HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC 11.8.2018 Packet
Thursday
November 8, 2018
5:30 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, November 8, 2018
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificate of Appropriateness – Consent Agenda
608 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (basement window removal and stair
reconstruction)
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review
1. 506 North Linn Street – Northside Historic District (siding and trim repair)
2. 402 North Dodge Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window repair)
3. 925 South 7th Avenue – Dearborn Street Conservation District (siding repair)
4. 722 North Lucas Street – Brown Street Historic District (soffit and fascia replacement)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. 709 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (front door replacement)
2. 416 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (porch and step
repair)
3. 1025 E. Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (handrail installation)
4. 656 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (siding
replacement)
F) Consideration of Minutes for October 11, 2018
G) Commission Information and Discussion
1. Downtown public meeting and City Council Work Session update
2. TDR packet from Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
3. Historic Preservation Awards
H) Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica
Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Staff Report November 1, 2018
Historic Review for 608 Grant Street
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Andrea Heffernan, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 608 Grant Street,
a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of removing a deteriorated
and partially obscured basement window from the north side of the house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.5 Foundations
4.13 Windows
Staff Comments
The Site Inventory lists this house as c. 1925 -1930. It is a two-story house that is representative of
Mediterranean Revival. The very low-pitched hip roof, the stucco cladding, the arched opening, and the use
of wrought iron on the second-floor balcony are identifying features of this style. While the house may not
seem to fit well with the neighboring houses, the style was popular during the Twenties and Thirties and falls
into the period of significant development in the Longfellow neighborhood. An addition was added to the
east (back) side of the house before the property was included in a historic district, but the street side retains
its original character. The rear deck and subsequent extension and screened enclosure was previously
approved by the commission.
The applicant is proposing to remove a small basement window on the north side of the foundation wall. The
window is partially obscured by the concrete stairs from a secondary side entry. The frame is heavily damaged
and deteriorated. The window has been partially protected by a curved metal panel for many years. The
opening would be filled with concrete block and a stucco coating would be applied to blend with the existing
stucco coating on the foundation. The concrete stairs will also be repaired.
Section 4.13 Windows of the guidelines recommend that if an opening is to be closed on a brick structure, it
should be recessed to express the original opening and lintels and sills should be maintained. On a framed
structure, appropriate siding that matches the existing should be used with its members being placed across
and randomly extended beyond the opening. If an opening is to be relocated it should not detract from
overall fenestration patterns.
Section 4.5 Foundations recommend that stucco is repaired with a mixture that matches the existing in
texture, color, and composition.
In Staff’s opinion, this window is not visible unless one is standing next to it. The opening has not been used
for light or ventilation for many years and at the time the side entry was added to the house and the concrete
stairs were poured, the window was partially blocked. In staff’s opinion, the removal of the window will have
no material effect on the historic structure. Repairing the stucco so that it matches the existing is the most
appropriate method for foundation repair once the window removal is approved. Staff recommends approval
of this application.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 608 Grant Street as presented in the
application.
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 Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum 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 5th 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 use1. 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]
1 Permitted uses are allowed 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 t he 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, 2018 Memo to Geoff Fruin, City Manager
2. August 29, 2018 Memo to Geoff Fruin, City Manager
3. Staff presentation to City Council, September 4, 2018
4. Draft Ordinance
5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
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).
ATTACHMENT 1.
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 Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum 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 5th 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-
based code
encourage higher
densities and
intensities
- Current receiving area
for the form-based
code TDR program for
historic preservation,
public right-of-way,
and open space
transfers
- Current allowable
densities and
intensities combined
with height bonus
provisions are
generous
Downtown - Core of the city with
access to amenities,
services, and
transportation options
- Receiving properties
in the downtown may
be limited due to the
results of the
downtown historic
building survey that is
underway
South Johnson Street and
South Van Buren Street
between Court Street &
Railroad
- Area already zoned
for higher density
housing
- Smaller geographic
area that may not be
able to accommodate
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
development
- Areas are already
zoned for higher
density housing
- More scattered
approach that would
not concentrate
transfers in one area
- Potential concern
from neighboring
property owners
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 (1st reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance)
January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8-month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
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 1.
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).
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
ATTACHMENT 2.
October 5, 2018
Page 2
Table 1. Summary of Transfer Potential of Local and NRHP-Listed Landmarks
Sending Sites Development Transfer Potential 2
(square feet)
Local Landmarks Only 4,367,068 3
Local Landmarks & National Register of
Historic Places-Listed Landmarks)
5,368,997 4
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 TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to
future landmark designations. In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending
sites. However, some cities required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming
eligible as a sending site.
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
(square feet)
Development Potential
(dwelling units)
Riverfront Crossings 2,522,313 5 -
Downtown 242,471 6 -
South Johnson Street & South
Van Buren Street between
Court Street and the Railroad 7
-
-
Citywide Land Designated for
Multi-unit Development
5,389,525 8
845
Total 8,154,309 9 845 10
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 staff’s criteria for underutilized.
8 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
9 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 & Tracking
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
West Palm Beach, FL City staff maintains a registry of development
rights available and transfers. Execution of
City-approved restrictive covenant that
outlines transfer. Covenant recorded against
the sending and receiving sites and added to
City registry.
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.11
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 for transferring 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 14-2B-7.
13 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 features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands)
require a sensitive areas development plan which often leads to
clustering. Transfers to these areas could result in even higher
densities.
e) Other sites or areas
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 3rd 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 1
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
ATTACHMENT 2.
Overview of other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs
City Sending Receiving Base Unit Calculation Method Administration Tracking Approval Steps Notes
Atlanta, GA
Must be either residential sending
areas, a parcel suitable for
greenspace, or a property
designated as a landmark
building/site or as a historical
building or site by the Atlanta
Historic Preservation Ordinance
"Must be zoned for multi-family
residential or mixed uses
provided that residential
component represents at least
50% of the project", must show
future use of the property meets
reqs as outlined in the code
3 different
"development factors"
may be transferred:
floor area ratio, total
open space, and
useable open space
Development potential of the site minus the
landmark's existing development
Property owners submit applications for
designation as sending/ receiving sites/
approval of transfers. Approved by City,
recorded by Bureau of Planning
Istrument recorded in the office of the county
clerk in which the property is located re
owners, persons with interest in property,
prohibitions against future use of property,
etc. If sites are within close proximity of one
another, a joint app can be submitted.
Bureau of Planning has a system for
monitoring severance, ownership,
assignment, and transfer of dev rights.
Applicant proposes sending site/
applies for severance or direct
transfer of dev rights - approved by
council. City ("governing body") must
determine if receiving site is
appropriate for dev and that the
transfer won't cause adverse
environmental/ economic/social
impacts, administers a specal permit
if approved.
Pop. 486,000 Sec. 16-28.023 of:
https://library.municode.com/ga/atlanta/c
odes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIII
COORANDECO_PT16ZO_CH28GESUR
E_S16-28.023TRDERI
Chico, CA
Sites not automatically eligible; in
application for TDR the owner(s)
outline how their site fulfills the
TDR conservation program
outlined by the City
Similarly, applicants must make
"a statement outlining the
availability of support services
and infrastructure necessary for
the dev" of the receiving site.
Essentially the onus is on the
applicants to do the legwork of
determining eligibility, then city
gets to pass judgment
Dwelling Unit
(((# of DU/Gross Acre) allowed in sending
zone)*(sending site's acreage)) - (existing and
proposed # of DU on sending site)
Rolled into PUD/Development Agreement
process
Doesn't appear to be a TDR "bank" entity.
