HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2018 Planning and Zoning CommissionI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Formal Meeting — 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
f W*1I [r.IO7T rM
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Rezoning Item:
Discussion of an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for the rezoning of
approximately 4.34 acres of property located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE from
Interim Development Multi -Family Residential Zone (ID-RM) to Low Density Multi -
Family Residential Zone (RM-12) for approximately 2.55 acres and Medium Density
Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-20) for approximately 1.79 acres. (REZ18-00020)
5. Fringe Area Rezoning Item:
Discussion of an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a rezoning
from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately
11.34 acres of property located south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie
Avenue SE.(CZ18-00002)
6. Zoning Code Amendment Item:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer
of development rights for historic properties. (ZCA18-00003)
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 20, 2018
8. Planning & Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban
Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time
to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 1 / November 151 December 6
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ18-00020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner & Anne
Russett, Senior Planner
Date: October 18, 2018
Applicant: IC Housing Group, LLC
366 South 1011 Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387
(320)-202-3100
mscarr@sandcompanies.com
Contact: IC Housing Group, LLC
366 South 1011 Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387
(320)-202-3100
mscarr@sandcompanies.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development - Multi -
Family Residential (ID-RM) to Medium Density
Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) and Low
Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-12)
Purpose: To allow the development of a 36-unit affordable
housing community and a multi -family or senior
housing community.
Location:
Location Map:
4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Total site: 7.90 acres
Rezoning to RM-12: 2.55 acres
Rezoning to RM-20: 1.79 acres
Remainder of site to remain Interim
Development -Single Family Residential (ID-RS)
zo ne.
Single-family home, Interim Development —
Single Family Residential (ID-RS) and Interim
Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID-RM)
North: Residential (County-R)
South: Multi -Family Residential (County-RMF);
Residential (County-R);
Commercial (County-C)
East: Residential (County-R)
West: Community Commercial (CC2);
Commercial Office (CO1);
Mixed Use (MU)
Residential, 2-3 dwelling units per acre
Northeast District Plan; Open Space
Lower West Branch (NE3)
Property owners located within 300 feet of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting
September 13, 2018
October 23, 2018
The applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development
— Multi -Family Residential (ID-RM) to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-
20) and Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-12). The total project site, located
at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway is south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott
Boulevard, is 7.90 acres. The applicant has requested rezoning approximately 2.35 acres to
RM-12, 1.86 acres to RM-20. The remainder of the site will remain Interim Development -
Single Family Residential (ID-RS).
The City annexed the property in 2017 and it is currently undeveloped. At the time of
annexation, the property was rezoned to Interim Single -Family Development (ID-RS) and
Interim Multi -Family Development (ID-RM) with no conditions attached. To the west of the
annexed property is the Olde Town Village commercial and mixed -use area.
The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy", and a Good Neighbor Meeting took
place on September 25, 2018 at Helen Lemme Elementary School. One neighboring
resident attended the meeting and expressed concerns related to construction site runoff
and stormwater management. They also expressed concerns related to the proposed
public street.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development — Single Family
Residential (ID-RS) and Interim Development— Multi -Family Residential (ID-RM). The
Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped properties without access
to City services. Interim Development Zones provide for areas of managed growth in which
agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until the city is able to provide
services and urban development can occur. Based on conversations with Public Works
staff, rezoning can occur at this time due to the proximity to current City water and sanitary
sewer, which the developer will be able to access. Public Works staff has requested water
pressure testing to ensure adequate water pressure is available to the site.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed a three part project with the rezoning for
Phases A & B taking place now, and C sometime in the future. For Phase A, the applicant
has proposed rezoning approximately 2.55 acres in the northwest of the parcel to Low
Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12). The RM-12 zone district allows for both single-
family and multi -family housing. A maximum of 37 units would be allowed on the 2.55
acres. For this section of the project, the applicant has proposed an affordable, family
apartment building on this site. The applicant has secured tax credits from the Iowa
Finance Authority for the project.
For Phase B, the applicant has also proposed rezoning approximately 1.79 acres in the
northeast of the parcel to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20). The RM-20
zone district allows for both single-family and multi -family housing, and the maximum
density allowed in this zoning district is 24 units per acre. The applicant is considering
either a multi -family housing community of around 45 units or a senior housing community
of around 52 units. A maximum of 45 units would be allowed on this 1.79 acre area,
however, if the applicant pursues the senior housing community the applicant can apply for
a 25% density bonus for elder apartment housing, which would bring the maximum
allowable dwelling units to 56.
In the future, the applicant wishes to rezone the southern portion of this property for Phase
C, but for now has requested to keep this portion of the site as Interim Development -Single
Family (ID-RS).
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan has designated this area for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units
per acre. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for
the 4.34 acre site being rezoned is 34 dwelling units. The rezoning requested would exceed
the dwelling units called for in the comprehensive plan; however, the comprehensive plan
also calls for development on smaller lots to conserve land and allow for more affordable
housing, as well as providing a mix of housing types to provide options for households of
all types and income levels. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan encourages housing
diversity and a mixture of single family residential along with townhomes and small
apartment buildings. The Northeast District Plan lays out how this should be done by
locating townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to neighborhood commercial areas
and at intersections of arterial and collector streets.
City staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive and District
Plans due to the location of the project near the Olde Town Village commercial areas and
along the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, therefore a mixture of housing types, including
multi -family, is appropriate. Additionally, the development of a variety of housing types as
proposed addresses the goal of creating housing for a mix of household types and income
levels.
Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located on a site annexed in 2017 just
south of Herbert Hoover Highway. The areas to the north, east, and south are not within
Iowa City boundaries, and are currently undeveloped and agricultural, though they are
zoned residential. The area to the west is a neighborhood commercial area with attached
and detached multi -family housing to the south of the commercial area. To the southwest
of the project site is commercial office.
City staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighborhood. The
proposed rezoning places the RM-12 zone district to the northwestern area of the project
site, which will place an apartment building next to the neighborhood commercial area,
and south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial. The proposed rezoning also places the
RM-20 zone south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, and east of the RM-12 zone. This
focuses the higher density housing along the arterial and next to neighborhood
commercial.
The applicant has provided a concept plan and elevation for the design of the two multi-
unit buildings. The proposed multi -family communities are subject to the multi -family site
development standards outlined in the zoning code. The purpose of these standards is to
promote safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The standards address
multiple design elements, such as screening, landscaping, building placement, and
building articulation. Staff will reviewthe project against these standards at the site plan
review stage.
Traffic Implications, Access, and Street Design: The Northeast District Plan discusses the
importance of an interconnected transportation system. Therefore, this site will be
accessed via Herbert Hoover Highway by a proposed north/south road to be constructed by
the developer. The proposed north/south road will eventually end at the southern property
line allowing for an extension should the parcel to the south redevelop. The maintenance of
the north/south road will be the property owner's responsibility until the completion of
Phase B. Once completed, the road will be dedicated to the City, and at that time, the City
will take over maintenance. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring the provision
of the north/south street, built to City standards, to be platted and dedicated to the City as a
public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney. Staff has also received a concept plan that shows the general layout of
the buildings and the north/south road. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring
general conformance with the concept plan in terms of the layout of the roadway.
Herbert Hoover Highway is the arterial street connecting the property to the rest of Iowa
City. Per the Iowa DOT, the current average daily traffic on Herbert Hoover Highway is 4,650
and the theoretical capacity of this arterial is approximately 15,200. Therefore, the roadway
can accommodate traffic associated with the proposed rezoning.
Herbert Hoover Highway is currently not built to City standards because there is no curb,
gutter or storm sewer. The Subdivision Code gives the City the discretion to approve
development on roads that do not meet City standards, provided the developer contributes
to the cost of improvement. For arterial streets, the fee is 12.5% of the cost for street
improvement, based on the City Engineer's estimate.
The RM-12 and RM-20 zone districts require a 40-foot building setbackfrom arterials. Due
to the number of dwelling units allowed in the proposed multi -family zone districts, staff
recommends adding a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan at the time of
platting to ensure landscaping along Herbert Hoover Highway provides a noise and wind
buffer from the arterial. Staff suggests working with the City Arborist to identify appropriate
species for buffering and an appropriate tree density.
Currently, there is an 8-foot sidewalk built on the south side of Herbert Hoover Highway.
This also acts as a sidepath for bicycles. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks on
both sides of public and private streets, so additional sidewalks will be required at the
time of platting along the proposed north/south street.
The proposed development is closest to the Eastside Express bus line, with a bus stop
approximately half a mile away. Slightly further are the Eastside Loop and Rochester
lines.
Neighborhood Parkland or Fees in Lieu of: The Northeast District Plan calls for increasing
neighborhood opportunities for accessing open space by incorporating pocket parks as
well as smaller public or private open space areas. Per the open space dedication
requirement formula, the developers must account for approximately 0.28 acres of public
open space or pay a fee in -lieu.
Infrastructure Fees: For this 4.34 acre area being rezoned, there is a requirement of $435
per acre for water infrastructure. There is another infrastructure fee of $1,038.26 per acre
that covers the cost of taping into the City's sanitary sewer system.
SUMMARY:
Based on the analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning with certain conditions
attached fits with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, especially
when considering the affordable and mixed -type of housing proposed. The proposed
rezoning would allow for multi -family as well as single family housing at various densities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing,
LLC, for a rezoning from ID-RM to RM-20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM-12 for
approximately 2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert
Hoover Highway and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following
conditions:
1) A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a
public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
2) A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a
landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing
communities at the time of platting.
3) No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and
generally conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map with Current Zoning
2. Zoning Exhibit -Proposed Zoning
3. Concept Plan
4. Concept Elevation
5. Summary of Good Neighborhood Meeting & Sign -in Sheet
6. Letter from neighboring property owner
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
UE:iy
CC2
CC2 CC2 y
CC2
g. 0
RS5 RS5 CC2 u �<A -
RS5 a.. MU
RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 CC2 CC2 - C01
RS5 � �z MU
RS5
,� RS5 CC2 N CC2
RS5 >� CC2 -
V
2S5 y _ M1Dp�EEUR Ro
> .
RS5 RS5 •„.. '"�
� OPDS
RR55 R ��._ ��- OPD8 O.PD8KQ OPDS �.
OPDS
An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC OPDS
for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 HerbertHoover 8
Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family
Residential (ID-RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family PDT`
Residential (ID-RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential \'
(RM-12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20),""F
and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12).
� r r
. -dry
CITY OF IOWA CITY
rl
'+ f"
RS5 R55 5
O
SS RS5
Z
UNBRIDLEDAVE
RS5 Z.�r
_
RS5 A
RS5
RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5 Z
RS5
RS5 RS5
RS5 0
RS5
RS5 ,RS5 RS5
-.
RS5
RS5
RS5 ? RS5 RS5
-.�
GRINDSTONE[
_,
O
'
RS5' ¢ 'RS5
RS5 RS5
RS5 ¢ ,RS5 RS5
RS5 U RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5 RS5
- -
F'RS5
RS5 > RS5 RS5
W Y
i
a
r
RS5
t
51TE PLAN
5CALE: I = 50'-0°
OPTION 8G
PROPERTY LINE
UTILITY EASEMENT
PARKING
PARKING TOTAL 66
SURFACE PARKING: 66
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
�����WE IN IN IN
�9
I�����a�
mac°
10-11-2018
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF SAND ARCHITECTS, LLC ANY
REPRODUCTION OR REUSE OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS
FORBIDDEN WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM
SAND ARCHITECTS, L-C.
_
i
..k�
Summary Report for
Good Neighbor Meeting
Project Name: NEX/IC Housing Group II, LLC
� r
�,604
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Location: 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE
Meeting Date and Time: September 25, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:00 pm
Meeting Location: Helen Lemme Elementary School Library
Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Megan Carr
Nikki Sand
Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett, Jesi Lile
Number of Neighbors Attending: 1 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No
General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Why does the road need to run to the southern property line?
Overall, no opposition to the proposed development, but concerns on stormwater runoff.
Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Concerns relating to stormwater runoff (as a neighboring developer is currently
impacting the neighbors ponds with stormwater runoff).
Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe:
IC Housing Group, LLC has requested clarification from the City to determine if we can
have the road end in a cul-de-sac or if a dead-end road to the southern property line will be required.
