few orvery many applications for upzon- areas appropriate for Future upzonings3 However,you may want to create a more
ings.Noweve,for those who fall in the middle !f yourgeneral plan designates areas that are conservative estimate by,for example,assum-
ofthose two extremes,we offer the following approprlate for upzoning,your communfty can fngthat developers only want to upzone halF
suggestion.Estimate the numberof dwelling readily make these areas into potential TbR re- ofthis area and that they only want to buitd at
units built in a typical year made possible by ceiving areas.This can relieve you of the need an average density ofone unit per acre.These ,
upzonings.Assume,for this exercise alone, to identify,discuss,and agree on individual more conservative assumptions stiN yleld a
that your pragram will grant one TDR for each receiving areas.The plan has already identified total oFqoo bonus un3ts(50o x i=50o mfnus
dwelling unit preciuded by easement in the them,To use them,a provision is added to your a baseline of 50o divided 6y flve,orsoo,yields
sending area and that each TDR wilk permit one zoning code that requ3res each unit resutting a maximum potential increase ofyoo bonus
bonus dwelling unit in the receiving area.Then from a future upzoning to comply with TDR units).7hfs qoo banus-unit capacity should
multiply your esiimated annuat number of bo- requlrements,effectively making these plan- theoretically generate the requlred so bonus
nus units by the amount ofsending area land approved places into potentlal7DR receiving units peryear for ao years,allowing you to
needed per dwelling untt.7Fie resulting number areas.These ready-made receiving areas also answer yrs to Question z.
_ ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09
AAIERicAN PtANNING ASSOCV01oN�page,5
-�+E ��';� � of adopting a TDR program,you would answer notchangeyour PUD ordinance and require i
' � i..1. � � ��`i ''4:&.�y
,4;
� � yes to Questlon 3. TDRs far att dwelling units permitted in a PUD
thatexceed the ma�mum dens(ty ofthe under-
�`` �� �;: .�- �.; Question q:lsyourcommunirywillingto re- lyfngzone.
"� ` �,�,, " � ,r�Y�� qufre compQance with 7DR requirements for �
�� ''� all(or mos�development In excess of current SCORING THE QUIZ �
,
� I zoning limitsi , A yes response to atl four questlons suggests
This question is designed to testwhetheryour thatyourcommunity is TDR-ready,meaning
community will require TDRs for all or most that a plan-consistentTDR program could be
bonus dwelifng unfts orwhetherother mecha- adopted with only moderate time aod effort If
I, . �:.
nisms are in place(and are lfkeiy to remain in you responded no to one or more quesHons,it
'.,,� �� place)that altow developers to achieve bonus does not mean that yourcommunfty ls not suit-
��' deneltywithout buyingTARs. able forTDR.Rather,no responses indicate that
�
` � � i
To offerjusta few examples,some com- itwilt probably take more workto adopt a suc-
, r munities offer bonus densitywhen devetopers cessful TDR program.For example,if a commu-
include certaln amenitles in their projects or nity rarely receives applicatfons for upzonings,
provide community benefits.Many communities demand foraddltional development can still �
grant dens(ty bonuses when developers cluster be created,bat it will likely require a compre-
f,ouses oruse a ptanned unitdevelopmentap- hensive plan revislan with substant�al pubtic
proval process.Needtess to say,developers w111 involvement.A maJor plann(ng effort of this '
� � � nat pay forTDRs ifthey cart get bonus density free scale is not extraordinary but,in our opinion, '
(or more cheaply)using an alternative to TDR. suggests that a community is not TDR-ready, f'
� � � NOTE.•To offer some guldance in answer-
� ingthfs question,wewould suggestthatyou NEl(TSiEPS I
answer no IFyour community atready has one of If your community is TDR-ready,It means
these altemative densfry-bonus technlques and adoption of a plan-consistent TDR mechanism
Question 3:Are the existing zoning
_� > �,
restdctions for the areas you want to preserve ���g..:� ,. �` �
adequate to discourage inappropriate * - t�i` '�" � 1
development? � '� ��� � ��� � � ���"�'°
' � �, `
-,r�:-
Question 9 is designed to test whether the `'� �� � r�.� �
zoningthat currently appUes to your sending
`;�,yM1, y- ha
areas is well suited to a workable TDR program. � -
In our/APA study,we found that i8 out ofthe ��
zo IeadingTDR programs in the nation fiave I�
sending-site zoning that limits on-site devetop- ���{
ment to no more than one dwelling unit per Hve
acres.Consequently,we would suggest that
you respond yes ifyour sendfng-s[te zontng is - �
_, _. .,
one dwefling unit per Rve acres or more.lf your "
sending-area zoning allows hlgher density,
considerrepeatingthe evaluation method de- '
s�ribed fn the note to Question i.The follow(ng . , , � � ,
0 . . . � .�. .�. . . .