The TDR is recorded within the specific
PUD/Development Agreement
Same process they use for PUDs,
Specific Plans, and Development
Agreements
Pop. 86,000. Chapter 19.34 of the
following link:
http://www.chico.ca.us/government/docu
ments/Title19update.pdf
Dallas, TX
Eligible if: 1) the historic property is
w/in an urban historic district;
2) the historic property is a
contributing structure listed in the
National Register of Historic Places
if it is located in the West End
Historic District; and
3) the historic property has been
rehab'ed w/in the last 5 yrs and the
total value of the rehab exceeds
50% of the property’s pre-rehab
value
Located in the Central Area, CA-
1(A) and CA-2(A) districts Floor Area
Difference between existing floor area of
landmark building and the amt of floor area
allowed by zoning of sending site; transfer
ratio is one-to-one
Planning director approves form for sending
and receiving sites and amt to be
transferred; county deed recorder records
form
Applicant files form with county deed
recorder
Property owner must submit a form
to the Planning Director indicating the
sending site, the receiving site and
the amount of development rights to
be transferred; is checked for
compliance; when receiving site
developer requests a buillding permit
for a project using dev rights, the
recorded transferring form is checked
and building permit is issued
Pop. 1.3 million
http://dallascityhall.com/departments/sus
tainabledevelopment/DCH%20document
s/pdf/building/DevelopmentProgramAppli
cation.pdf
Delray Beach,
FL
"In order to be eligible for TDR, the
resulting use of the 'to be regulated'
property [sending site] must be in a
manner to advance goals,
objectives, & policies of the
Comprehensive Plan through:
(a) Preservation of historic
structures & sites; (b) Obtaining
land for public facilities; (c)
Preservation of designated
conservation areas; (d) Any time
when a voluntary action would aide
in fulfilling a policy/ objective of the
Comprehensive Plan."
Redevelopment areas and height
overlay zones; if a redevelopment
area, the development proposed
for that site must comply with the
redevelopment plan for that area
Residential Dwelling
Units or Floor Area
"Office floor area and residential units can be
interchanged at the rate of 2,000 square feet
of office floor area being equal to one
residential dwelling unit. A conversion from
office to residential, or from residential to
office, may occur at any time up to the
application of the Certificate to a receiver
property"
Applications submitted to City. Local
Planning Agency determines
appropriateness of sending and receiving
sites and certifies it to the City
Commission. Certificate approved by City
Attorney.
Application is processed as a rezoning
request, ordinance outlines the value of the
severed development rights. Certificate of
Development Rights is issued, approved by
City Attorney.
Applicant submits site plan for
proposed sending site indicating amt
of dev that should be accomodated
on that site; sending site is rezoned
(applies to rezone sending site to
Community Facilities, Open Space,
or Conservation Zone; receiving site
may also need to be rezoned, if so, is
processed concurrently); owner
receives certificate which states value
of transferred rights, which can be
sold/transferred to receiving site
Pop. 67,000 Section 4.6.20 of:
https://library.municode.com/fl/delray_be
ach/codes/land_development_regulation
s_?nodeId=CH4ZORE_ART4.6SUDIRE_
S4.6.20TRDERI To date, no TDR
applications have been submitted.
Largo, FL
Any land with significant
archaeological, historical, or
environmental significance, OR
according to a redevelopment plan
approved by Planning Commission
"determined as capable of
accepting dev rights based on the
Comp Plan and the Development
Code" Amount limited by site's
municipal service capacity
Density (units per
acre) or Intensity
(FAR)
As much as the maximum possible density or
intensity of sending site
TDR Certificates. Records both sending
and receiving sites simultaneously.
Contains restrictions as provided in
application or as determined by City
Commission.
Doesn't appear to be a TDR "bank" entity.
The certificate gets recorded with the County.
Certificate applications reviewed by
Planning Commission
Pop. 75,000. Section 4.7 of following
link:
https://www.largo.com/document_center/
Permits%20&%20Planning/Planning/CD
C/Adopted_2018_CDC.pdf
Los Angeles,
CA
any parcels within the Central
Business District Redevelopment
Project Area
any parcels within the Central
Business District Redevelopment
Project Area
Floor Area Ratio, 3:1
or 6:1 depending on
the subarea in which
the site is located
Based on floor area ratio -- 3:1 or 6:1
depending on the subarea in which the site is
located
Redevelopment Agency, City Planning
Commission, LA City Council and Mayor
must all individually consider whether an
application for TFAR (Transfer of Floor
Area Rights) meets all conditions.
Commission offically approves transfer
following public hearing.
Filed with City Clerk.
Redevelopment Agency must
consider whether an app for TFAR
meets all 6 conditions--if yes, they
approve app. City Planning
Commission, LA City Council, &
Mayor all repeat this process.
Director issues a report to Cimission
recommending approval/ approval w
conditions/ disapproval of req for
Transfer.
Pop. 4.03 million
Article 4.5:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll
/California/lapz/municipalcodechapteripl
anningandzoningco/chapterigeneralprovi
sionsandzoning/article45transferoffloorar
earights-
centr?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi
d=amlegal:lapz_ca$anc=JD_C1A4.5
"Developers are required to pay a Public
Benefit Payment on transfers in order to
fund public open space, affordable
housing, cultural/public facilities, historic
preservation and public transportation
improvements."
Eligibility Mechanics
Madison, GA
Historical sending sites must be
any landmark listed in the
Greenprint and registered as a
Landmark by the Madison Historic
Preservation Commission. (other
non-historical sending sites apply
to the TDR program as well)
"Receiving parcels must meet all
three of the following criteria:
1) ID-ed as Traditional
Neighborhood Residential or
Mixed-Use Residential/
Commercial on Future Land Use
Map;
2) W/n the “higher density”
portions of the W. Washington
Gateway; and
3) W/in 2000 ft of a neighborhood
center, w/in 1500 ft of a
neighborhood park and w/in 1500
ft of an arterial street or state
highway."
Density
"calculated on basis of baseline density of the
sending parcel, less any existing dwelling
units. For parcels w/in residential zoning
districts, the baseline density shall be the
gross acreage of the parcel divided by the min
lot area of the zoning district. For non-
residential zoning districts, baseline density
shall be calculated at four units per acre. The
area of a parcel with fractional acreage will be
rounded down to the nearest 1/4 acre"
Planning department approves TDRs from
sending sites, administers certificates. Land
Bank Board has influence in determining
TDR value, holds TDRs until purchase by a
receiving site owner. Mayor and city council
must review receiving site at public
meeting.
Land Bank can buy either TDRs or property
in fee simple; may determine TDR value
using negotiation, a competitive bid process,
or any other method deemed fair and
equtiable by the Bank Board. Applications for
both receiving and sending sites are recorded
with the County Court Clerk. TDR Certificates
are recorded in the TDR Register.
Owner of qualifying sending site must
submit a preliminary app, followed by
a certification app, to the planning
dept. Receiving site owner must
apply; dept schedules application for
mayor and council review at public
meeting. Upon approval, planning
dept. records the transfer.
Pop. 4,000 Article III:
https://library.municode.com/ga/madison
/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTII
COOR_CH54PLDE_ARTIIITRDERI_S54-
54TRDERIPR
Minneapolis,
MN
Lots with locally designated or
eligible historic structures within
specific districts, as determined by
the City's Heritage Preservation
Commission.