Staff Representative Comments
SIGN -IN SHEET
IC Housing Group, LLC
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
NAME
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
�j%/_L� �AlD�DRE/SSS / �^
11
2
`' M
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ml
MEARDON, SUEPPEL & DOWNER P.L.C.
LAWYERS
ROBERi N. DOWNER
DOUGLAS D. RUPPERT
TIMOTHY J. KRUMM
WILLIAM J. SUEPPEL
CHARLES A. MEARDON
PETER J. GARDNER
SEAV W. WAN DRO
GRANT D. LIENTZ
STEPHANIE A. WORRELL
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Russett:
1 22 SOUTH LINN STREET
IOWA CRY. IOWA 52240 -1 802
TEIEPHONE: (31 9) 338-9222
F- : (31 9) 338-7250
WWW.MEARDONLAW.COM
October 1, 2018
HAND DELIVERED
WILLIAM L. MEARDON
(1 91 9- 1 997)
OF COUNSEL:
JAMES D. McCARRAGHER
RETIRED:
WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL
THOMAS D. HOBART
MARGARETT. LAINSON
Enclosed herewith is a letter from Ted Pacha regarding the proposed development by Sand
Development Group LLC at 4632 Herbert Hoover Highway. I believe you have spoken
with Ted about these matters. At his request, I am submitting this letter to you in the hopes
you will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its October 4, 2018 meeting.
Although the letter is self-explanatory, I do want to echo some of the concerns reflected in
Ted's letter. The Churchill Meadows Development has been nothing but a headache for
Ted. Please review the pictures enclosed with his letter. As you are aware, the runoff from
the Churchill Meadows Development has basically destroyed Ted's pond. The developers
of Churchill Meadows refuse to address the situation with Ted. The developer claims that
the City and the contractors are now responsible for the problems the developer created.
Thus far, the City's efforts to assist have been, with all due respect, ineffective. Now, on the
heals of Churchill Meadows, another developer wishes to build on property north of Ted's
pond which will again drain towards Ted's property.
At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever storm water detention requirements the City
had for Churchill Meadows are not working. Ted is extremely concerned that the storm
water requirements to be imposed on Sand Development Group will be as effective as those
for Churchill Meadows. As shown in his letter, Ted asks that all of the storm water
management issues be addressed immediately to preserve Ted's property.
7OR
V YEARS SERVING THE CORRIDOR
Anne Russett, AICP
October 1, 2018
Page 2
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or Ted.
Very truly yours,
Charles A. Meardon
CAM/tw
Enc.
Cc: Jeff Fruin
Ben Clark
October 1, 2018
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Anne,
F" �.f ;jT'j
Thank you for your time on the phone last Tuesday Re: the 4632 Herbert Hoover
Highway (Iowa City Housing Group LLC) application for a request for change in
zoning coming before the City Planning & Zoning Committee on October 4. As I
mentioned on the phone, I am leaving town that morning for a business trip and will be
unable to attend the meeting on that date.
I went to the Good neighbor Meeting on September 25, but must have just missed you. I
did talk with Megan Sand Carr, Sr. Business Development Manager from Sand
Development Group LLC. I told her of my considerable concerns with run-off from
another development north of my pond and the extreme likelihood that I would have
the same problems. I am currently having with the Churchill Meadows Development.
The severe sediment runoff from that development has been causing my family angst
since May of 2017.
The Iowa City Engineering Department and the DNR have allegedly been fining the
developer of Churchill Meadows for months to no avail. See pictures attached of the
two "rivers" of brown sediment that runs down from this development. This developer
states it's not his problem as the contractors and the City are responsible for these
issues. I have spoken with the appropriate city employees, Ben Clark, Julie Tallman,
etc., but nothing seems to change.
I have spent nearly $40,000 to have the pond dredged and removed thousands and
thousands of cubic yards of sediment in hopes the runoff problem had been solved at
Churchill Meadows Development. Clearly this is not the case as evidenced by the
attached photos taken in the last 3-4 weeks!
Acme Russett, AICP
October 1, 2018
Page 2
What does the Churchill Meadows Development have to do with the Sands Group
request? Everything. The City of Iowa City and Planning and Zoning should not
approve another development north of my property and pond until resolution is found
for the runoff from Churchill Meadows!
I do not want to hold up on the Sand's Development request, but clearly it will be a
repeat of what I have been dealing with since May of 2017!
At the neighborhood meeting with the Sands Group last week, they showed me plans
for their development. On Lot C they wanted a cul-de-sac, but were informed by the
City it would have to be a street poured directly up to my property line to the South of
Lot C! Why? That would be a direct paved path to the north of my property line which
would create another river of water, sediment, etc. to my pond! Why does the City of
Iowa City insist again to run streets directly to my property (I have two streets to
nowhere to the west of my property now). My property is in the county! These streets
are useless, not to mention the developers tore out fences, trees, etc. for the streets to
nowhere and have replaced or repaired none of these.
Anne, you requested that I detail my issues in writing so you could forward to the
appropriate people at the City. Sorry this is so lengthy, but this was been very
frustrating for me and my family.
Thank you,
l W f446--
Ted Pacha
319-631-3146
Copy to:
Ben Clark, City Engineer
Jeff Fruin, City Manager
9/26/2016
IMG_1924.jpg
https:Hmail.google.con/maiVu/O/#inbox/FMfrgxvzKbLVkWCHFgVRVCKRFxppTGbd?projector-1 &messagePartld=0.1 1/1
20180926_103138.jpg
ti
httpsJlmail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzKkvckjrzwstRngtFxWQXVWxG?projector-1&messagePartld=0.2 1/1
n yAiako-
F
k1
i r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2018
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner & Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner
Re: CZ18-00002 South of American Legion Road
Background Information
The applicants, Claude and Adam Greiner, are requesting a rezoning from County
Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11.34 acres of property
located in Johnson County South of American Legion Road and West of Wapsie Avenue
SE in Fringe Area B — Outside of Iowa City's Growth Area. Because the property is within
Iowa City's two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will
make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the
County Commission considers the application. The final decision on the rezoning falls
within the County's jurisdiction.
If this rezoning is approved, Claude and Adam Greiner intend to develop a county
subdivision, and divide the land into seven single family residential lots and one outlot.
As proposed, each buildable lot is slightly larger than one acre and each lot will have its
own septic system. There will also be a private well installed to service all seven lots. The
proposed outlot would serve as an area for storm water management. City approval will
be required if the property is subdivided as proposed.
Analysis
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is currently zoned County Agricultural (A) and has two grain bins
located on the site. Properties to the north, east, and west are zoned County Agricultural
(A) and County Residential (R), with residential properties lining American Legion Road.
Properties to the south are zoned County Agricultural (A) and are being used for row
crops.
Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows for single
family homes on lots at least 40,000 square feet. The area along American Legion Road
currently has many residential properties to the northwest. Areas to the east and south
remain in agricultural production.
Compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan
The County recently updated its Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map of
the comprehensive plan designates this area Residential. The Residential land use
category allows for, "single-family detached dwellings with a preferred density of one unit
per acre or denser." Although the density shown on the concept plan is less than one
dwelling unit per acre, the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
October 12, 2018
Page 2
Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement
In reviewing proposed rezonings in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in
the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance
regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits.
The agreement's slated purposed is to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to non -urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area's
natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas
with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and
economically provide services for future growth and development.
This property is located in Fringe Area B — Outside the City's Growth Area. For this area,
the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement
states:
"Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be
restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as
indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a
Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson
County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended."
According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category
envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with "very limited
residential development." According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural
uses are defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with
residential uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger.
Staff recognizes the conflict that exists between the County's updated Comprehensive
Plan and the adopted Fringe Area Agreement. The County's Comprehensive Plan also
outlines a goal to work with local jurisdictions on updating Fringe Area Agreement. Staff
is willing to coordinate with County staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement to address
these conflicts.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement, which is part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning. Staff
recognizes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's recently updated
Comprehensive Plan; however, staff relies on the Fringe Area policies when reviewing
rezonings in the Fringe Area.
Attachments.
1. Aerial photo
2. Rezoning exhibit
3. Concept plan
Approved by: .J ,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
01025196� �0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
VI DU'
e
m
SE 1/4 NW 1,A
SEA �, 1 T9N-ReW
- - N88'35_57" E- 2648.94'
NE 1,14 SW 1 /4
SEG 21-T79U-R5W
W 1/4 CORNER
SEC. 21-T79N-R5W
FOUND STANDARD
CONCRETE MONUMENT (SCM)
FLUSH WITH THE GROUND
BOOK 36, PAGE 20
EXISTING ZONING - A AGRICULTURAL
PROPOSED ZONING - R RESIDENTIAL
REZONING EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
EXHIBIT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
CLAUDE J. GREINER &
MARY F. GREINER
1412 J PLACE
KALONA, IOWA 52247
REZONING DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING AT THE EAST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 79
NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA;
THENCE S88035'57"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE -QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 1117.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING S88°35'57"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 1535.05 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE -QUARTER (SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE CENTER OF SECTION 21); THENCE NO1°42'50"W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 21 A DISTANCE OF 643 73 FEET'
, THENCE
\ S68°41'48"E, ALONG THE PROPOSED SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
` \ AMERICAN LEGION ROAD SE, 1667.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 11.34 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
\ \ RECORD.
REZONING EXHIBIT
SCOTT TWP.
Lower
Wei10
�pA•
aI---
' n
,e
is
,A
i s
�
i
--
'g
T.---
i —r'—
I--�--i
I
23
I 24
420th St.�
420t�St.
97
xe i
as
`
hC6rWb
A. R.
LhA
—OSMS SIL
1
89 y
e4
M
FUTURE LOT 2
\,
REZONING TRACT
AREA — 11.34 ACRES
v
----.----
R
\
� R1cN
PRE ,
_____ ---------- ---- _ ------r-- -_---- -----
FUTURE LGT G of
OSW <Y166jB ci
Ripy O. E
DIN
�
+ �
--___
\
BIN ------
FU VFF LOT 3 FUTURE LOT A
--
'--__ --__-_- 11\
FURORE LOT 7
I
\ \
\
EXISTING ZONING - A: AGRICULTURAL
SW 1/4 NE /4
PROPOSED ZONING -,,R RESIDENTIAL FUrORE Ov1�T A
SEG 2�-T79N5W
(FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT)
A
FUTl1RE ,IJT 5
SE
SEG.
I/4 NE 1/4 \
2[_T79N-R5W
\
_
S88'35'57"W 1117.10'
1535.05'
S88 35 5
I
I
NW 1/4 SE I/A
'_tic al T79N-{zsw
31
pI
�I
a
zz
I
I
S 1/4 CORNER
SEC. 21-T79N-R5W
FOUND 5/8"0 REBAR
3"t DEEP
BOOK 43. PAGE 206
LEGEND AND NOTES
w
- CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND
- CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED
CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION
•
- PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted)
O
- PROPERTY CORNERS SET
(5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap
embossed with "MMS" )
0
- CUT 'X"
- PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES
— - - — - - —
- - — - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES
- - - - -
- - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES
- -
- — - CENTER LINES
- LOT LINES, INTERNAL
--- - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED
-------------------
- EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED
----------------------------
- EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED
(R)
- RECORDED DIMENSIONS
(M)
- MEASURED DIMENSIONS
C22-1
- CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER
UNLESS NOTED OTHER1eSE, All DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS
SOILS MAP
LLB
Zo
122
r`
,6yDg 2 ,
r
Ui2C3 ,6�8
,ba
NO.