note provides an example. � _ � �, ,� �_ _ ��_ � �
NOTE:Assume the zoning in your Ilkely
sendlhg drea requfres only one acre per
dwelling unit and you estimate thatyour com-,
munity issues buflding permits for ioo dwell- you strong[y believe thatyour community will could occur relatively quickly.Nevertheless,
ing units each yearthat are made possible nnt change these techniques so that developers some work is stili required even In TDR-ready
by upzonings.Assumfng one TDR for each of cannot easlty circumvent a TDR requirement For communitfes.Your community,often with the
the soo bonus units and assuming each 7DR example,yaur community may have a PUD code help of a citizen advisory committee,or CAC,
represents one acre of preserved land,your provlsfon that permits developments to exceed must make decisions on the most approprfate
hypothetical TDR program would preserve ioo the maxlmum densiry limit ofthe 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
oi zoo acres per year seems worth the effort tion 4 if you believe thatyourtommunitywould the proces�,the elected officfals should fde-
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09
�M�w auv+�an�assaanoN�paq.6
��.�t� ., � community embarks on a plan-amending TDR
,'� ;' � ' program iike the one described for Chester-
ar�� � ;` ' field,New)ersey. (��
� �.�,
Again,pfan•consistentTDRisnotneces- ��.; ��1���� R����� �
sarily right for all communities.But it can cre- EiVVIRO1dMENTAI REGULATiONS AMD
�, ate a workable preservation tool,in one year HOU5ING COSTS
or less,in communities that are TDR-ready. �
'��'' ` Anhur C.Nelson,r�vcv,/ohn Randolph,
`�\'I /oseph M.Schllling,Jonathan Logan,/ames
� ' M.McEl�ish/r.,and Newport Partners,LLC
(soog;lsland Press;z6z pp.;$35J
www.BeyondTakf ngsAndGivings.com.
Daniels,Tom,zoo7."Zoning for Successfut The effects of tradRionat zoning and subdivi- �
Transferabte Development Rights sfon contrals 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.zoo7.Markets�ur environmental regulations have on housing ;
Preserving Farmland!n MQryland: affordability,According to the authors af En-
Making TDR Progmms Work Better.
Queenstown:Maryland Center for �ironmental Regulatlons and Housing Costs,
Agroecology. the effect of environmental regulatfons on the
p . , , . , . � , Pruetz,Rick.zoo3.Beyond Takings cost of resfdential development has changed
and Glvin s:Svvin NaturalAreas, Ifttle in the past 3o years,despite assump- �
. �• . � g 9
Farmland and NistorlcLandmarks wfth tions to the contrary.While the authors do not
� Tiansjer o/Development Rlghts and deny the reality that all regulations add cost �
' DensltyTransferCharges.Marina Del
� Rey,Callf.:Arje Press. to the development process,they use data
Pruetz,Rick,and Noah Standridge.2oog. 8athered trom a case study of Metropolitan
'M/hat Makes 7ransfer of Development Washington,D.C.,and focus groups in Dallas,
Rights Work?Success Factors from Denver,and Tarson to make the case that the
ally articulate whether or not they are willing �esearch and Ptactice."/ournalofthe magnitude and nature of these costs as they
American P(anningAssoclation,75(i): relate to stormwater controls,sfte remedfa-
to treat all units arising from upzonings as i
78 8�� tion,weYlands er
bonus units and therefore subject to a TDR p m(tting,habitat protection,
requiremenf.If so,the CAC can develop recom- Roddewig,Richard 1.,and Cheryl and open space set asides has been mischarec-
A.inghram.i987.Transfem6fe terized and misunderstood.Nelson etal.offer
mendations on all the components outlined DevelopmentRlghts.PlanningAdvisory
above—what areas should quatify as sending Service Report no.poi.Chlcago: some much-needed ammunitfon for local
sites,what should constitute preservatlon, American PlanningAssociatfon. planners on the front lines of the fight over
how manyTDRs shoutd be granted to pre- Walts,Margaret,and Virglnla McConnell, land-use controls,but tAe authors punt on !
served land,how many bonus units should be Zooy.TronsferofDevelopmentRlghts the issue of how to increase efficlencies in
awarded per TDR,and if developers should be in U.S.Communlfles:Evaluatfng the development review process as a mearts
given a choice of complfance though cash-fn- Progrom Design,Implementatian,and to decrease the overa[I costs of regulatory
lleu payments as well as TDRs.These aren't Outromes.Washington,DC:Resources �ompliance.
snap decisions by any means.But they are forthe Future.
considerably easter than those needed when a
VOL z6,N0.9
Zoning Practice is a monthty publicatlon of the American PlanningAssoclallon.Subscriptions are
available for�75(U.S.)and$ioo(forelgn),W.Paul Farmer,Facp,Executive Director;�tliam R.Kiein,�ica,
� � � � ' ' Directorof Research
.