Doesn't really have an explicit
criteria, other than it's a site
within specified downtown
districts and the Planning
Director approves of the transfer
GFA
(Maximum GFA permitted by sending site's
zone) - (GFA of existing development on
sending site) however, receiving site is capped
to 30% above its zone's maximum allowable
GFA
Application for TDR submitted, if approved
it's recorded with the County in the form of
a "conservation easement or similar
restriction acceptable to the city," specifying
amount of floor area transferred and
involved parcels.
Doesn't appear to be a TDR "bank" entity.
The certificate gets recorded with the County.
Administrative-level review of TDR
applications by Planning Director.
Decision is final, can appeal denials
through P&Z commish. Building
permit not granted for receiving site
until sending site's historic structure
has been rehabbed and approved by
HPC
Pop. 415,000. Specifically designed for
Historic Pres. Can transfer to up to four
different receiving sites from one sending
site. Link:
https://library.municode.com/mn/minnea
polis/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId
=MICOOR_TIT20ZOCO_CH549DODI_A
RTIIITRDERI_549.270DE
Nashville, TN
Parcels within two designated
historic zoning districts or Historic
Landmark Districts (all designated
in 2007 with the Downtown
Community Plan Update)
ordinance identifies five specific
areas within the downtown as
receiving sites
Floor Area
maximum floor area allowed by the base
zoning minus the floor area of the landmark
building
owner of sending site records an easement
that permanently precludes additional
development on the site; developers may
purchase or be donated dev rights (if owned
by the City or State or a non-profit
preservation org, rights can only be
donated); Planning dept receives app and
approves it.
Conveyances of sending site's rights is put in
writing in an instrument that is then signed by
owner, submitted to planning dept with
approval, then recorded in the office of the
register of deeds.
Owners of sending sites and
receiving sites must apply for transfer
of development rights with the
planning dept. Planning dept. is in
charge of approval. TDRs are
allocated to receiving property only
once the rights are noticed in writing
in an instrument signed by owner of
receiving site that is submitted to the
planning dept.
Pop. 690,000
https://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances
/term_2003_2007/bl2007_1369.htm
New Orleans,
LA
"places, buildings or structures in
any Central Business District
(CBD) zone that are either
designated as historic landmarks
or recognized as having special
historic, community or aesthetic
value"; they cannot be owned by
the City, State, or Federal
Government
properties in CBD-1, CBD-2 or
CBD-2B districts; properties in
CBD-9 zone can receive dev
rights transferred from the CBD-8
zone; projects which incorporate
TDRs may exceed by 10% the
by-right density, in addition to
bonus density increases, allowed
on the receiving site by baseline
zoning
Floor Area
difference between the maximum floor area
allowed by the zoning code, without bonus
density increases, and the actual floor area of
the existing building to be preserved
Applications are approved or denied by the
Planning Commission following a public
hearing; if approved, recommendation for
approval is forwarded to the City Council;
Council may approve, modify, or deny.
to finalize transfer, applicants must file with
the City both an instrument of transfer and a
notice of restrictions on the sending site with
the deeds of both the sending and receiving
sites
owners of both the sending and
receiving sites must submit an
application to restrict development
rights on the sending site and
increase density on the receiving site;
goes through public hearings for
Planning Comission and City Council
Pop. 391,000 Section 16.8 of former
code -- is no longer in effect.
https://www.nola.gov/city-
planning/czo/former-comprehensive-
zoning-ordinance/former-new-orleans,-la-
zoning-thru-june-20,-2014/
Palo Alto, CA
They designate certain buildings
(Historic Category 1 or 2). TDR
granted only upon approved
applications with specific
rehabilitation plans for those
buildings.
Located in certain districts. Not a
historic site. Located >= 150 ft
from residentially zoned property
(except in MU zones or OPDs).
Other stipulations regarding sites
within their "downtown parking
assessment district." Limits on
FAR within certain subdistricts as
well. Total additional floor area
capped at a max of 10,000 sf,
unless more restrictive FAR caps
for that subdistrict exist.
Floor Area
For Historic Rehab Buildings: "allowed to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or
25% of exisiting building, whichever is greater,
without having this increase count toward the
FAR." Certain subdistricts have more
restrictive FAR limits. Also stipulates that,
"This bonus area must be fully parked."
Functions under their Floor Area Bonus
process. Site owner of approved historic
pres F.A.B. must enter into an
"unsubordinated protective covenant
running with the land in favor of the city"
assuring the property will be rehabbed
according to applicable standards.
"recorded document, signed by the transferor
and transferee… in a form designed to run
with the land and satisfactory to the city
attorney… identify[ing] the sender site and
the amount of floor area transferred."
Application for "major ARB review of
the project proposed for the receiver
site" filed, including historic rehab
plan, specific amount of dev rights
planned to be transferred, and
identification of sender & receiver
sites. Rehab plan reviewed by HPC.
Upon completion, Planning Director
issues written determination of
sending site's bonus eligibility.
Pop. 67,000. City Code states: "The city
does not guarantee that at all times in
the future there will be sufficient elgibile
receiver sites to receive such TDRs."
Chapter 18.18 at following link:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll
/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipal
code?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi
d=amlegal:paloalto_ca
Park City, UT
Three sending areas (Sending
Treasure Hill, Sending Old Town,
and Sending Historic District);
designed to preserve open space,
environmental areas/ sensitive
lands, structures of aesthetic/
architectural/ historical
significance. All vacant lots in the
Park City Historic Sites Inventory
are elligible.
All properties within the TDR-
Receiving overlay zone are
eligible to receive Transfer
Development Credits.
Density
Allocation ratios vary depending on sending
area. 1 TDC = 1,000 sq ft of bonus
commercial floor area or 2,000 sq ft of bonus
residential floor area.
Planning Director determines the number of
development credits allowed to a sending
site. Sale/ transfer of credits is conducted
between transferer and transferee or their
legal representatives, to be recorded by
Planning Director or designee.
"Each time credits are transferred from a
sending site, a conservation easement or
deed restriction is recorded." A Development
Credit Certificate must be recorded in the
county's property records when credits are
transferred/sold.
Sending site property owners can
request a Development Credit
determination letter from the Park
City Planning director. Those credits
may only be sold/ conveyed/
tranferred by the owner to the
transferee and then must be reissued
in the transferee's name.
Pop. 8,300 Ch. 15-2.24 of:
https://parkcity.municipalcodeonline.com
/book?type=ordinances#name=15-
2.24_Transfer_Of_Development_Rights_
(TDR)_Overlay_Zone
Pasadena, CA Can be anywhere within the West
Gateway Specific Plan area.
Can be anywhere within the West
Gateway Specific Plan area.Density
Residential density can be converted to non-
residential floor area and vice versa.
Conversion Formula. One dwelling unit shall
be equivalent to 850 square feet of non-
residential development and 850 square feet
of nonresidential development shall be
equivalent to one dwelling unit.
Any development rights transferred from a
donor site shall be deducted from the
additional density otherwise allowed on the
parcel by this Section.
With proper written consent of sending and
receiving site owners, any property owner
within the area may transfer.
Owner of sending site records a written
covenant documenting the transfer, approved
by City Attorney. "Department maintains
records of all transfers and the current
density allocations, if any, of all the
properties within the specific plan area."
Transfer can be approved by the
Zoning Administrator as long as the
receiving site project meets
regulations.