SOIL TYPE
SLOPES
1208
TAMA SILT LOAM
2-5
%
1626
DOWNS SILT LOAM
2-5
%
162C2
DOWNS SILT LOAM
5-9
%
163D3
FAYETTE SILTY CLAY LOAM
9-14
%
291
ATTERBERRY SILT LOAM
0-2
%
E 1/4 CORNER
I
\ SEC. 21-T79N-R5W
I
FOUND STANDARD
CONCRETE MONUMENT
POINT OF
(SCM) 4"t DEEP
BOOK 52,
NE 1/4 eE 1/4
PAGE 163
I �G 2l-1_79N-ReW BEGINNING
M
M
s
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
(319)351-8282
www.mmsconsultants.net
Dote I Revlslon
REZONING EXHIBIT
SEP 13 2018
R
A PORTION OF THE
S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SEC. 21-T79N-R5W
OF THE 5TH P.M.,
JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
Date' 8/31 /2018
5u eyed by: Field Book No:
RRN 1231
Drawn by: Scale:
MAS 1"=100'
Checked by:
Project No:
IOWA CITY
10507-002
No:
1
of: 1
i r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2018
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of
Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003)
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Since that meeting, staff prepared two memos to the City Manager regarding a potential ordinance
[Attachments 1 and 2] and the City Council discussed the establishment of a city-wide TDR
ordinance for historic preservation at two work sessions and directed staff to move forward with
its development for Council's consideration. [Attachment 3]
At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on October 18, staff will present a draft TDR
ordinance [Attachment 4] for the Commission's review and recommendation. This memo provides
a background on TDR programs, summarizes the existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings,
and outlines the draft ordinance. The draft is based on a September 4 work session discussion
with the City Council.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
October 12, 2018
Page 2
Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is LotArea of the Sending SiteXMaximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Proposed City-wide TDR Ordinance for Historic Preservation
Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has developed a draft ordinance to apply
city-wide. A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below.
Eligible Sending Sites
Staff proposes that eligible sending sites include properties eligible for Iowa City historic landmark
designation. More specifically, a sending site must be designated as an Iowa City historic
landmark after the adoption of the proposed city-wide ordinance in order to be eligible for the
transfer incentive. Furthermore, properties already within existing Iowa City historic districts and
conservation districts are not eligible to obtain Iowa City landmark status and benefit from the
TDR incentive.
Eligible Receiving Sites
The eligible receiving sites proposed include the properties zoned Riverfront Crossings and zone
districts that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use'. This includes
all multi -family residential zone districts and several commercial zone districts. Properties
designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, Iowa City historic districts, and designated in the
National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 5]
' Permitted uses area I lowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria
and standards.
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Transfer of Development Rights
Staff proposes to consider transfer requests for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not
both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed
either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no
more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. Staff does not recommend any restrictions
on the increase in density transferred.
Staff proposes to calculate these transfers as follows:
(1) Height Bonus Option:
• Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure.
In cases where the transfer is less than 12 feet, staff suggests including a
provision that 12 feet may be transferred even if the difference is less than 12
feet. In many instances historic properties are residentially zoned, which
typically have a maximum of 35 feet. Since historic buildings typically have
higher ceilings a two-story historic building may not result in much of a height
transfer. Therefore, staff suggests allowing a transfer of 12 feet, which will allow
a minimum of at least one story to be transferred.
(1) Density Bonus Option:
Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City
historic landmark designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
Transfer Review Process
Staff proposes that any request for a transfer be reviewed by the staff design review committee,
which will then submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval.
Historic Preservation Commission Review
On October 11, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Commission voted to move the proposed ordinance forward in the process; however, they
did outline some concerns and suggestions. Below is a list of their comments and staff's feedback.
1. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future
Iowa City landmarks.
In 2018, the City Council approved Iowa City landmark designation status for the following
properties:
• David Boarts (Sylvanus Johnson) House, 412 N. Dubuque Street
• George and Hellen Hummer House, 504 E. Bloomington Street
• Parrott House, 1029 N. Dodge Street
• Albert Henry Byfield House, 715 Park Road
• Anton Geiger House, 213 E. Market Street
The Commission felt that these recent designations should receive the incentive due to
their very recent designation. The Commission also expressed concern that the proposed
ordinance could deter downtown property owners from supporting a downtown district.
October 12, 2018
Page 4
The Commission suggested considering allowing future Iowa City commercial historic
districts, and potentially, future districts, in general, to be eligible for the incentive.
Staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to the properties
designated in 2018. In addition, staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to
apply to properties within future Iowa City historic districts to help incentivize the creation
of local historic districts. Based on a conversation with the Historic Preservation Planner,
at present there are a limited number of areas in the city that would be eligible for a local
historic district. Lastly, to ensure consistency between the city-wide ordinance and the
existing Riverfront Crossing's ordinance, staff also recommends amending the TDR
provisions in Riverfront Crossings to include Iowa City historic districts.
2. The Commission expressed some concern over the receiving sites and the potential
impact of additional height and density in existing residential neighborhoods. One
Commissioner expressed concern regarding the process and lack of confidence in the
design review committee.
The proposed ordinance suggests capping height bonus transfers at 40 feet beyond the
maximum height of the receiving site. In addition, any request will need to be reviewed by
the design review committee and City Council. However, to address the Commission's
concerns staff recommends incorporating the following provisions that protect existing
single-family neighborhoods: For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, limit
the height to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home.
3. Lastly, the Commission requested that staff explore other incentives, such as property tax
reductions.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The draft ordinance supports the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy:
Goal. Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets.
Strategy.- Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas
and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve
as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development.
The City's Historic Preservation Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft
ordinance supports the following historic preservation goals:
Goal 2. Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement
this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
October 12, 2018
Page 5
Attachments.-
1 . July 18, Memo to eoff Fruin, City Manager
2. August 29, Me t Fruin, City Manager
3. Staff presen do to n m er ,
4. Draft O e
5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
i r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 1.
Date: July 18, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator
Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Update on Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic
Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
This memo provides an overview of TDR, outlines the City's existing TDR policy in the Riverfront
Crossings District, and highlights some issues that staff will need to further analyze before moving
forward with a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated and consider the following: 1) is there a market for these transfers; 2) can the
infrastructure in the receiving area handle the additional development; 3) does the
comprehensive plan support the additional development in the receiving area.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
October 12, 2018
Page 2
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is LotArea of the Sending SiteXMaximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
even when the resulting height bonus does not exceed two stories
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Potential Receiving Areas for a City-wide Historic Preservation TDR Program
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council seemed interested in identifying potential
receiving areas for a city-wide ordinance. The table below outlines some potential options for
receiving areas, as well as some pros and cons.
Potential Receiving Area
Pros
Cons
Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan & form-
- Current allowable
based code
densities and
encourage higher
intensities combined
densities and
with height bonus
intensities
provisions are
Current receiving area
generous
for the form -based
code TDR program for
historic preservation,
public right-of-way,
and open space
transfers
Downtown
Core of the city with
Receiving properties
access to amenities,
in the downtown may
services, and
be limited due to the
transportation options
results of the
downtown historic
building survey that is
underway
South Johnson Street and
Area already zoned
Smaller geographic
South Van Buren Street
for higher density
area that may not be
between Court Street &
housing
able to accommodate
Railroad
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Transfers could
provide an incentive
for redevelopment of
this area
the demand of a city -
wide ordinance
Land designated for multi -unit
- Areas are already
Potential concern
development
zoned for higher
from neighboring
density housing
property owners
- More scattered
approach that would
not concentrate
transfers in one area
Any combination of the above
areas
Next Steps & Conclusion
Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide
ordinance. Specifically, staff will:
- Conduct best practice research
- Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
- Further analyze potential receiving areas
- Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of
potential transfers
The proposed timeline for the project is as follows:
Date
Task
June —August 2018
Research and analysis
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council 11 reading of ordinance
December 4, 2019
City Council (2"' & possible 31 reading of
ordinance
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8-month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 2.
Date: August 29, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Update on Research and Policy Questions regarding Possible City-wide Transfer of
Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation until the
end of January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
At the August 7 work session, the City Council discussed the July 18 memo to the City Manager,
which provided an overview of TDR, summarized the City's existing TDR provisions in Riverfront
Crossings, and outlined potential receiving areas. At the work session, the Mayor expressed
interest in South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets from Court Street to the railroad tracks
being a receiving area if an urban design plan existed for the area.
This memo provides an update on staff's research and analysis and outlines specific policy
questions for the City Council. In order to meet the January 2019 deadline, staff needs direction
from the City Council on the following: the formula for calculating the transfer of development
rights, the priority of preserving historic resources compared to bonus provisions currently offered
for other public benefits, the process for the review and approval of development transfers, and
areas to further pursue as receiving sites. In general, staff recommends a program that is fair,
legally -sound, easy to administer, and simple to understand. Additionally, staff wants an effective
program that preserves historic resources while not compromising the ability to achieve other
important comprehensive plan goals.
Overview of Research & Analysis
Sending Areas
Staff conducted an analysis of possible sending areas in order to estimate the potential for
development transfers. Staff estimated the amount of development that could be transferred
through a city-wide TDR program by applying the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula'.
Furthermore, the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions require that prior to requesting a transfer
of development rights, the property must be designated as a local landmark. Therefore, in this
analysis staff applied the transfer formula to existing landmarks (see Table 1).
' The formula for calculating the transfer in Riverfront Crossings is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
October 5, 2018
Page 2
Table 1. Summary of Transfer Potential of Local and NRHP-Listed Landmarks
Sending Sites
Development Transfer Potentia12
(square feet
Local Landmarks Only
4,367,0683
Local Landmarks & National Register of
5,368,9974
Historic Places -Listed Landmarks
The analysis conducted only looks at existing local and national landmarks. There are several
other buildings that are eligible for local landmark designation and the Historic Preservation
Commission has been proactively identifying sites to locally landmark. The City is also in the midst
of a survey of downtown historic properties. Several properties in the downtown are eligible for
local landmark designation. As more properties are landmarked the transfer potential will continue
to increase.
Staff reviewed several other
future landmark designations.
sites. However, some cities
eligible as a sending site.
TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to
In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending
required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming
Receiving Areas
The areas identified by staff as potential receiving areas include:
Riverfront Crossings,
Downtown,
South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the Railroad, and
Land Designated for Multi -Unit Development throughout the city.
Using these areas, staff conducted an analysis to determine the amount of existing development
potential (see Table 2). For the analysis, staff identified vacant and underutilized sites within the
potential receiving areas. The following areas were removed from the analysis: land within the
500-year and 100-year floodplains, local historic landmarks, local historic districts, conservation
districts, and publicly zoned land. In addition, several historic properties in the downtown were
removed from the analysis. For a more detailed outlined of the methodology, please refer to
Attachment 1.
Table 2. Summary of Development Potential for Receiving Areas
Potential Receiving Areas
Development Potential
Development Potential
(square feet(dwelling
units
Riverfront Crossings
2,522,3135
Downtown
242,4716
South Johnson Street & South
-
-
Van Buren Street between
Court Street and the Railroad'
Citywide Land Designated for
5,389,5258
845
Multi -unit Development
Total
8,154,3091
84511
2 Staff used the square footage of the RISE, which is 363,268 sq ft (excluding the lower levels), as a gauge-
3 Approximately equivalent to 12 RISE buildings-
4 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings-
5 Approximately equivalent to 7 RISE buildings-
6 Approximately equivalent to 0.67 RISE buildings-
7 None of the properties met staffs criteria for underutilized.
6 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
s Approximately equivalent to 22 RISE buildings.
10 The residential portion of the RISE includes 332 dwelling units.
October 5, 2018
Page 3
Accommodating the potential development transfers depends on a number of factors, including
the eligible sending and eligible receiving sites. Another option to consider that could also help
preserve historic structures is a parking reduction. Instead of transferring development rights, the
receiving site could purchase the right to receive a parking reduction. Staff has not explored this
thoroughly. More research is required to better understand the viability of this option.
Other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs
Staff also reviewed other local jurisdictions' TDR programs across the country that focus on
preserving historic resources. For a more detailed overview of other programs, please refer to
Attachment 2.
Transfer Formulas
There are different ways to approach calculating the transfer rights from a sending site to a
receiving site. Several cities consider the existing development on the sending site. More
specifically, these cities calculate the transfer by taking the maximum development potential of
the sending site less the existing development on the sending site. To provide an incentive, many
cities also allow development to exceed the maximum allowable density/intensity on the receiving
site. Table 3 outlines some examples.
Table 3. Example Transfer Formulas
Local Jurisdiction
Transfer Formula
Chico, CA
(Max density of the sending zone X Acreage
of sending site) Less (Existing and proposed
Number of dwelling units on the sending site)
'Receiving site bonus above that allowed by
comprehensive plan
Minneapolis, MN
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Floor area of existing development on
sending site)
'Receiving site bonus of 30% above max
allowable floor area
Pittsburgh, PA
(Max allowable development) Less (Existing
amount of development)
'Receiving site density bonus of between 20%
and 200%
Providence, RI
(Max allowable height) Less (Height of historic
landmark)
'Receiving site bonus height of 1.6 times the
max height or 300 ft, whichever is less.