� � Zoning Pradice(ISSN i548—oi35)is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,acr,and David Morley,racr,Edltors;
lulie Von Bergen,Assistant Ediror,Lisa Bar[on,Design and Produ�tion.
.
• � � Copyright�Ozoo9 byAmerican Planning Associatlon,izz 5.Michigan Ave.,Suite iboo,Chfcago,
Il 6obog.The American Plannfng Association also has ofTces at i776 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,
� � � � Washington,D.C.zoo36;www.planning.org.
A �� .
� � � All rights reserved.No part ofthis publlcation may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means,electronic or mechanicai,including photocopying,recording,or by any inFormation storage and
retrieval system,without permission in wrfting hom ihe American Planning Associatfon.
Printed on recycled paper,including 50-7096 recyded fiberand io96 postconsumerwaste.
ZONfNGPRACTICE 9.09
AMERIUNPIANNINGASSOCIATION�page7 �
�4,�c����� c
Transfer of Development Rights
Potential Recommendations for Discussion
Scandia TDR Committee
October 29, 2009
Goals of TDR Studv Committee
• Determine the feasibility of using Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a tool for development
within Scandia to fulfill the vision and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
• If judged to be feasible and desirable, develop TDR Ordinance recommendations to present to the
Planning Commission and City Council with the goal of effectively implementing TDR in Scandia.
Recommendations will be in the form of a conceptual framework to include
o How we want TDR to work
o Identification of specific sending and receiving areas
o Specific criteria for parcels within sending and receiving areas
o Benefits for sending areas
o Benefits for receiving areas
How We Want TDR to Work
• Landowners who are interested in engaging in TDR as either a sending or receiving area may register
with the city.
• City administrators will keep a list of interested parties (Comp Plan p.184 ED IS 4.3.7)
• There would be a disclaimer allowing that,just because it has accepted a listing of interest in either
sending or receiving TDRs, the city is not guaranteeing that a TDR will be approved. A TDR
transaction must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council based on the TDRs
meeting the criteria described in the ordinance.
• The public will be made aware of this opportunity and these lists by announcement in the Scandia
newsletter and on the Scandia website or through a brochure describing the TDR process.
• Landowners in a sending area could permanently give up one or more development rights on their
property by selling it to a landowner in a receiving area.
• The permanent restriction put upon the land of the TDR seller could take the form of a conservation
easement or a recorded development restriction. This would permanently extinguish the development
right.
• Landowners in a receiving area could buy additional development rights for a given parcel of land by
first earning additional development rights under the bonus density provisions of conservation design
development (in the GR) or affordable/life cycle housing in the VN or VMU.
• In the GR, the limit on the number of development rights that may be bought is determined by the
number of development rights earned through a conservation development design—one TDR may be
bought for each bonus earned up to a maximum of 10 total development rights per 40(under
conservation easement bonus densities alone, the present maximum is 7 per 40—Comp Plan p.110)
• To mitigate the effects of denser housing development in the GR, a specific criteria for unobtrusive
visual impact of the development will be either given as a requirement for conservation development
design or as a much more highly weighted bonus.
• In the VN or VMU, the limit on the number of development rights that may be bought would be
restricted only by the availability of proper water and sewer(presently 1 dwelling unit per acre
maximum - Comp Plan p.176)
• In the VN or VMU a development right would be a dwelling unit.
• In the GR, VN and VMU the number of TDRs that may be purchased is also subject to provision for
proper water and sewer.
1
• Although density within receiving areas may be higher than that allotted in the Comprehensive Plan,
the density in the city overall will not change.