Pop. "Intended to propote enhancement
of the.. City's symbolic western gateway
and to facilitate preservation of historic
structures and beloved open spaces"
Chapter 17.36.060.B :
https://library.municode.com/ca/pasaden
a/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TI
T17_ZONING_CODE_ART3SPPLST_C
H17.36WEGASPPL_17.36.060WGGED
EST
Pittsburgh, PA
Lots containing City-designated
historic structures (which can be
designated as such without the
consent of the property owner) or
not-for-profit performing arts
facilities in two specific districts,
labeled C5 and C6.
Located in C5 & C6 districts, can
be commercial or residential.
Commerical: floor area rights
from sending sites in one district
can only be transferred to zoning
lots in the same district.
Residential: rights can be
transferred from any other zoning
lot in C5 & C6 districts.
Floor Area
1:1 transfer ratio: "the amount of development
available for transfer is the difference between
the existing amount of development on the
sending site and the maximum amount of
development which would be allowed on that
sending site under the zoning code". If sending
& receiving sites are adjacent, max amt of
development allowed on the receiving can be
2x the amt allowed by the zoning code. If not
adjacent, development can only be increased
by 20% more than density allowed by base
zoning.
The City's Historic Review Commission
approves the transfer. City Solicitor
approves a legal document signed by the
parties concerned, which is filed with the
application for occupancy permit.
Must be a "plan and program for
rehabilitation… and maintenance" of the
structure for at least 40 years beyond the
transfer. Must also be a legal document
signed by involved parties and approved by
the City Solicitor. "The department, bureau,
and all other affected City departments shall
note on appropriate records the reduction in
development rights on the sending lot and
the increase...on the receiving lot"
Must be approved by the City's
Historic Review Commission. Prior to
approval, "there shall exist a plan and
program for rehabilitation...and for
continuing maintenance of the
Historic Structure or Performing Arts
Facility…for not less than 40 years."
Pop. 306,000. Program has only been
used about 3 times; it "has not been of
great interest to potential developers…
because the pace of commercial
development has not generated enough
demand to justify the acquisition of
additional development capacity [and]
base zoning allows millions of sq ft of
future development without the need for
discretionary approvals. Consequently,
Pittsburgh developers have little
motivation to use the TDR ordinance."
(SmartPreservation)
Providence, RI
"Buildings listed in the National
Register of Historic Places for
which the applicant donates a
preservation restriction whose
purpose is the preservation of the
exterior of the building"
Structures within the Downcity
District; "shall be restored and
maintained as required by the
downtown design review
committee"
Building height
Difference between height of landmark and
max height allowed to sending site under
current zoning; height of receiving site cannot
exceed 1.6x the max height or 300 ft,
whichever is less.
Downcity Design Review Committee (DRC),
created to "encourage development
compatible with historical character while
creating a 24-hr ped-friendly downtown that
promotes art, entertainment and housing",
reviews all proposed improvements within
the district, including TDR.
"fee owners of sending & receiving lots
execute an agreement to be recorded with
the title to both lots… , for a term that equals
or exceeds the life of the project of the
receiving lot"; any changes to plan must be
approved through a new application
Application must be approved by the
Downcity Design Review Committee
at a public hearing.
Pop. 180,000 Chap. 27, Article 6.03,
Section G of following link:
https://library.municode.com/ri/providenc
e/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PT
IICOOR_CH27ZO_ART6DODI_603DEIN
San Diego, CA
Civic San Diego TDR Program (a
nonprofit org owned by the City)
"To qualify, must contain
designated historical resources and
be located on same block as
receiving site or be the object of a
study, approved by the Civic San
Diego President, verifying that a
transfer of floor area is needed to
rinance rehab and preservation of
landmark."
Must be on the same block as the
sending site. Floor Area
determined by amt of development allowed by
the sending site's max base FAR; may also be
determined on a case-by-case basis based on
needed rehab and preservation costs
Transfer is approved by Civic San Diego
President; Civic San Diego is a non-profit
org owned by the City of San Diego tasked
with promoting economic development in
neighborhoods throughout the city,
including the downtown
documented by recorded certificates of
transfer; "City can acquire, bank, and hold
transferred floor area prior to transfer to a
receiving site"
sending site owners must enter into a
Preservation, Restoration, and
Maintenance Agreement that
commits them to rehab the strucutre
& reconstruct it if destroyed; CSD
President approves transfer
Pop. 1.41 million Has not been used
since 2014
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/Muni
CodeChapter15/Ch15Art06Division03.pd
f
"
Golden Hill TDR Program must
be within Golden Hill Planned
District; three types of eligible
historical properties: "a property
designated as a historical site by
the Historical Site Board; a
contributing structure within the
Historic District; or a structure
designated historically/architec-
turally significant in a survey
approved by the Historic Site
Board"; property owner also must
grand a facade easement to the
City
properties located within 5
subareas of the district Floor Area
transfer difference between the floor area of
the landmark and the floor area that would be
permitted under the density limits of the
zoning code; transferred rights allowed a
project to exceed the base density allowed by
code by 25%
transfers registered with Planning Dept
a purchaser of development rights had to
register all transfers with the City Planning
Department
City Planning Dept has to approve
transfers
Pop. 1.41 million TDR provisions
removed from ordinance in Golden Hill
Planned District in 1989 - problems:
density allowed by code usually wasn't
much greater than the density of the
historic structures from which rights were
transferred; owners of potential receiving
sites had little incentive to buy additional
density because they could achieve the
density they wanted under the limits
imposed by the code; surrounding
neighborhoods were resistent to
additional development
St. Petersburg,
FL
"Designated landmarks or
landmark sites other than
contributing structures in a historic
district and any gov't owned
property"; exterior must be
preserved and rehabilitated in
accordance with the Sec of the
Interior's Standards for
Preservation and Rehabilitation
properties in the downtown center
and corridor commercial
suburban districts
Floor Area
landmark building: the greater of the following -
10x the floor area of the landmark or the diff
between the gross flor area of the structure
and the max floor area allowed by zoning
landmark site: transferable floor area is 5x the
landmark site's size after deducting any lot
area occupied by a landmark building
"for each sq ft of development credit
transferred, $.50 must be given to the City's
historic preservation grant program, minus
any funds spent on required restoration or
rehab work"
Planning Dept (POD) approves
establishment and transfer of TDR credits.
City Attorney approves owner's declaration
of covenants and restrictions
A registry of TDR credit certificates is kept by
the Planning Dept. At time of transfer, owner
records a declaration of covenants and
restrictions which is then approved by the
City Attorney.
Application to establish TDR credits
approved by the POD, property must
be historically designated before
credits are issued, certificate of TDR
credits is administered upon approval
by POD, owner of credits who wants
to use them to transfer
density/intensity must apply; owner of
receiving site must have the approval
of a site plan before credits are
transferred
Pop. 261,000 16.70.040.1.17 of
following link:
https://library.municode.com/fl/st._peters
burg/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId
=PTIISTPECO_CH16LADERE_S16.70A
PPR_16.70.040PLZODE_16.70.040.1.17
TRDERIHI
Vancouver, WA
Designated historic landmark in
two Conservation Areas, created
with the adoption of a Historic
Preservation Overlay District
ordinance; any structure in the
Overlay District that is listed in the
State or National Registers of
Historic Places or designated on a
local register is eligible.
Any other site in the same zoning
district, as long as it will not
create a hazard to low-flying
aircraft.