Vancouver, WA
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Existing floor area of the sending site)
'Receiving site development must not pose
hazard to low -flying aircraft.
West Hollywood, CA
Residential: (Max allowable dwelling units)
Less (Existing number of dwelling units)
Commercial: (Max allowable floor area) Less
(Existing floor area)
'Receiving site FAR bonus allowed through
Planning Commission review and approval.
West Palm Beach, FL
(Lot area X Max allowable floors) Less (Floor
area of existing structure)
*Receiving site height bonus.
Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront
Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings does
not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site. In establishing the
October 5, 2018
Page 4
transfer formula for Riverfront Crossings, staff anticipated a significant amount of redevelopment
pressure, and therefore, intentionally recommended a generous transfer formula in order to
incentivize the preservation of historic resources.
Approval Process for Transfers
TDR programs also vary in how the sending and receiving of transfers are reviewed and
approved. Many jurisdictions have a process that requires review by either the City Council or a
board or commission. Table 4 provides some examples of how other local jurisdictions review
and approve transfers.
Table 4. Examples of TDR Processes
Local Jurisdiction
TDR Approval Process
Chico, CA
Non -administrative: City Council
approval
required
Minneapolis, MN
Administrative: Review and approval by
Planning Director
Pittsburgh, PA
Non -administrative: Historic Preservation
Commission approval required
Providence, RI
Non -administrative: Downtown
Design
Review Committee approval required
Vancouver, WA
Non -administrative: City Council
approval
required
West Hollywood, CA
Non -administrative: Cultural
Heritage
Advisory Board reviews and
approves
rehabilitation plan
West Palm Beach, FL
Non -administrative: Downtown
Advisory
Committee review and approval required
The City's existing TDR provisions require that the City Council review and approve any transfer
of development rights request. Although several of the example jurisdictions above include the
equivalent of the Historic Preservation Commission in the review, some also require review and
approval by the City Council. Only one jurisdiction, Minneapolis, MN, reviews and approves
transfers administratively.
Administration & Tracking
Staff also looked at how other local jurisdictions administer and track TDR programs. Table 5
outlines some examples from other jurisdictions.
Table 5. Examples of TDR Administration & Trackinq
Local Jurisdiction
Tracking Mechanism
Chico, CA
Documented in adoption of Specific Plan or
Planned Unit Development or executed
through a Development Agreement.
Minneapolis, MN
Recorded with the County as a conservation
easement or similar restriction.
Pittsburgh, PA
Legal document signed by sending and
receiving site property owners and approved
by the City Attorney. Document outlines
reduction in development rights on sending
site and increase on the receiving site.
Providence, RI
Owners of sending and receiving sites
execute a deed or other agreement to be
recorded with the title to both sites.
West Hollywood, CA
City staff maintains a list of eligible sending
sites to assist potential receiving site
developers.
October 5, 2018
Page 5
City staff mainta
rights available
City -approved
outlines transfer
the sending and
ns a registry of development
and transfers. Execution of
restrictive covenant that
Covenant recorded against
receiving sites and added to
There are a variety of methods that other jurisdictions employ to administer and track TDR
programs, some are more complex than others. The Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions do not
outline a method for tracking transfers. Currently, planning staff maintains a spreadsheet of
approved transfers and the applicable sending and receiving sites. More formal tracking
mechanisms should be contemplated in a city-wide TDR program and developed in coordination
with the City Attorney's Office.
Receiving Areas
Table 6 outlines other jurisdictions' receiving areas.
Table 6. Receiving Areas
Local Jurisdiction
Receiving Areas
Chico, CA
Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
receiving site can accommodate the additional
development.
Minneapolis, MN
Sites within the downtown that are not a
designated historic structure or eligible for
designation.
Pittsburgh, PA
Focused in the downtown.
Providence, RI
None specified, but program is focused in the
downtown.
Vancouver, WA
Sites with the same zoning district as sending
site.
West Hollywood, CA
Medium and high -density commercial zones.
Do not allow transfers into residential zones.
West Palm Beach, FL
Specific sites identified in the downtown.
Issues / Constraints
Several cities across the country have adopted TDR programs to preserve historic resources and
some are more effective than others. There are variety of factors that could impact the success
of program, which are outlined below.
Market Potential
At this time staff does not have a market study that examines the market potential for a city-wide
TDR program and completing a market analysis within the timeframe required is not feasible.
Therefore, it is unclear whether a demand for such a program exists.
Lack of Certainty in the Process
Another factor that could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program is how transfers are reviewed
and approved. Programs that allow by -right transfers that are reviewed and approved
administratively provide more certainty for developers. Programs that require a discretionary,
public process provide less certainty and more risk to developers.
Other Bonus Mechanisms
Some of the more effective TDR programs provide few or no other alternatives to achieving
additional development potential. If other mechanisms exist to developers to achieve more
development potential it could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program. Some examples that
the City currently offers in Riverfront Crossings include bonuses for public art, Class A office
space, affordable housing, and energy and environmental stewardship.
October 5, 2018
Page 6
Policy Questions for Council
The most fundamental question for City Council is whether they wish to continue to pursue a city-
wide TDR program to preserve historic resources. If the City Council would like staff to continue
to pursue a city-wide program, staff needs direction on the following policy questions:
1. Should eligible sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only
future local historic landmarks?
The City has 52 local historic landmarks and the Historic Preservation Commission is
working to identify and designate more local landmarks. In addition, the downtown
includes a number of properties that are eligible for local landmark designation.
Some options include:
a) Eligible sending sites include existing and future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
i. Fair
ii. Consistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
• Cons:
i. Depending on the transfer formula and the identified receiving sites
the city may not have enough capacity to receive all of the potential
transfers.
b) Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
i. May be easier to accommodate the transfer potential
• Cons:
i. Inconsistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula
that is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings form based code or a new formula?
The transfer formula adopted in Riverfront Crossings was intentionally generous to
incentivize preservation in an area anticipated to be redeveloped. The formula does not
take into consideration existing development on the sending site; and therefore, results in
higher transfer potential. Using the same formula for a city-wide program provides
consistency and clarity between the two programs. It would also make administration and
tracking of the program easier. However, depending on the receiving sites identified there
may be an issue with the capacity available for development on the receiving sites.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula.
• Pros:
i. More generous, could provide more of an incentive to developers
ii. Consistency in administration, application, and simpler to
understand
• Cons:
i. More generous, may not be able to accommodate the amount of
potential transfers
b) Establish a new transfer formula that considers the existing development on the
sending site.
• Pros:
i. May be able to accommodate the potential transfers with a less
generous formula
• Cons:
i. More complex and more difficult to administer
October 5, 2018
Page 7
ii. May want to revisit the Riverfront Crossings transfer formula to
ensure consistency, which would require more time
3. The City already gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with
development projects. Should preservation of historic resources be treated in a
similar manner or given a higher priority?
Several other programs across the country provide an incentive to transfer development
rights by allowing a density or intensity bonus on the receiving site. This comes in many
forms: height increases, additional floor area, and additional dwelling units. The City's
zoning ordinance currently includes several bonus provisions.
In the central business district zones (i.e. CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10) bonuses are reviewed
and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of
public benefits:
• Masonry finish;
• Provision of a theater;
• Funds for street furniture, lighting, and landscaping within the public right-of-way;
• Open space;
• Adaptive reuse of certain historic properties;
• Provision of off-street loading areas that meet specific requirements; and
• Provision of class A office space. II
In the planned high density multi -family residential zone (PRM) bonuses are reviewed and
approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public
benefits:
• Materials, specifically masonry finish;
• Open Space;
• Rehabilitation of a historically significant building;
• Assisted housing;
• Streetscape amenities;
• Landscaping; and
• Installation of window units that have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater
than the width.12
In addition to the bonuses offered fortransferring development rights, height bonuses may
be requested in Riverfront Crossings for several public benefits. Requests to exceed the
base height by two stories are reviewed and approved administratively. Requests to
exceed the base height by more than two stories are reviewed and approved by the City
Council. Bonuses are reviewed for the following public benefits:
• Class A office space;
• Public art;
• Energy efficiency and environmental steward through Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) or a similar program;
• Student housing;
• Hotel space;
• Workforce or affordable housing; and
• Elder housing.13
Some options include:
a) Model a city-wide TDR program on the current bonus provisions offered in the
central business district zones, planned high density multi -family residential zones,
and Riverfront Crossings.
11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2C-8.
12 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-213-7.
11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2G-7.
October 5, 2018
Page 8
• Pros:
i. Simpler and easier to administer
• Cons:
i. Bonuses for multiple public benefits may dilute the effectiveness of
preserving historic structures
b) Allow transfers for historic properties to exceed the City's current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity).
• Pros:
i. Offering more of a bonus may be more of an incentive to preserve
historic resources over bonuses offered for other public benefits
• Cons:
i. Community concerns with additional density/intensity and height
ii. An analysis of the potential impact of an additional bonus would
take time to evaluate
4. What type of process should be established for the review and approval of sending
and receiving transfer of development rights?
The City's existing TDR provisions require review and approval by the City Council when
a transfer of development rights is proposed. In staff's review of other TDR programs
several require a non -administrative review and approval; however, some jurisdictions
review and approve development transfers administratively in order to streamline the
process and provide some certainty.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings review and approval procedure by City
Council.
• Pros:
i. Simpler and consistent with current process
• Cons:
i. Lack of certainty in the approval process
b) Establish a new procedure that allows transfers up to a certain height or
density/intensity to be reviewed and approved administratively. This could be
similar the City's existing central business district bonus provisions or certain
Riverfront Crossings' bonus provisions, which are reviewed and approved
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified threshold would be reviewed
and approved by the City Council.
• Pros:
i. Streamlines the review and approval of transfers
ii. Allows the City Council to review and approve larger transfers that
would potentially have more of an impact
• Cons:
i. Not consistent with current process
5. What areas should a city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving areas?
Staff has proposed a few options for potential receiving sites:
• Riverfront Crossings,
• Downtown,
• South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and
• Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development.
Based on the analysis staff conducted there is limited development potential in the
downtown due to the number of historic structures. There is also limited potential for
October 5, 2018
Page 9
redevelopment along South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets since none of the sites
in this area met the threshold needed to be identified as vacant or underutilized.
Furthermore, the Mayor expressed interest in this area as a receiving site only if
accompanied by an urban design plan. Staff could explore the development of an urban
design plan for this area, but completing a plan by the January 2019 is not feasible. The
most capacity exists on multi -unit zoned parcels city-wide. Riverfront Crossings also has
capacity, if the area is rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation.
Some options include:
a) Riverfront Crossings, and/or
• Pros:
i. Current receiving area
ii. Master Plan and form -based code encourage higher
densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. May not be able to accommodate the amount of transfer potential
for a city-wide program
b) Downtown, and/or
• Pros:
i. Core of the community with existing infrastructure
ii. Commercial zoning allows for higher densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. Significant amount of historic buildings; and therefore, not able to
accommodate much transfer potential
c) South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and/or
• Pros:
i. Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment
ii. Zoned for higher density housing
• Cons:
i. May require the development of an urban design plan, which would
take time
ii. May not be able to accommodate much transfer potential
d) Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development, and/or
• Pros:
i. Provides the most capacity for transfers
• Cons:
i. Could potentially be more impactful and cause concern from
neighbors
ii. Areas with sensitive
require a sensitive a
clustering. Transfers
densities.
e) Other sites or areas
features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands)
-eas development plan which often leads to
to these areas could result in even higher
Next Steps & Conclusion
In terms of next steps, staff will prepare a presentation for the September 4, 2018 City Council
work session. In addition to the tasks outlined in the timeline below, staff will need to conduct
some public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders.
Date Task
June —August 2018 Research and analysis
October 5, 2018
Page 10
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council (1st reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
City Council (2nd & possible 31 reading of
ordinance)
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8-month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
Attachments:
1. Methodology for vacant and underutilized sites
2. Overview of other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
ATTACHMENT 1.