Sending and Receiving Areas
• VN and VMU are receiving areas
• GR is a receiving area
• Ag Core is a sending area
SPECIFIED CRITERIA for parcels within sendin�and receiving areas
• SENDING AREA parcel must meet one or more of the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan
and subsequent criteria:
o Agricultural preservation
■ Permanent protection of agriculture (Comp Plan p.196)
o Natural resource protection
■ Protection of priority natural features as identified within Scandia's Natural Resource
Protection Areas overlay(Comp Plan p. 132—L.U. IS 6.2.1) including:
• Exhibiting diversity
• Connected to other natural resource areas
• Of sufficient size to demonstrate diversiry
• With identified rare species = critical habitats
• High quality scenic view sheds identified in Scandia's scenic quality analysis
• Historic areas
■ Use composite score for quality of natural resources as reflected in the Natural
Resource Priority Overlay system (Comp Plan—p.153 — 168)
■ The ordinance will have to determine what is a"development righY'that can be
transferred, including looking at the issue of undevelopable resources within a parcel of
land.
o Scenic views and vista preservation
■ May use as a guide the composite score of view-shed analysis currently being
conducted
• RECEIVING AREA parcels must meet one or more of the following goals and specified criteria of
the Comprehensive Plan:
o In the VN and VMU - Life-cycle and affordable housing
o In the GR - Open Space Conservation Design bonuses (as stipulated in the present Zoning
Regulations p.2.12-10 -2.12-11)based on the criteria of that process. At present the criteria
and percentages of development rights that each can earn include:
■ Affordable housing— 5%
■ Preserve historic features— 10%
■ Clearly defined central focal point— 15%
■ Central boulevard/parkway—5%
■ Community sewage disposal— 10%
■ Community water system— 15%
■ Preserve woodlands— 10%
■ Preserve ag lands— 10%
2
■ Protect ecologically sensitive features— 10%
■ Preserve native plants/animal habitats— 10%
■ Preserve priority scenic views— 10%
■ Extend contiguous open space— 10%
■ Preserve natural drainage systems— 10%
■ Restore native habitat— 10%
■ Implement open space stewardship practices— 10%
o The specifics of these criteria, including percentages, need to be reviewed in light of the
current Comprehensive Plan.
o In order to help preserve the Scandia's rural character visual impact- a goal stipulated
throughout the current Comprehensive Plan- much stronger visual impact bonus language
should be a part of the new criteria.
Incentives
• Incentives:
o Landowners who do not want to develop their land will have a way of receiving some monetary
compensation for not developing it.
o Developers in receiving areas can acquire additional development rights for a parcel of land in a
receiving area, above and beyond that allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, by buying them from a
landowner in a sending area
o The city will recommend a tax break for land that has reduced development rights because of
transferring development rights, although such a tax break cannot be guaranteed.
o Developers in receiving areas will be able to increase the monetary return on their inveshnent by
increasing the number of housing units they can build on a given piece of property.
Regulatorv Measures
• To be determined by ordinance committee.
• Need to relook at the criteria for Conservation Design Development
• City needs to determine what constitutes a development right
3
��QC`l/,'�P�'l7'� D
City of Scandia
Development Code Update
Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts
Existing Zoning Districts 2009 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations for New
Land Use Areas Zoning Districts
ARICULTURAL/RURAL DISTRICTS
-Agriculture(AG) -Agriculture, Core(AG C) -Agriculture, Core(AG C) includes
-Semi-Rural Residential (SR) -Ag Preserves District
-General Rural (GR) -General Rural
NON-R URAL RESIDENTIAL AND B IISINESS DISTRICTS
-Single Family Estate(SFE) -Village Neighborhood (VN) -Village Neighborhood (VN)
-Retail Business (RB) -Village Mixed Use(VMU) -Village Mixed Use(VMU)
-General Business (GB) -Rural Commercial (R COMM) -Rural Commercial (R COMM)
OTHER USES
-None -Recreation Area, Protected(REC Pro) -Does not need to be a zone—
Recreation as allowed use in all
zones.
OVERLAYDISTRICTS New/revised overlav zones
underlined:
-Floodplain -Natural Resource Protection Areas -Develop natural resource
performance standards for all
zones
-Shoreland
-Lower St. Croix River Bluffland -St. Croix River Corridor -St. Croix River Corridor Overla *
v
replace County standards with city
1
2009 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations for New
Land Use Areas Zonin�Districts
OVERLAYDISTRICTS, continued
-Ag Preserves (AP) -Include AP in AG Core zone
-Lakeshore Traditional (LT) -Include LT and LCO in updated
-Lakeshore Conservation Overlay Shoreland Overlav Ordinance*
(LCO)
-Recreation Area-Planned -Allowed use in all districts, no
overlay zone
-Mining Area -New Minin Og verlav zone
-Scenic Roads and Viewsheds -Include performance standards
For scenic roads and viewsheds
in appropriate zones *
*complete in Phase II of
Development Code update
2