Floor Area Floor area allowable on the sending site minus
the actual floor area of the sending site.
City Council makes record of covenant with
owner of the historic property/ sending site.
Owner of the historic property must record a
covenant with the City Council that the
historic property will be maintained in its
historic condition. Unclear if the covenant
addresses the transfer or simply the
preservation of the structure.
Covenant must be approved by City
Council.
Pop. 175,000 Section 20.510.050:
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/sites/def
ault/files/fileattachments/vmc/titles_chap
ters/20.510.pdf Very little specific
information is given.
Warrington, PA
Owners must petition to qualify
their land as sending sites through
conditional use permit process,
unless the site is within the
Residential-Agricultural zone, in
which case it would automatically
qualify. "Site can only be approved
if it meets four criteria including
consitency with the Comprehensive
Plan and promotion of public
welfare."
Sites in zones that permit higher-
density residential, office, and
industrial uses
Land Area
"TDR allocation varies depending on sending
site zoning: for each net acre of sending site
land, owners can receive 0.65 DUs in the RA
zone, 1.1 in the R-1, 1 DU in the R-1-C, 2 DUs
in the R-2 or R2-I and 1.9 DUs in the R-3. In
addition to this base allocation, sending sites
can receiving incentive bonuses of 15% in the
RA or 10% in other districts and additional
bonuses for sites with historic or natural
resource significance. RA sites must be at
least five acres to qualify."
Planning Commission and Township Board
of Supervisors, who approve the transfers,
are advised by the TDR Review Board.
Mention of where TDRs are recorded does
not appear in the code.
If not in the RA district, the Board of
Supervisors must approve the
transfer, considering the
recommendations of the Planning
Department or Planning Comission
and the TDR Review Boards.
Pop. 24,000 Program aims to
preserve environmental space and
historically significant sites.
https://www.ecode360.com/13867984?hi
ghlight=develop,developed,developer,de
velopers,development,development
developed,development
right,development
rights,developments,develops,right,rights
West
Hollywood, CA
"properties containing City-
designated cultural resources
which have less density than the
max allowed by the zoning code"
any properties zoned for
medium/high-density commercial
use which are not cultural
resources; cannot be transferred
into residential zones
Density
Difference between the max permitted
development and the existing number of
dwelling units; for nonresidential cultural
resources, it is the difference between the max
code-permitted floor area and the actual floor
area of the designated building
City's Cultural Hertiage Advisory Board
approves a rehabilitation plan if needed on
a sending site; rehab must be completed
before transfer. Council has established
criteria upon which transfers shall be
conditioned.
City allows developers to purchase an option
on TDRs, which must be recorded prior to
adoption of receiving site project (arranged
this way because City was concerned that
developers would be reluctant to use the
program if they had to buy rights before
transfer was approved).
Rights can be purchased by anyone;
do not have to be earmarked for a
particular receiving site. Cultural
Heritage Advisory Board approves
rehab plan if necessary. Council has
criteria that it follows when approving
a transfer.
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
rights. If sending site needs rehab,
owner initially receives only 25% of TDR
sale proceeds...remaining 75% is placed
in an escrow account for use in the
rehabn of the sending site." According to
Smart Preservation, no transfers have
occurred yet." 19.58.150.F of
http://qcode.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.
West Palm
Beach, FL
Historic properties, landmarks
(local or national register status),
Clematis St. conservation district,
urban open space, all as depicted
in the City's code. Historic sites &
landmarks must have completed
renovation acc. to code and must
be issued a certificate of
occupancy. "As an added incentive
for historic landmark designation,
sites with historic landmark status
are eligible for additional city-
owned TDRs in an amount
equivalent to the site's existing
development capacity"
"must comply with the TDR map
showing where TDR can be used
to reach an eight-, ten- and 20-
story maximum," as depicted in
the City zoning code
Floor area
transferable floor area is determined by
multiplying lot area by allowable number of
floors (and deducting the floor area of the
existing strucutre in the case of a historic
landmark sending site)
Planning director establishes eligibility,
DAC approves transfer
TDR registry maintained by city that records
total amt of DRs available on a site, and the
date & amount of any transfer that occurs;
city-approved restrictive covenant is executed
and recorded in public records (TDR
restrictive covenant), which describes the
adjusted DRs of sending and receiving sites;
"bank entity": TDRs may be acquired from a
sending site and held for an undetermined
amt of time until a suitable receiving site is
found
Planning director est. eligibility of
sending site, letter (w estimate of
DRs available for transfer from
sending) of availablilty may be issued
by planning dept upon request; all
transfers are subject to approval of
the Downtown Action Committee
(DAC), after which a certificate of
transfer is issued (recorded in TDR
registry)
Pop. 108,000 Sec. 94-132
of:
https://library.municode.com/fl/west_pal
m_beach/codes/code_of_ordinances?no
deId=PTIICOOR_CH94ZOLADERE_AR
TIVDOMAPLURRE_S94-132TRDERIPR
10/12/2018
1
City of Iowa City
City Council Work Session
September 4, 2018
Background
•May 29:
•Council considered local landmark designation of 410‐412 N.
Clinton Street
•Deferred to January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation
of a city‐wide TDR program
•August 7:
•Council discussed initial memo on TDR at work session
•September 4:
•Direction from City Council on key policy questions
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
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
10/12/2018
2
Transfer of Development Rights
•Incentivize 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.
RFC Transfer Formula
•No. of stories allowed on sending
site (4)
X
Area of sending site (8,700 sq. ft.)
=
Development Rights Available for
Transfer (34,800 sq. ft.)
Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
TDR Example –Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft.
34,800 sq. ft.
7,400 sq. ft.
27,400 sq. ft.
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St.
Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks
No. of Local Historic
Landmarks
Downtown 8
Dubuque / Linn Street Area 2
Northside 15
Goosetown 3
College Hill 6
Longfellow 1
Manville Heights 2
Kirkwood 2
Westside 4
Near Southside 6
Other 3
Total 52
10/12/2018
3
Research & Analysis
Sending Sites
Sending Sites Development Transfer
Potential (square feet)
Local Landmarks Only 4,367,068
Local Landmarks &
National Landmarks
5,368,997
•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 stories
X
Area of sending site
=
Development Transfer
Potential
Research & Analysis
Receiving Sites
Potential
Receiving Areas
Development
Potential
(square feet)
Development
Potential
(dwelling units)
Riverfront Crossings 2,522,313 -
Downtown 242,471 -
South Johnson &
South Van Buren
Area
--
Citywide – multi-unit
sites 5,389,525 845
TOTAL 8,154,309 845
•Identified vacant and
underutilized sites
•Removed sites within
floodplains, sites with
historic buildings, publicly
zoned land
10/12/2018
4
Research & Analysis
Summary of Sending & Receiving Sites Analysis
•Significant amount of transfer 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 Local Jurisdictions’ Program
•Transfer Formulas:
•Consider existing development on sending site
•Typical formula = Max allowable density/intensity on sending site Less Existing
density/intensity on sending site
•Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond
plan/zoning
•In comparison, the RFC transfer does not consider existing development
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions’ Program
•Approval Process for Transfers:
•Many cities require some type of a non‐administrative review
•Some cities approve transfers administratively
10/12/2018
5
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions’ Program
•Administration & Tracking:
•Variety of methods:
•Documented through a PUD or Specific/Master Plan
•Executed through a development agreement
•Recorded with the County as a conservation easement
•Legal documents signed by property owners & City Attorney
•Tracking
•City staff maintained registries and databases of possible receiving sites, eligible sites,
capacity of these sites
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions’ Program – Approval Process
•Receiving Areas:
•Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the
community/downtown
•Explicitly state that historic resources are not eligible as receiving sites
•Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
potential receiving site
•Commercial zones only –no transfers allows to residential zones
Issues/Constraints
•Market Potential:
•No market study
•Lack of Certainty in the Process:
•Non‐administrative review 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 TDR policy would compare to other bonuses
Policy Questions for City Council
1. Should eligible
sending sites include
existing local historic
landmarks or only
future local historic
landmarks?