Methodology for Vacant & Underutilized Sites Analysis
1. Potential Receiving Areas:
a. Riverfront Crossings'
b. Downtown
c. South Johnson & South Van Buren Streets between Court Street & the Railroad
d. Land zoned for multi -unit development, including commercial zones that allow
multi -family (city-wide)
2. Removed the following from the potential receiving areas:
a. Land within the 100 & 500-year floodplain
b. Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts
c. Historic properties within the downtown
d. Publicly zoned parcels and other parcels that do not allow multi -unit development
3. Vacant & underutilized sites analysis:
a. Used Assessor data to identify vacant sites
b. Underutilized sites include the following:
i. Improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the
buildings on the site are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more
likely to be redeveloped
c. Staff also referred to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the areas
identified for potential redevelopment
d. Additional sites were included based on staff's knowledge of potential future
developments
4. Calculated development potential of vacant & underutilized sites:
a. Commercially -zoned properties: Floor area ratio (FAR)
i. FAR converted to square footage by multiplying the maximum height by
the lot area
b. Residentially -zoned properties: Density (dwelling units / acre)
i. Density converted to maximum allowable dwelling units
c. Applied 80% discount factor assuming that maximum allowable density/intensity
will not be achieved
1 Staff assumed rezoning of all properties to Riverfront Crossings
ATTACHMENT2.
Overview of other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs
Eligibility
Mechanics
City
Sending
Receiving
Base Unit
Calculation Method
Administration
Tracking
Approval Steps
Notes
Istrument recorded in the office of the county
Applicant proposes sending site/
Must be either residential sending
"Must be zoned for multi -family
3 different
clerk in which the property is located re
applies for severance or direct
transfer of dev rights - approved by
areas, a parcel suitable for
residential or mixed uses
"development factors"
Property owners submit applications for
owners, persons with interest in property,
council. City ("governing body") must
Pop. 486,000 Sec. 16-28.023 of:
greens paceor a p p ert y
, property
provided that residential
may be transferred:
Development potential of the site minus the
designation as sending/ receiving sites/
prohibitions against future use of property,
determine if receiving site is
https://library.municode.com/ga/atlanta/c
Atlanta, GA
designated as a landmark
component represents at least
floor area ratio, total
landmark's existing development
approval of transfers. Approved by City,
etc. If sites are within close proximity of one
appropriate for dev and that the
odes/code _of_ordinances?nodeld=PTI11
building/site or as a historical
50% of the project", must show
open space, and
recorded by Bureau of Planning
another, a joint app can be submitted.
transfer won't cause adverse
COORANDECO_PT16Z0_CH28GESUR
building or site by the Atlanta
future use of the property meets
useable open space
Bureau of Planning has a system for
environmental/ economic/social
E_S16-28.023TRDERI
Historic Preservation Ordinance
reqs as outlined in the code
monitoring severance, ownership,
impacts, administers a specal permit
assignment, and transfer of dev rights.
if approved.
Similarly, applicants must make
"a statement outlining the
Sites not automatically eligible; in
availability of support services
"bank"
Pop. 86,000. Chapter 19.34 of the
application for TDR the owner(s)
and infrastructure necessary for
(((# of DU/Gross Acre) allowed in sending
Rolled into PUD/Development Agreement
Doesn't appear to be a TDR entity.
Same process they use for PUDs,
following link:
Chico, CA
outline how their site fulfills the
the dev" of the receiving site.
Dwelling Unit
zone)'(sending site's acreage)) - (existing and
process
The TDR is recorded within the specific
Specific Plans, and Development
co.ca.us/government/docu
TDR conservation program
Essentially the onus is on the
proposed # of DU on sending site)
PUD/Development Agreement
Agreements
ment/w itlel9
ments/Title19update.pdf
outlined by the City
applicants to do the legwork of
determining eligibility, then city
gets to pass judgment
Eligible if: 1) the historic property is
w/in an urban historic district;
Property owner must submit a form
2) the historic property is a
to the Planning Director indicating the
contributing structure listed in the
sending site, the receiving site and
pop. 1.3 million
National Register of Historic Places
Difference between existing floor area of
Planning director approves form for sending
the amount of development rights to
http://dallascityhall.com/departments/sus
Dallas, TX
if it is located in the West End
Located in the Central Area, CA-
Floor Area
landmark building and the amt of floor area
and receiving sites and amt to be
Applicant files form with county deed
be transferred; is checked for
tainab o
tpme
Historic District; and
1(A) and CA-2(A) districts
allowed by zoning of sending site; transfer
transferred; county deed recorder records
recorder
compliance; when receiving site
uildin /bevel tProgrcument
s/pdf/building/DevelopmentProgramAppli
3) the historic property has been
ratio is one-to-one
form
developer requests a buillding permit
cation.pdf
rehab'ed w/in the last 5 yrs and the
for a project using dev rights, the
total value of the rehab exceeds
recorded transferring form is checked
50% of the property's pre -rehab
and building permit is issued
value
"In order to be eligible for TDR, the
resulting use of the 'to be regulated'
Applicant submits site plan for
property [sending site] must be in a
proposed sending site indicating amt
manner to advance goals,
"Office floor area and residential units can be
of dev that should be accomodated
objectives, & policies of the
Redevelopment areas and height
interchanged at the rate of 2,000 square feet
Applications submitted to City. Local
Application is processed as a rezoning
on that site; sending site is rezoned
Pop. 67,000 Section 4.6.20 of:
Comprehensive Plan through:
overlay zones; if a redevelopment
of office floor area being equal to one
Planning Agency determines
request, ordinance outlines the value of the
(applies to rezone sending site to
https://library.municode.com/fl/delray_be
DelrayBeach,
a Preservation of historic
()
area, the development proposedsevered
Residential Dwelling
9
residential dwelling unit. A conversion from
99
appropriateness of sendin and receiving
9
development rights. Certificate of
Community Facilities, Open Space,
Y p p
ach/codes/land develo ment_re ulation
_ p 9
FL
structures &sites; (b) Obtaining
for that site must comply with the
Units or Floor Area
office to residential, or from residential to
sites and certifies it to the City
Development Rights is issued, approved by
or Conservation Zone; receiving site
s_?nodeld=CH4ZORE_ART4.6SUDIRE_
land for public facilities; c
p ()
redevelopment plan for that area
office, may occur at an time u to the
Y Y p
Commission. Certificate approved b Cit
pp Y Y
City Attorney.
may also need to be rezoned, if so, is
Y
S4.6.20TRDERI To date, no TDR
Preservation of designated
application of the Certificate to a receiver
Attorney.
processed concurrently); owner
applications have been submitted.
conservation areas; (d) Any time
property"
receives certificate which states value
when a voluntary action would aide
of transferred rights, which can be
in fulfilling a policy/ objective of the
sold/transferred to receiving site
Comprehensive Plan."
Any land with significant
"determined as capable of
TDR Certificates. Records both sending
Pop. 75,000. Section 4.7 of following
archaeological, historical, or
accepting dev rights based on the
Density (units per
As much as the maximum possible density or
and receiving sites simultaneously.
Doesn't appear to be a TDR "bank" entity.
Certificate applications reviewed by
link:
Largo, FL
environmental significance, OR
Comp Plan and the Development
acre) or Intensity
intensity of sending site
Contains restrictions as provided in
The certificate gets recorded with the County.
Planning Commission
https://www.largo.com/document_ center/
accordingto a redevelopment Ian
p p
Code" Amount limited b site's
Y
(FAR)
FAR
application or as determined b City
pp Y Y
Permits%20&%20Plannin /Plannin /CD
9 9
approved by Planning Commission
municipal service capacity
Commission.
C/Adopted_2018_CDC.pdf
Pop. 4.03 million
Article 4.5:
Redevelopment Agency must
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll
consider whether an app for TFAR
/Cal ifornia/lapz/m un icipalcodechapteripl
Redevelopment Agency, City Planning
meets all 6 conditions --if yes, they
anningandzoningco/chapterigeneralprovi
Floor Area Ratio, 3:1
Commission LA CityCouncil and Mayor
Y
approve app. City Planning
sionsandzonin /article45transferoffloorar
g
Los Angeles,
any parcels within the Central
any parcels within the Central
or 6:1 depending
Based on floor area ratio -- 3:1 or 6:1
must all individually consider whether an
Commission, City Council, &
earights-
CA
Business District Redevelopment
Business District Redevelopment
the subarea in which
is
depending on the subarea in which the site is
application for TFAR (Transfer of Floor
Filed with City Clerk.
Mayor all repeat this process.
at
centr?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi
Project Area
Project Area
the site is located
located
Area Rights) meets all conditions.
Director issues a report
Cproval
d=am legal: lapz_ca$anc=JD_C1A4.5
"Developers
Commission offically approves transfer
recommending approval/ approval w
l/ w
are required to pay a Public
following public hearing.
conditions/ disapproval of req for
Benefit Payment on transfers in order to
Transfer.
fund public open space, affordable
housing, cultural/public facilities, historic
preservation and public transportation
improvements."
"Receiving parcels must meet all
three of the following criteria:
1) ID-ed as Traditional
"calculated on basis of baseline density of the
Historical sending sites must be
Neighborhood Residential or
Mixed -Use Residential/
sendingparcel, less an existing dwelling
p Y 9 9
Planning department approves TDRs from
Land Bank can buy either TDRs or property
Y p p Y
Owner of qualifying sending site must
q Y 9 9
any landmark listed in the
Commercial on Future Land Use
units. For parcels w/in residential zoning
sending sites, administers certificates. Land
in fee simple; may determine TDR value
submit a preliminary app, followed by
Pop. 4,000 Article III:
Greenprint and registered as a
Map;
districts, the baseline density shall be the
Bank Board has influence in determining
using negotiation, a competitive bid process,
a certification app, to the planning
https://Iibrary.municode.com/ga/madison
Madison, GA
Landmark by the Madison Historic
2) W/n the "higher density"
Density
gross acreage of the parcel divided by the min
TDR. value, holds TDRs until purchase by a
or any other method deemed fair and
dept. Receiving site owner must
/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=PTI1
Preservation Commission. (other
portions of the W. Washington
lot area of the zoning district. For non-
receiving site owner. Mayor and city council
equtiable by the Bank Board. Applications for
apply; dept schedules application for
COOR_CH54PLDE_ARTIIITRDERI_S54-
non -historical sending sites apply
Gateway; and
residential zoning districts, baseline density
must review receiving site at public
both receiving and sending sites are recorded
mayor and council review at public
54TRDERIPR
to the TDR program as well)
3) W/in 2000 ft of a neighborhood
f t o
shall be calculated at four units per acre. The
meeting.
with the County Court Clerk. TDR Certificates
meeting. Upon approval, planning
center, w/i20
ft of a
area of a parcel with fractional acreage will be
are recorded in the TDR Register.
dept. records the transfer.
neighborhood park and w/in 1500
rounded down to the nearest 1/4 acre"
ft of an arterial street or state
hi hwa ."
Administrative -level review of TDR
Pop. 415,000. Specifically designed for
Lots with locally designated or
Doesn't really have an explicit
(Maximum GFA permitted by sending site's
Application for TDR submitted, if approved
applications by Planning Director.
Historic Pres. Can transfer to up to four
eligible historic structures within
criteria, other than it's a site
zone) - (GFA of existing development on
it's recorded with the County in the form of
"conservation
"bank"
Decision is final, can appeal denials
different receiving sites from one sending
Minneapolis,
specific districts, as determined by
within specified downtown
GFA
sending site) however, receiving site is capped
a easement or similar
Doesn't appear to be a TDR entity.
through P&Z commish. Building
site. Link:
MN
the City's Heritage Preservation
districts and the Planning
to 30% above its zone's maximum allowable
restriction acceptable to the city," specifying
p Y
The certificate gets recorded with the Count
9 Y
permit not ranted for receiving site
p 9 9
htt s://Iibrar .municode.com/mn/minnea
p Y
Commission.