Pros Cons
Fair May not have adequate capacity
in receiving areas
Consistent with RFC
TDR provisions
Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing
& future local historic landmarks.
Option b. Eligible sending sites only include
future local historic landmarks.
Pros Cons
May be easier to
accommodate
transfers
Inconsistent with RFC TDR
provisions
10/12/2018
6
Policy Questions for City Council
2. Should a city‐wide
TDR ordinance apply
the existing transfer
calculation formula
that is outlined in
RFC or a new
formula?
Pros Cons
More generous, more
of an incentive
More generous, may not be able
to accommodate transfers
Consistency in
administration and
simpler to understand
Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer
formula.
Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that
considers existing development.
Pros Cons
May be easier to
accommodate
transfers
More complex & more difficult to
administer
May want to revisit RFC transfer
formula to ensure consistency
Policy Questions for City Council
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
higher priority?
Pros Cons
Simpler & easier to
administer
Bonuses for multiple public
benefits may dilute the
effectiveness of preserving
historic structures
Option a. Model a city‐wide TDR program on
the current bonus provisions.
Option b. Allow transfer for historic properties
to exceed the City’s current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity?
Pros Cons
More of an incentive
for preservation
Community concerns with
additional height &
density/intensity
An analysis of the potential
impact would take time to
evaluate
Policy Questions for City Council
4. What type of
process should be
established for the
review and approval
of sending and
receiving transfer of
development rights?
Pros Cons
Simpler & consistent
with current process
Lack of certainty in the approval
process
Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings
review and approval procedure by the City Council.
Option b. Establish a new procedure that allows
transfer up to a certain level to be approved
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified
threshold would be reviewed by City Council.
Pros Cons
Streamline the review
& approval of transfers
Not consistent with current RFC
process
Allows the Council to
review & approve
larger transfers
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a
city‐wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Pros Cons
Current receiving area
May not be able to
accommodate the transfer
potential
Master Plan & FBC
encourage higher
densities
Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or
Option b. Downtown and/or
Pros Cons
Core of the community Significant number of historic
resources
Current zoning allows
for higher
densities/intensities
May not be able to
accommodate transfer potential
10/12/2018
7
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a
city‐wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Pros Cons
Transfer could provide
an incentive for
redevelopment
May require the development of
an urban design plan, which
would take time
Zoned for higher
density housing
May not be able to
accommodate transfer potential
Option c. South Johnson / Van Buren area and/or
Option d. Multi‐unit sites throughout the city and/or
Pros Cons
Provides the most
capacity for transfers
Could potentially be more
impactful & cause concern from
neighbors
Areas with sensitive features
could result in higher densities
than currently allowed through
clustering
Option e. Other sites or areas
Summary of Policy Questions Summary of Options
1. Eligible sending sites?
a. Existing & future Local Landmarks
• Fair & Consistent / May not have adequate receiving site capacity
b. Only future Local Landmarks
• May be easier to accommodate transfers / Inconsistent with current process
2. Transfer formula?
a. RFC transfer formula
• More generous & consistency in administration; easier to understand
• May not have adequate receiving site capacity
b. New transfer formula
• May be easier to accommodate transfers / More complex & difficult to administer
3. Bonuses & Priority of preserving
historic resources compared to other
public benefits?
a. Current bonus provisions
• Simpler & easier / May dilute effectiveness of preserving historic resources
b. Exceed current bonus provisions
• More of an incentive / Community concerns & unknown impacts
4. Review & approval process for
transfers?
a. Existing RFC process (i.e. approval by City Council)
• Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty in approvals
b. New process
• Streamline the review & allow Council review for larger transfers
• Not consistent with current RFC process
5. Eligible receiving sites?
a. RFC
b. Downtown and/or
c. South Johnson / Van Buren area and/or
d. Multi-unit sites throughout the city and/or
e. Other sites
Timeline
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 20, 2018 City Council (1
st reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2018 City Council (2
nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance)
January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8-month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412
North Clinton Street
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
1
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 14-2B, 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.
2. 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
2
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-1d
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 14-2B-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
3
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
4
Amend 14-3C-3B, 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 for the 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 for the 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 floor area (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
5
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.
Proposed Eligible Receiving Sitesµ
0 1 20.5 Miles
Prepared By: Luke FoelschDate Prepared: Oct. 2018
Legend
Riverfront Crossings Eligible Sites
All Other Eligible Sites
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA HARVAT HALL
OCTOBER 11, 2018
MEMBERS PRESENT: Zach Builta, Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli,
Quentin Pitzen, Lee Shope
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Judy Jones
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Miller
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Bristow introduced new minute taker, Judy Jones, and the City’s new Senior Planner, Anne
Russett.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CONSENT AGENDA:
802 South Summit Street.
Bristow explained the property is on the corner of Sheridan and Summit. She displayed the
Sheridan side elevation. She said it is a Queen Anne cottage that was originally a hipped roof with
projecting gables on at least three sides and another one added to the south. She displayed an
historic photo that was used to recreate the porch for a past project.
Bristow said the current project is to remove the exiting single-car garage, which was added
sometime before 1933, and replace it with a two-car garage. She displayed a picture inside the
garage showing the door to the kitchen. This door and the stairs need to remain so there is access
to grade level in the garage from the house. There is a trap door in the floor that is the only access
to the basement. Part of the garage addition is maintaining space to have the stairs into the main
kitchen of the house and retain access to the garage.
Bristow showed a back view of the house showing the back of the garage with windows that do not
look original and then the south facing gable, with a little deck, and some changes to the east
facing gable.
Bristow explained the existing garage footprint, the dotted outline, would be converted into a
breezeway so the east wall of the breezeway will be on the foundation of the existing garage. The
front wall will step back a little bit, which allows this space to become that hyphen that we look for
between an existing historic building and a new addition. She said this location allows the property
owner to retain a useable backyard.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 2 of 16
Bristow said staff has been working with this property owner and their architect since sometime last
fall. They looked at the idea of just extending the existing garage to incorporate space for a second
car. Since that garage has a shed roof, as it extended it was just getting to a point where the roof
was too low to really have any clearance for a car or anything else.
Bristow said they also looked at the idea of extending the existing garage but changing the roof line
to a gable that would be similar to this gable, but there is a window in the gable that should be
retained.
Bristow said it also was not possible to move the garage to the backyard, because the backyard
would not be usable, and the Building Official confirmed it was not possible. Bristow said the
homeowner need to get minor modification approved because they are short on the required
driveway length
Bristow said the plan shows the stairs coming out of the kitchen area and down like they currently
do, and the area for the trap door for the basement. It also includes some storage space because
this would become kind of like a mud room for them, and then the two-car garage. The garage
itself is very simple and follows the guidelines. Because this does include both demolition and
attaching to the house it could not be a staff-reviewed garage.
Bristow displayed an elevation drawing. She noted there are certain trim details on the house that
we would also have them replicate, such as making sure that the window and door trim matches
what would be on the house. She said the shingles will match the shingles on the house. Bristow
said the windows will be metal-clad double hung, the siding will be cement board, and the trim
would be wood. The garage will have two single-car, carriage house style garage doors.
Bristow showed the breezeway portion and a three-quarter light door and two double-hung
windows. She explained that on the south side that faces Deluxe there will be three smaller
windows. She showed the back side that won’t be visible from the street which includes a passage
door for the garage, and one for the breezeway.
She showed how the connecting roof for the breezeway is lower than the garage roof and the
garage roof is below the windows in the gable so they are not blocked by the building.
Bristow displayed some 3D renderings submitted. She explained that some of the details
mentioned in the trim are not there, but it shows the massing and size of the addition. She
explained that the garage and breezeway are clearly subordinate to the house, yet the front-facing
gable roof echoes what’s going on at the house on the Summit Street elevation. Bristow said staff
does recommend approval of this. She said that to approve an attached garage, an exception
must be allowed and staff feels that the site constraints are what allows for an exception to be
made to allow an attached garage in this instance, and also finds the breezeway and the garage
appropriate.
Boyd asked if all plan details needed to be included in the future approval. Bristow explained these
details are covered in the guidelines and would be included in any approval. She noted if the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 3 of 16
Commission did not want an item included, they should point it out.
Boyd opened the public hearing. There were no comments offered by the public. Bristow noted the
architect was present and available to answer any questions.
Kuenzli stated she had a very strong negative reaction to the project for the following reasons:
Summit Street was the first historic district in town, it is the most visible and the most traveled of
the City’s historic districts. She believed the attached garage was inappropriate for the historic
district. Additionally, she thought the new garage was way too big in proportion to the house and
there was no other house on Summit Street with a double-car or single-car garage attached and
facing Summit Street. Kuenzli inquired about an alternative solution of leaving the existing single-
car garage and then to add a single-car garage in the side yard.
Kuenzli noted that across the street from this house on Sheridan is an 1890s house that has a
breezeway and a garage, which existed before it was an historic district, but the driveway and
double-car garage open onto Sheridan and it’s a lot easier to drive onto Sheridan than it is to back
out onto Summit Street. Kuenzli added that she found the project inappropriate for the streetscape.
Kuenzli asked if it would be possible to put a single-car garage on the east side of the house where
there is a pretty large side yard.
Bristow said they probably would not be allowed to have an additional curb cut if a garage was
added on the east side of the house. She wasn’t certain how far away from the corner it had to be
before an additional curb cut would be allowed per regulations. Kuenzli said she was just offering a
suggestion to try to meet the homeowner’s wishes
Boyd and Builta noted the breezeway was not there for convenience, but for the kitchen stairs and
access to the basement. Builta also noted there was a window that constrained the height of the
breezeway.
Shope said he understood the concern about the massing, but the issue of a garage facing onto
Summit Street was already pre-established. Kuenzli agreed, but noted it was a single-car garage,
not a double-car garage.
Shope understood but thought the issue of a garage facing onto Summit Street was not relevant
because there is one there. Kuenzli believed a double-car garage would set a different precedent.
Karr asked if they would be allowed to put up a two-car garage that was not attached if there
wasn’t the issue of the access to the basement and all those things.
Bristow said if they were to remove the existing garage and finish that end of the house, the
restrictions would require a distance between the house and the new garage to avoid fire-rated
construction. She said from the Commission’s standpoint, the greatest concern would probably be
exposing the trap door and basement access, something that’s been enclosed for at least a very
long time, if not always.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 4 of 16
Architect Steve Miller brought updated plan copies for the Commission based on Jessica’s
feedback.
Miller noted the rendering shown might have been very early on in the process and a little more
simplified and contemporary looking because of the lack of detail. He said they’ve worked with
Jessica to narrow up the proportions and add the windows.
Kuenzli asked if the garage, as drawn on the new drawing, had the same pitch of the roof as the
pitch on the gable of the house.
Miller said no. That would make it much taller, so it would have a lot more presence on Summit
Street side.
Shope asked if the pitch of the garage was the same as the front gable on the house, the one that
faces Sheridan. Miller said it’s actually the same as the little pitch over the porch in that rendering.
Karr said he understood the significant issues and restraints with the size of the lot and the corner
lot. He said we have an existing garage that we’ve already deemed historic and he didn’t see a
reason in the guidelines telling him he could not approve this, or a reason to not vote yes for this. If
someone had a reason, he encouraged them to cite it so he could see that view.
Kuenzli asked if he saw a problem with the mass of this garage compared with the mass of the
house. Karr said no.
Bristow noted the guidelines do include things about massing and rooflines, and it is true that for
an addition the guidelines would want you to mimic rooflines on an existing structure. W e have an
issue here with the gables on the house covering a narrower part of the building than the garage is,
so it is true that once you have this bigger footprint and you put a gable on it the same pitch as the
house, you’re going to just come up with a roof that is enormously tall. A traditional method to
avoid that problem is to make the roof on a garage have a slightly lower pitch. Sometimes dormers
on houses would also have slightly lower pitches, or higher pitches, because of this issue.
Otherwise, the guidelines talk about having the addition be subordinate to the house and, in this
case, it is set lower. It’s separated by the hyphen area, and it is just generally smaller than the
house.
Shope noted in the new drawing the architect added a window in the gable. All the other gables
appear to have double windows. He asked the architect if he considered a double window in that
gable that might blend it better with the house. Miller said he would be willing to do that.
Bristow said the guidelines for new outbuildings talk about having a small window or a vent in the
gable. She said the idea of adding double windows might initially seem to be appropriate, at the
same time, a garage is not going to be as ornamented as a house. Kuenzli said the windows
should be proportional to the mass that surrounds it. She thought this looked kind of narrow. She
suggested maybe just a single window.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 5 of 16
Boyd asked about the Commission about the motion in the staff report. He said he was inclined to
support the motion as written. He felt given the constraints of the property and given there was
already a garage there a new larger garage smaller in scale than the house could be approved.
He asked if there was additional discussion.
DeGraw said she was inclined to vote yes. She thought it looked a little contemporary but, it was
within the guidelines, so she would vote yes.
Builta said he was inclined to vote yes and added that this is an exception because there are
constraints on what can be done.
Boyd noted there were property limitations. This is a corner property. The garage is going to face a
street. It does not have alley access.
Bristow noted that the guidelines do include the possibility for exceptions. There is the possibility
for an exception for unique site conditions and that is the specific exception that staff was
considering for this particular project.
Boyd asked if the Commission was ready for a vote.
MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 802
South Summit Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines
allowing an attached garage due to the unique conditions present at the site and existing
setback. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Nays: Kuenzli
and Pitzen. (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent).
REVIEW OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ZONING AMENDMENT
Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services presented a proposed ordinance for a
city-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She said she would provide a
background on how we got here and explain what Transfer of Development Rights are. She said
she would explain the existing Transfer of Development Rights policy in our Riverfront Crossings
District and then go over what we are proposing in the ordinance. She said since this ordinance
was related to historic properties, they wanted to bring it to the Commission for input.