Director approves of the transfer
GFA
amount of floor area transferred and
until sending site's historic structure
polis/codes/code_ of_ ordinances?nodeld
involved parcels.
has been rehabbed and approved by
=MICOOR_TIT20Z000_CH549DOD1_A
HPC
RTI IITRDERI 549.270DE
Owners of sending sites and
owner of sending site records an easement
receiving sites must apply for transfer
Parcels within two designated
that permanently precludes additional
Conveyances of sending site's rights is put in
of development rights with the
historic zoning districts or Historic
ordinance identifies five specific
maximum floor area allowed by the base
development on the site; developers may
writing in an instrument that is then signed by
planning dept. is in Planning dept.
Pop. 690,000
Nashville, TN
Landmark Districts (all designated
areas within the downtown as
Floor Area
zoning minus the floor area of the landmark
purchase or be donated dev rights (if owned
by the City or State or a non-profit
owner, submitted to planning dept with
charge of approval. TDRs are
allocated to receiving property only
https://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances
in 2007 with the Downtown
receiving sites
building
preservation org, rights can only be
approval, then recorded in the office of the
once the rights are noticed in writing
/term_2003_2007/b12007_1369.htm
Community Plan Update)
donated); Planning dept receives app and
register of deeds.
in an instrument signed by owner of
approves it.
receiving site that is submitted to the
tannin dept.
"places, buildings or structures in
properties in CBD-1, CBD-2 or
any Central Business District
CBD-2B districts; properties in
owners of both the sending and
(CBD) zone that are either
CBD-9 zone can receive dev
Applications are approved or denied by the
to finalize transfer, applicants must file with
receiving sites must submit an
Pop. 391,000 Section 16.8 of former
designated as historic landmarks
rights transferred from the CBD-8
difference between the maximum floor area
Planning Commission following a public
the City both an instrument of transfer and a
application to restrict development
code -- is no longer in effect.
New Orleans,
or recognized as having special
zone; projects which incorporate
Floor Area
allowed by the zoning code, without bonus
hearing; if approved, recommendation for
notice of restrictions on the sending site with
rights on the sending site and
https://www.nola.gov/city-
LA
historic, community or aesthetic
°
TDRs may exceed by 10 /o the
density increases, and the actual floor area of
approval is forwarded to the City Council;
the deeds of both the sending and receiving
increase density on the receiving site;
planning/czo/former-comprehensive-
value"; they cannot be owned by
by -right density, in addition to
the existing building to be preserved
Council may approve, modify, or deny.
sites
goes through public hearings for
zoning-ordinance/former-new-orleans,-la-
the City, State, or Federal
bonus density increases, allowed
Planning Comission and City Council
zoning-thru-June-20,-2014/
Government
on the receiving site by baseline
zoning
Located in certain districts. Not a
historic site. Located >= 150 ft
Application for "major ARB review of
Pop. 67,000. City Code states: "The city
from residentially zoned property
For Historic Rehab Buildings: "allowed to
Functions under their Floor Area Bonus
the project proposed for the receiver
does not guarantee that at all times in
They designate certain buildings
(except in MU zones or OPDs).
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or
process. Site owner of approved historic
"recorded document, signed by the transferor
site" filed, including historic rehab
the future there will be sufficient elgibile
(Historic Category 1 or 2). TDR
Other stipulations regarding sites
"downtown
25% of exisiting building, whichever is greater,
pres F.A.B. must enter into an
and transferee... in a form designed to run
plan, specific amount of dev rights
receiver sites to receive such TDRs."
Palo Alto, CA
granted only upon approved
within their parking
Floor Area
without having this increase count toward the
"unsubordinated protective covenant
with the land and satisfactory to the city
planned to be transferredand
,
Chapter 18.18 at following link:
applications with specific
assessment district." Limits on
FAR." Certain subdistricts have more
running with the land in favor of the city"
attorney... identify
identifying] the sender site and
identification of sender & receiver
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll
rehabilitation plans for those
FAR within certain subdistricts as
restrictive FAR limits. Also stipulates that,
assuring the property will be rehabbed
the amount of floor area transferred."
Rehab plan reviewed by HPC . sites .
/Cal ifornia/paloalto_ca/paloaltom unici pal
buildings.
well. Total additional floor area
"This bonus area must be fully parked."
according to applicable standards.
Upon completion, Planning Director
code?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi
capped at a max of 10,000 sf,
issues written determination of
d=am legal: paloaIto
unless more restrictive FAR caps
sending site's bonus eligibility.
_ca
for that subdistrict exist.
Three sending areas (Sending
Treasure Hill, Sending Old Town,
Sending site property owners can
and Sending Historic District);
Planning Director determines the number of
"Each time credits are transferred from a
request a Development Credit
pop. 8,300 Ch. 15-2.24 of:
designed to preserve open space,
All properties within the TDR-
Allocation ratios vary depending on sending
development credits allowed to a sending
sending site, a conservation easement or
determination letter from the Park
https://parkcity.municipalcodeonline.com
Park City, UT
environmental areas/ sensitive
Receiving overlay zone are
Density
area. 1 TDC = 1,000 sq ft of bonus
site. Sale/ transfer of credits is conducted
deed restriction is recorded." A Development
City Planning director. Those credits
/book?type=ordinances#name=15-
lands, structures of aesthetic/
eligible to receive Transfer
commercial floor area or 2,000 sq ft of bonus
between transferer and transferee or their
Credit Certificate must be recorded in the
may only be sold/ conveyed/
2.24 Transfer_Of_Development_Rights_
2.24—T ansfery_Zone
architectural/ historical
Development Credits.
residential floor area.
legal representatives, to be recorded by
county's property records when credits are
tranferred by the owner to the
significance. All vacant lots in the
Planning Director or designee.
transferred/sold.
transferee and then must be reissued
Park City Historic Sites Inventory
in the transferee's name.
are elli ible.
Residential density can be converted to non-
residential floor area and vice versa.
Pop. "Intended to propote enhancement
Conversion Formula. One dwelling unit shall
of the.. City's symbolic western gateway
be equivalent to 850 square feet of non-
Owner of sending site records a written
and to facilitate preservation of historic
residential development and 850 square feet
With proper written consent of sending and
covenant documenting the transfer, approved
"Department
Transfer can be approved by the
structures and beloved open spaces"
Pasadena, CA
Can be anywhere within the West
Can be anywhere within the West
Density
of nonresidential development shall be
receiving site owners, any property owner
by City Attorney. maintains
Zoning Administrator as long as the
Chapter 17.36.060.B :
Gateway Specific Plan area.
Gateway Specific Plan area.
equivalent to one dwelling unit.
within the area may transfer.
records of all transfers and the current
receiving site project meets
https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/pasaden
Any development rights transferred from a
density allocations, if any, of all the
regulations.
a/codes/code_ of_ ordinances?nodeld=Tl
donor site shall be deducted from the
properties within the specific plan area."
T17_ZONING _ CODE _ART3SPPLST_C
additional density otherwise allowed on the
H17.36WEGASPPL_17.36.060WGGED
parcel by this Section.
EST
1:1 transfer ratio: "the amount of development
Pop. 306,000. Program has only been
"has
available for transfer is the difference between
Must be a "plan and program for
used about 3 times; it not been of
Located in C5 & C6 districts, can
the existing amount of development on the
rehabilitation... and maintenance" of the
great interest to potential developers...
Lots containing City -designated
be commercial or residential.
sending site and the maximum amount of
structure for at least 40 years beyond the
Must be approved by the City's
because the pace of commercial
historic structures (which can be
Commerical: floor area rights
development which would be allowed on that
The City's Historic Review Commission
transfer. Must also be a legal document
Historic Review Commission. Prior to
"there
development has not generated enough
designated as such without the
from sending sites in one district
sending site under the zoning code". If sending
approves the transfer. City Solicitor
signed by involved parties and approved
approval, shall exist a plan and
demand to justify the acquisition of
Pittsburgh, PA
9
consent of the property owner or
p p Y )
can only be transferred to zoning
Y 9
Floor Area
& receiving sites are adjacent, max amt of
approves a legal document signed b the
pp 9 9 Y
the City Solicitor. "The department, bureau,
u,
program for rehabilitation for
additional development capacity and
p p YI 1
not -for -profit performing arts
lots in the same district.
development allowed the receiving can be
parties concerned, which is filed with the
and all other affected City departments shall
continuing maintenance of the
base zoning allows millions of sq ft of
facilities in two specific districts,
Residential: rights can be
the
2x the allowed by the zoning code. If not
application for occupancy permit.
note appropriate records the reduction in
Historic Structure or Performing Arts
future development without the need for
labeled C5 and C6.
transferred from an other zoning
Y g
nt,
adjacent, development can only be increased
development rights on the sending lot and
to
Facilityfor not less than 40 ears."
��� Y
discretionary approvals. Consequently,
Y pp q Y'
lot in C5 & C6 districts.
by o more than density allowed by base
the increase ... on the receiving lot"
Pittsburgh developers have little
motivation to use the TDR ordinance."
zoning.
in .
(SmartPresenration)
"Buildings listed in the National
Downcity Design Review Committee (DRC),
"encourage
, 'fee owners of sending &receiving lots
Register of Historic Places for
Structures within the Downcity
"shall
Difference between height of landmark and
created to development
execute an agreement to be recorded with
Pop. 180,000 Chap. 27, Article 6.03,
which the applicant donates a
District; be restored and
max height allowed to sending site under
compatible with historical character while
the title to both lots... for a term that equals
Application must be approved by the
Section G of following link:
Providence, RI
preservation restriction whose
maintained as required by the
Building height
current zoning; height of receiving site cannot
creating a 24-hr ped-friendly downtown that
,
or exceeds the life of the project of the
Downcity Design Review Committee
https://library.municode.com/ri/providenc
purpose is the preservation of the
downtown design review
exceed 1.6x the max height or 300 ft,
promotes art, entertainment and housing",
receiving lot" any changes to plan must be
at a public hearing.
a/codes/code of_ordinances?nodeld=PT
exterior of the building"
committee"
whichever is less.
reviews all proposed improvements within
approved through a new application
IICOOR CH27Z0 ART6DODI 603DEIN
— — —
the district, including TDR.
Civic San Diego TDR Program (a
nonprofit org owned by the City)
"To qualify, must contain
designated historical resources and
Transfer is approved by Civic San Diego
sending site owners must enter into a
Pop. 1.41 million Has not been used
be located on same block as
determined by amt of development allowed by
President; Civic San Diego is a non-profit
documented by recorded certificates of
Preservation, Restoration, and
since 2014
San Diego, CA
receiving site or be the object of a
Must be on the same block as the
Floor Area
the sending site's max base FAR; may also be
org owned by the City of San Diego tasked
transfer; "City can acquire, bank, and hold
Maintenance Agreement that
http://does.sandiego.gov/municode/Muni
study, approved by the Civic San
sending site.
determined on a case -by -case basis based on
with promoting economic development in
transferred floor area prior to transfer to a
commits them to rehab the strucutre
CodeChapterl5/Chl5Art06Division03.pd
Diego President, verifying that a
needed rehab and preservation costs
neighborhoods throughout the city,
receiving site"
& reconstruct it if destroyed; CSD
f
transfer of floor area is needed to
including the downtown
President approves transfer
rinance rehab and preservation of
landmark."
Golden Hill TDR Program must
Pop. 1.41 million TDR provisions
be within Golden Hill Planned
removed from ordinance in Golden Hill
District; three types of eligible
"a
Planned District in 1989 - problems:
historical properties: property
density allowed by code usually wasn't
designated as a historical site by
transfer difference between the floor area of
much greater than the density of the
the Historical Site Board; a
the landmark and the floor area that would be
a purchaser of development rights had to
historic structures from which rights were
contributing structure within the
properties located within 5
Floor Area
permitted under the density limits of the
transfers registered with Planning Dept
register all transfers with the City Planning
City Planning Dept has to approve
transferred; owners of potential receiving
Historic District; or a structure
subareas of the district
zoning code; transferred rights allowed a
Department
transfers
sites had little incentive to buy additional
designated historically/architec-
project to exceed the base density allowed by
density because they could achieve the
turally significant in a survey
code by 25%
density they wanted under the limits
approved by the Historic Site
imposed by the code; surrounding
Board" property owner also must
neighborhoods were resistent to
grand a facade easement to the
additional development
City
landmark building: the greater of the following
Application to establish TDR credits
"Designated landmarks or
10x the floor area of the landmark or the diff
approved by the POD, property must
landmark sites other than
between the gross flor area of the structure
be historically designated before
Pop. 261,000 16.70.040.1.17 of
contributing structures in a historic
and the max floor area allowed by zoning
landmark site: transferable floor area is 5x the
Planning Dept (POD) approves
A registry of TDR credit certificates is kept by
credits are issued, certificate of TDR
following link:
St. Petersburg,
district and any gov't owned
properties in the downtown center
landmark site's size after deducting any lot
establishment and transfer of TDR credits.
the Planning Dept. At time of transfer, owner
credits is administered upon approval
https://library.municode.com/fl/st._peters
FL
property" exterior must be
and corridor commercial
Floor Area
area occupied by a landmark building
City Attorney approves owner's declaration
records a declaration of covenants and
by POD, owner of credits who wants
burg/codes/code of_ordinances?nodeld
preserved and rehabilitated in
suburban districts
"for each sq ft of development credit
of covenants and restrictions
restrictions which is then approved by the
to use them to transfer
=PTIISTPECO_CH16LADERE_S16.70A
accordance with the Sec of the
transferred, must be given the
City Attorney.
density/intensity must apply; owner of
PPR_16.70.040PLZODE_16.70.040.1.17
Interior's Standards for
erva$.50
a
historic preservation grant program, minus
anus
receiving site must have the approval
TRDERIHI
Preservation and Rehabilitation
any funds spent on required restoration or
of a site plan before credits are
rehab work"
transferred
Designated historic landmark in
two Conservation Areas, created
Owner of the historic property must record a
with the adoption of a Historic
Any other site in the same zoning
covenant with the City Council that the
Pop. 175,000 Section 20.510.050:
Preservation Overlay District
district, as long as it will not
Floor area allowable on the sending site minus
City Council makes record of covenant with
historic property will be maintained in its
Covenant must be approved by City
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/sites/def
Vancouver, WA
ordinance; any structure in the
create a hazard to low -flying
Floor Area
the actual floor area of the sending site.
owner of the historic property/ sending site.
historic condition. Unclear if the covenant
Council.
ault/files/fileattachments/vmc/titles_chap
Overlay District that is listed in the
aircraft.
addresses the transferor simply the
ters/20.510.pdf Very little specific
State or National Registers of
preservation of the structure.
information is given.
Historic Places or designated on a
local register is eligible.
Owners must petition to qualify
"TDR allocation varies depending on sending
their land as sending sites through
site zoning: for each net acre of sending site
Pop. 24,000 Program aims to
conditional use permit process,
land, owners can receive 0.65 DUs in the RA
If not in the RA district, the Board of
preserve environmental space and
unless the site is within the
zone, 1.1 in the R-1, 1 DU in the R-1-C, 2 DUs
Supervisors must approve the
historically significant sites.
Residential -Agricultural zone, in
Sites in zones that permit higher-
in the R-2 or R2-1 and 1.9 DUs in the R-3. In
Planning Commission and Township Board
Mention of where TDRs are recorded does
transfer, considering the
https://www.ecode360.com/13867984?hi
Warrington, PA
which case it would automatically
"Site
density residential, office, and
Land Area
addition to this base allocation, sending sites
of Supervisors, who approve the transfers,
not appear in the code.
recommendations of the Planning
ghlight=develop,developed,developer,de
qualify. can only be approved
industrial uses
o
can receiving incentive bonuses of 15 /o in the
are advised by the TDR Review Board.
Department or Planning ion
velopers,development,development
if it meets four criteria including
RA or 10% in other districts and additional
and the TDR Review Boards.
r
developed, development
consitency with the Comprehensive
bonuses for sites with historic or natural
right,development
Plan and promotion of public
resource significance. RA sites must be at
rights,developments, develops, right, rights
welfare."
least five acres to qualify."
Pop. 37,000 "Owner of designated
cultural resource must comply w
restoration requirements est. by the
Cultural Hertiage Advisory Board to
receive full funds from a sale of dev
City allows developers to purchase an option
Rights can be purchased by anyone;
rights. If sending site needs rehab,
"properties
any properties zoned for
Difference between the max permitted
City's Cultural Hertiage Advisory Board
on TDRs, which must be recorded prior to
do not have to be earmarked fora
owner initially receives only 25 /o of TDR
containing City-
medium/high-density commercial
development and the existing number of
approves a rehabilitation plan if needed on
adoption of receiving site project (arranged
particular receiving site. Cultural
o
sale proceeds... remaining 75 /o is placed
West
designated cultural resources
use which are not cultural
Density
dwelling units; for nonresidential cultural
a sending site; rehab must be completed
this way because City was concerned that
Heritage Advisory Board approves
in an escrow account for use in the
Hollywood, CA
which have less density than the
resources; cannot be transferred
resources, it is the difference between the max
before transfer. Council has established
developers would be reluctant to use the
rehab plan if necessary. Council has
rehabn of the sending site." According to
max allowed by the zoning code"
into residential zones
code -permitted floor area and the actual floor
criteria upon which transfers shall be
program if they had to buy rights before
criteria that it follows when approving
Smart Preservation, no transfers have
area of the designated building
conditioned.
transfer was approved).
a transfer.
occurred yet." 19.58.150.F of
http://gcode.us/codes/westhollywood/vie
w. php?topic=19-19_4-
19_58&showAll=1 &frames=off
Could not find a copy of the specific
criteria that appear in the Transfer of
Development Rights Program.
Historic properties, landmarks
(local or national register status),
Clematis St. conservation district,
TDR registry maintained by city that records
planning director est. eligibility of
urban open space, all as depicted
total amt of DRs available on a site, and the
sending site, letter (w estimate of
in the City's code. Historic sites &
"must
date & amount of any transfer that occurs;
DRs available for transfer from
Pop. 108,000 Sec. 94-132
landmarks must have completed
comply with the TDR map
transferable floor area is determined by
city -approved restrictive covenant is executed
sending) of availablilty may be issued
of:
West Palm
renovation acc. to code and must
showing where TDR can be used
multiplying lot area by allowable number of
Planning director establishes eligibility,
and recorded in public records (TDR
planning dept upon request; all
https://Iibrary.municode.com/fl/west_pal
t_pal
Beach, FL
be issued a certificate of
"As
to reach an eight-, ten- and 20-
Floor area
floors (and deducting the floor area of the
DAC approves transfer
restrictive covenant), which describes the
transfers are subject to approval of
transfers
m_beach/codes/code_of_ordinances?no
ordiinanc
occupancy. an added incentive
story maximum," as depicted in
existing strucutre in the case of a historic
adjusted DRs of sending and receiving sites;
the Downtown Action Committee
del d=PTIICOO R_CH94ZOLADE RE
for historic landmark designation,
the City zoning code
landmark sending site)
"bank entity": TDRs may be acquired from a
(DAC), after which a certificate of
—AR
TIVDOMAPLURRE_S94-132TRDERIPR
sites with historic landmark status
sending site and held for an undetermined
transfer is issued (recorded in TDR
are eligible for additional city-
amt of time until a suitable receiving site is
registry)
owned TDRs in an amount
found
equivalent to the site's existing
development capacity"
City of Iowa City
City Council Work Session
September 4, 2018
September 4 — Council Work Session Goals
Direction from Council on the following:
• Eligible sending sites
• Transfer formula
• Priority of preserving historic resources compared to other public benefits
• Review and approval process for transfers
• Eligible receiving sites
Background
May 29:
• Co on cil considered lora l land are rk designation of 410-412 N.
Clinton Street
• Deferred to January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation
of a city-wide MR program
August 7:
• Council discussed initial memo on MR at work session
September 4:
• DireclJon from City Council on key Policy questions
Staff Goals of a City-wide TDR Program
Fair
Legally -sound
Easy to administer
Simple for developers and members of the public to understand
Effective program that preserves historic resources
Consistent with comprehensive plan
Transfer of Development Rights
In centivize protection of historic
resources
Property owners can sell/
transfer development rights
from historic resource (sending
site)
Development rights applied to
another site where development
can occur at a higher density
(receiving site)
TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
..' u.. ague: ".,q R.
u.. Rignn un WW: z�a ,q R.
Receiving Si[e:9U S. Dubuque St.
ILI
4}
r
T,iu.. Riennra�n.,ae:
TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
RFD Transfer Formula
• No. of stories allowed on sending
site (4)
Area of sending site (8,MO sq. R.)
Development Rights Available for
Transfer (M,8DD sq. R.)
Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks
Research & Analysis
Sending Sites
Only analyzed existing local and
national landmarks
Several other buildings eligible for
local landmark designation
HPC proactively identifying sites to
locally landmark
Used the RFC Transfer Formula:
No. of stones
X
Area fsending sire
DevelopPmotentialeat Transfer
Research & Analysis
Receiving Sites
Identified vacant and
underutilized sites
Removed sites within
floodplains, sites with
historic buildings, publicly
znned land
® ^7
I�f �-A- r
W
_ ..er6l�AeaLvaY
4WWtle WCYn1{eYplpr
MWtlYNI Ya pYppmme
Research & Analysis
Other Locallurisdictions' Program
Transfer Formulas:
• Consider «icing development on sending site
• Typical formula =Max ollowoble densityfintensity on sending site less rxrsting
densityfimensity on sending site
• Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond
planhoning
• In comps risen, the RFC transfer does not consider ei4ing development
Research & Analysis
Summary of Sending & Deceiving Sites Analysis
Significant amount of tmn sfer potential — will increase as more
properties are locally landmarked
Depending on receiving sites identified it may be difficult to
accommodate transfer potential
Research & Analysis
Other Locallurisdictions' Program
Approval Process for Transfers:
• Many cities require some type of a non -administrative review
• some cities approve transfers administratively
Research & Analysis
Other Locallurisdictioas' Program
Administration & Tracking:
• Variety of methods:
- oueumentedthed d a vuo or SpecSrfMaeter Plan
- Exesuma tnmugh a develogmentagmement
Pesord ed won the County as a mrservatlon easement
-tegaldoeumenrsgmdby Pmgertyownerv&CityA rney
Tracking
- City sdR mandi most— and databases of Possible recervtrg sites, eligible sites,
iagamy oftbese sae.
Issues/Constraints
Market Potential:
• No marketswdy
Lack of Certainty in the Process:
• Nonadministrativereview of transfer (e.g. P&Z, City Council, etc.) provides
less certainty
• Administrative review of transfer (i.e. staff -level) provides more certainty
Other Bonus Mechanisms:
• City currently offers bonuses for other public benefits
• Uncertain how a city-wide MR Policy would compare to other bonuses
Research & Analysis
Other Lowllurisdictions' Program —Approval Process
• Receiving Areas:
• Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the
community/droadintown
• Explicitly state that historic resou roes are not eligible as receiving sites
• Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of
Potentia l receiving site
• Commercial zones only— no transfers allows to residential zones
Policy Questions for City Council
1. Should eligible
sending sites include
egisting local historic
landmarks or only
future local historic
landmarks?
option a. Eligible send asides ind We easuns,
& future local historic landmarks.
option b. Eligible sending sites only inclgr
Turn, aral historic andrinarks.
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Keep the ex 9dpg RFC taneler
formwa
2. Should a city-wide
TDR ordinance apply
the existing transfer
calculation formula
that is outlined in
RFCoronew
formala? Option b. Ettabl¢ti a mwtansfer form uld that
exonclue, exlaing tlecelopment.
Policy Questions for City Council
Opmn a. Krep ttie existing imerfmnt Cmss1W
4. What type of
andappmval pmwdure bvttie CO council.
process should he
established for the
review and approval
ofsending and
optionb.Fnablahanewprocetldretlatall—
receivingtransfer of
ransfcrupmaccrumlevelmbeapprovN
development rights.,
atlmmlssatroeN.anv tan.fertbewmanmenuetl
thresholdwould be improved by City council.
Policy Questions for City Council
Optiona. Model a tlry- d TAR programon
3. The City already
the current bonus previsions.
gives bonuses for
certain public
benefitsprovided
with development
projects. Should
option b. nlmwtansfer for hhtorio pmpertios
preservation of
Wipmerhoul the Cuts current bond. pmvhioa
hlStall[ re5oalce5 be
(es. offer more hectic more dersrtyPnte erW7
treated in a similar
manner or given
higher priority?
Policy Questions for City Council
S. Whotareasshoulda
city-wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
cda done cummunm slgmhmnt numborefteorlc
arr;t.oung auowa a o�m �abl��d
car nlg�a< m�a�ardra<ptlamml
fhe
ork mmanshaa
10/12/2018
a Purang& future Lars l Lannrtahs
1. EfgNleseiJngSlenn
Fair&Conslstri Say not have adequate recaving site capacity
L onb ruure Local Lmmarra
. MisMeasier toassommobAe transfers nnconestenl with current process
a RECtan4nformula
More generous& consistencyInadminlZrotlon; easlerto understand
2T2rtsterfornat
. May not have adequate receiving site report,
& Newfarrsrer formula
. M is he easier to accommodate transfers/Mare complex& difficult to admnlster
3. aonuses&Pnonty Im pervng
a Current Lanus provlalons
M sio he resowces conpaedto other
Simper&easier/pay dl Is effedlveness or IXererving historic resources
L Exceed bonus
cubic benelA Sl
current prwldons
More ofan lncentue/ Community mnmrns& unMwm lmpads
a Parting RECpromssoe. apprwalby Coy Council)
6 Rful- ..rov3 e¢ Poc(t
Cl consent/ Lad ofmdalM In approvals
trmsfedl
owl
6 New process
Streamlinethe review& allow Coundl ralewforlagertartsfers
Not mnsZentwith current RFC process
a RFC
L oownmwn anaor
Eligible recemagaltesi c Co In Johnson vm Mren sea anoor
d Mwtrunit sites mrougMu the only moor
a amanitas
JmeAugust 2cm.
Report. and m3y95
Septal Sorg
PresentatlontoCoundlonresearth, recwmeidadmhomComoto
promedornotproseedmn muncedrafling
Septcrder—OdcLer2cmS
Ordlnanmdafling, lloterminedle Council
0dober11, 2cm.
HiZolc Preserviagn Commission Revlarv&O6cu.IDon
October la, 2fla
Planning&Zoning Comrtsspn Rnlewa Olxussor
November. Coln Sty Council le reading o credit
Ceconni born Cry Council Se"& you le]^ reading of summit
Jmia,y lurs Expiation wamor deferraloftnelom lananaandesimsm m41oa12
Noun Cnton Street
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance
Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
E. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose:
The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an
incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
a. The sending site must have a base zoning designation of "Single -Family Residential" per
14-2A, "Multi -Family Residential" per 14-213, or "Commercial" per 14-2C, of this title.
b. Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a
contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-3B-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect', of this title.
4. Eligible Receiving Sites:
1. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
a. Located within a Riverfront Crossing zone district and the sending site is located outside
of the Riverfront Crossings district as identified in 14-2G-2 "Regulating Plan" of this title;
or
b. Located within a zone district that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or
provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family
Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of
this title.
Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic
districts, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving
sites.
5. Transfer of Development Rights:
a. Transfer requests shall either be for a height bonus or a density bonus using the
following formulas:
(1) Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure. In no case shall the transfer be less than 12
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
feet even if the difference between the maximum allowable height and the existing
height is less than 12 feet; or
(2) Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending
site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of the Historic District
Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
b. Transfers requests may exceed either the height or density on the receiving site with the
following limitations:
(1) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located outside of the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed 40 feet above the maximum height allowed on the
receiving site.
(2) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located in the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed the height bonus maximums outlined in 14-2G-7G-1 d
of this title.
(3) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located adjacent to an existing
single-family home shall exceed two stories above the height of the existing single-
family home.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-8B-3, of this title.
b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
a. The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
b. The proposed receiving site,
c. The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
d. A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on
the receiving site, and
e. Any other information required per the application form.
7. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
Amend 14-213-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
D. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14-2A-7E.
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
C. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14-2A-7E.
Amend 14-3C-2A, Applicability, adding a new paragraph 12, as follows:
12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-
2G-7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, 14-
2C11 "Special Provisions", of this title.
Amend 14-3C-3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows:
2. Level II Review:
a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and
structures:
(1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as
signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building
concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I
review.
(2) Certain public -private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the
specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
(3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to
subsection 14-2G-7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014)
(4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-2G-7G 'Building Height
Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions', of this title.
b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with
their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or
disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article
B, "Administrative Approval Procedures', of this title.
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14-3C-313, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows:
10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in
subsection C of this section.
Amend 14-2G-7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection
as follows:
3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and
corresponding height bonus provides an incentive forthe preservation and adaptive reuse of
historic properties:
a. Eligibility. The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the
following criterion:
(1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as
an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district,
eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or
listed as a historically significant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of
the historic and architectural resources forthe vicinity.
b. Requirements:
(1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or Iowa
City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation
as a condition of the transfer of development rights, and
(2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect, of this title.
c. Transfer Of Development Rights:
(1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the
sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the
sending site may be transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront
crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is
located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet
in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floorarea (20,000 x 4) may be
transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits
established in this section.
(2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the
maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 20,2018-7:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen. Ann Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Ritter, Matt Miller, Kyle Hancock
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent) the Commission recommends approval of
REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI-1 to P-1
on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346
Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain
management standards, and
2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00018):
Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for the rezoning of
approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive,
260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public
(P-1).
Hensch recused himself from this item per his conflict of employment with Johnson County.
Russett stated this rezoning application is for a change from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1), it is submitted by Johnson County, Iowa, for a proposed Behavioral
Health Urgent Care Center or Access Center. The Access Center will provide services to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 2 of 6
individuals experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary service such
as mental health services or housing support and the center will provide crisis observation and
stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. The property is
generally located at the northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the Crandic Rail Line, the
property is currently privately held however Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the
property.
Russett showed a map of the current zoning in the area, the project site is zoned Intensive
Commercial, the areas to the east and west are also zoned Intensive Commercial, there are
some areas to the north and the west that are zoned Community Commercial. The proposed
zoning is to Neighborhood Public, which is a zone district that applied to properties owned by
either County, the City or the Iowa City Community School District. The Comprehensive Plan,
future plan use map, identifies this area a commercial and the South District Plan also identifies
this area as an area for commercial development. Russett showed some photos of the project
site. She noted the site is located within flood hazard areas, in both the 500 and 100 year
floodplains. The City does have a floodplain management ordinance which does not allow
facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency
services, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential
to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these
facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent
Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be
difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a
flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of
the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility
to the 500-year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site
needs to be passable during a 500-year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of
approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1
Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. The site is accessed via
Southgate Avenue and the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront
Drive that crosses the Crandic railroad and that access might be able to be used during a flood
event.
Russett noted there are also possible archeological resources in this area and therefore Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the site must be approved by a State Archeologist prior
to any site disturbance.
In terms of stormwater management, the site was platted in 2007 and required at that time to
install stormwater management facilities, and these stormwater management facilities will be
further analyzed by the public works staff at the time of site plan review to ensure they have an
adequate capacity for the proposed access center. Russett stated Staff has received one letter
from the public regarding this possible rezoning, which was passed out to the Commission, and
the concerns in the letter were focused on stormwater management.
Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a
rezoning of CI-1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront
Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain
management standards, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 3 of 6
2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
Signs asked if the access on Waterfront Drive would solve the problem of ingress and egress
during a flood event. Russett noted part of Waterfront Drive is above the floodplain and based
on the elevations it would probably be the best location for that access.
Baker asked why staff chose to use the 500 year floodplain as the condition placed on approval
rather than the 100 year event. Russett replied that the 500 year is what is required for Class 1
Critical Facilities per the Zoning Code. Baker asked what the difference between the 500 and
100 year events. Russett explained the difference as the percentage of which the event could
occur. A 500 year flood event would happen with a 0.2% chance in a year and a 100 year event
is a 1 % change within a year. Baker asked what the difference would be on the development if
the City required it to be at the 100 year event standard. Russett said the elevation grade the
property would need to be raised would be lower than the 500 year elevation. The impact of a
500 year event is greater and therefore the elevations need to be higher. Baker asked if the
difference in elevations from the 100 to 500 year events have impact on the neighboring
properties. Russett stated regardless they need to provide stormwater management.
Townsend asked if the whole area would be raised to the 500 year level. Russett said just the
building on the property and an access driveway. Townsend noted that at any given time there
may be anywhere from 16 to 60 beds in the facility, and is concerned how to get that many
people evacuated if there is a flood. Russett said that is why the facility needs to be elevated to
the floodplain, in 2008 the access across the railroad tracks and even the corner of Southgate
Avenue on the southeast side were not under water. Parsons noted there is generally enough
warning during a 500 year flood event to have time to evacuate.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Scott Ritter (Hart -Frederick Consultants) answered Baker question of the difference in elevations
from a 500 and 100 year events is 2.7 feet and the natural ground there is at the 500 elevation
so they will raise the area a little to get above that, and they would add an access off of
Waterfront Drive to be used for emergencies. Ritter also noted regarding the letter from the
neighbor, that property is above the subject property, the subject property is downstream. The
difference between the subject property and Highway 6 is one foot difference in elevation.
Baker asked if any other sites or locations were considered. Ritter is not privy to those
discussions, that discussion would have been with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
Matt Miller (Project Manager, Johnson County) stated there were several other properties
researched for this access center. He noted he was hired by the County on May 15 and at that
point they already had this location picked out, but he does understand there were other
locations previously looked at but for one reason or another just didn't pan out.
Parsons asked about the Good Neighbor Meeting and if one has been held. Miller said one has
not been held yet, but they are planning to conduct one.
Kyle Hancock (Hansch, LLC, 1840 S. Gilbert Street) is concerned and wants to address the plan
for runoff and stormwater management. The property that he owns is downstream and at lower
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 4 of 6
elevations than the subject property and feels raising the subject property up will put his property
and others at more of a risk. Hancock also raised concern about the construction process and
plans, and if the building will be in the southeast corner of the property, he questions what is the
proposed use of the rest of the property.
Ritter responded that the rest of the site will remain as is except for the area where the building
and parking lot will be. There is currently a detention pond already there with outflow going east.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00018, an application submitted by
Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI-1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914
S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City
Council approval of the following conditions:
3. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's
floodplain management standards, and
4. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs noted typically the Commission sees more of a site plan with such applications so they can
see where the building will be located and where the detention basins will be, etc.
Townsend is concerned with flooding in that area and the possibility of children being there
during a flood. She noted that property will only have the building and parking lot and then a lot
of open space that will be zoned P-1 and something could be put on that area like a school.
Parsons asked if that were to happen, would Staff need to approve that site plan. Russett
confirmed they would, and for a school to be there the property would need to be owned by the
School District, as long as the County owns the property there could be a public use there but
not likely a school.
Hektoen noted that any structure that is put on this property would have to be elevated to the 500
year floodplain plus one foot.
Martin stated she likes the proposal and feels good about the two caveats for the
recommendation because this access center is something the area really needs. The plans for
elevations make sense.
Parsons agrees with Martin and feels this will serve the community and conforms with the area.
Baker shared Signs concern that they did not receive site plans or elevations for this proposal.
He added it helps with decision making and likes to have those items presented. Russett stated
there are not different standards for rezoning public versus non-public zones, having a site plan
and elevations is not something that is required of anyone for rezonings however is something
that is encourage as it does help the Commission in the decision making process. Baker said if
this were a private project he would likely want to defer and request more information, however
he does agree with Martin that this access center is much needed in the community.
Baker asked a general procedural question, at the last three meetings the Commission has been
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 5 of 6
asked to alter a regulation or zone based upon a specific problem of a specific project, here is a
problem so change the rules for us situations. Baker wonders if that is a recurring process the
Commission deal with often. Hektoen said they are not asking the Commission to change the
rules for them, they are asking for a rezoning and a rezoning is to satisfy the needs of whoever is
doing the development. Russett noted rezoning applications can be initiate by the City, the
property owner, the developer, the purchaser, in effort to create a new project.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent).
Hensch rejoined the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 6, 2018.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett introduced the new associate planner, Jessie Lile.
Baker will miss the October 18 meeting.
Townsend will be absent October 4 and November 1 meetings.
Adjournment:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
2/15
3/1
(W.S)
3/12
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9120
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-
-- --
--
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
x
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
= Not a Member