Russett said this began on May 29th when the City Council discussed considering a local landmark
designation at 410-412 North Clinton Street.That motion was deferred to January 2019 based on a
recommendation from the property owner’s attorney to put the vote on hold for that local landmark
designation until the City had an opportunity to explore a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights
program. Since then, Council has discussed a city-wide transfer program. Staff presented to them
at a work session on September 4th and received some direction from the Council on how they
would like to move forward.
Russett explained Transfer of Development Rights. She said they are an incentive to protect
historic resources which allows property owners to sell or transfer development rights from historic
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 6 of 16
resources, which are called the sending sites, to receiving sites, which are areas where the City
wants to encourage higher density development. The development rights would be applied to
another site.
Russett said there are some key components to a Transfer of Development Rights program. There
are the sending sites, which in this case would be historic resources. The receiving sites are areas
where there could be additional development or additional density. There is the transfer
calculation, that’s used to figure how much density, or how much height, could be transferred from
one site to another. There is also a review process and an administration procedure.
Russett explained that the City does have an existing TDR program that applies to the Riverfront
Crossings District. In Riverfront Crossings the City requires Iowa City landmark designation prior
to requesting a Transfer of Development Rights. The receiving sites in this area are any site in
Riverfront Crossings. The formula that’s used to calculate the transfer potential is the lot area of
the sending site x the maximum number of stories allowed on the sending site, the result is the
square footage that a property owner could transfer to another site.
Russett said for the Riverfront Crossings District, any request for a transfer must be reviewed and
approved by City Council. She explained that while receiving sites can go above the base height in
that zone, there is a max depending on which area of the district they are located in. Russett said
one project has used this incentive since it was adopted into the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance,
the Tate Arms Building at 914 South Dubuque. On this site the maximum number of stories is four
and the area of the site is 8700 square feet, so the total development rights available for this site
that could be transferred, were 34,800 square feet. The developer transferred at least 7400
square feet to the property to the north. The property to the north received an additional story, a
height bonus, through this transfer. Tate Arms still has 27,400 square feet of transfer potential that
could go to another site in Riverfront Crossings.
Boyd asked if the owner of the Tate Arms Building had these rights, but didn’t really want to
develop something somewhere else, could sell those rights to another developer or must the
owner of the landmark property use them. Russett said they could be sold on the private market.
Shope asked if there was any restriction or requirement that those funds be used in any way to
improve the historic property.
If they transferred the development rights for money, would there be any requirement that the
money be invested in the historic property from which the rights were sold. Russett said no.
Shope asked if the Tate Arms allowance of four stories was based on current zoning for that
property. Russett said it was based on the current zoning designation. Karr asked if the zoning was
changed, would there then be additional rights that would be sold. Russett said staff is proposing
no.
Russett discussed direction received from Council regarding the proposed ordinance. She said
Council asked that sending sites only include future local historic landmarks, so existing historic
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 7 of 16
landmarks would not be eligible for transfer rights. They requested that staff develop a new transfer
formula and not use the one that’s currently used in Riverfront Crossings. City Council wants to
continue to review and approve any transfer requests. For receiving sites, they wanted it to include
areas in Riverfront Crossings and sites throughout the City that allow multiunit development.
As a summary of the proposed ordinance, Anne said staff is proposing that properties eligible for
Iowa City landmark designation would be eligible, but it only applies to future landmarks.
Properties that are already landmarked, if they are already in an historic district, or if they are
already in a conservation district, would not be eligible for a transfer. City Council felt that it was
important to only apply this to future landmarks since these other properties are already protected,
and this incentive would only apply to future designations. Russet said that receiving sites could be
areas that are zoned either Riverfront Crossings, multifamily residential, or commercial zones that
allow multifamily. She displayed a map of the eligible receiving sites.
Russett said staff is proposing that there are two options for what could be transferred. An owner
could either transfer height or transfer density, not both. The transfer could exceed the maximum
height on the receiving site, as well as the maximum density on the receiving site. For the height
bonus, it could not exceed 40 feet above the maximum height that is allowed in that zone. There
would not be restrictions on increases in density.
Boyd asked how many stories 40 feet would be. Russett said four, maybe a little less.
Russett said the calculation for the bonus potential for height would be the difference between the
maximum allowable height on the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure, so
the maximum allowable height minus the existing height would equal the amount that could
transfer. Russet said the minimum transfer would be 12 feet. She explained that a 30-foot existing
historic structure with a maximum in the zoned district of 35 feet, would only have five feet to
transfer. She said that since that is not much to transfer, the minimum would be 12 feet, or a story,
that could transfer.
Russett presented an example of density transfer the maximum allowable dwelling units of the
sending site minus the existing number of dwelling units that are currently there provide the
number of dwelling units that could potentially be transferred. This would be determined at the time
the landmark designation occurs based on the base zone for the district at that time. Russett
provided a density example using 412 North Clinton. The maximum allowable number of dwelling
units on the site is 24. There are currently 18, so the potential transfer is six dwelling units.
Russett explained how review of transfers would work. Staff is proposing that transfers would be
reviewed by the staff design review committee based on the guidelines in the zoning code for any
design review project. The design review committee would make a recommendation to City
Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker on the transfer. A proposal that was very out of
scale or that didn’t fit within the existing context of the neighborhood, might not move successfully
through the approval process.
Russett discussed how TDRs are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 8 of 16
plan has policies that talk about protecting historical resources. With the historic preservation plan
there are goals related to providing economic incentives to property owners to encourage them to
preserve historic buildings. TDRs are a potential incentive for property owners to landmark their
buildings.
Boyd noted this is for future sites and confirmed that this is local landmarks only, not National
Register listed sites, but local landmarks.
Boyd stated that most of the properties where development rights being discussed here are either
in commercial districts or high-density residential areas. He asked if a potential local landmark is
zoned at the lowest density possible it wouldn’t have much to transfer, correct?
Russett said that if it’s a large site, such as a farmstead that might be historic on a large parcel but
with only one remaining building, the site could potentially be subdivided and there could be more
dwelling units built. This could result in more potential to transfer.
Kuenzli noticed among the receiving sites proposed were the South Johnson/South Van Buren
Streets between Court and the railroad tracks. She said the stated goal of this is to preserve an
historic structure somewhere, but to be able to increase either height or density within the receiving
area. Johnson and Van Buren currently are mostly two or three-story structures. Kuenzli asked if
this were to pass, could a developer could come in and build eight stories or 12 stories on those
streets.
Russett said theoretically yes, but with the process in place it would go through design review and
City Council, who would look at consistency and compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
Russett added that in the proposed ordinance there would not be limitations on density, but there
would be limitations on height, 40 feet above the maximum in the zoned district. 12 stories in that
area would not be allowed based on the proposed TDR amendment.
The maximum height in that area is 35 feet, so with TDRs a new development could still be much
larger than what’s there but there would be a process in place for review and approval to make
sure the development was not out of scale for the area.
Boyd clarified the receiving sites would be Riverfront Crossings and where there are existing
multifamily units. Kuenzli said she was in favor of saving historic properties, but not if the cost is
going to be the destruction of other neighborhoods. Builta pointed out if a house is preserved and
they sell a floor or two somewhere, that’s not going to destroy a neighborhood.
Kuenzli said she is concerned that it is not going to be a floor or two judging from the discussion so
far.
Shope noted there are homes in residential areas that have large lots and questioned if this was
based on lot size, not the existing structure size. Russett said the height was based on what’s
allowed in the zone compared to what the existing structure is.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 9 of 16
Shope provided an example. A house is one story tall and it’s on a lot that is a little over half an
acre. If you figured her allowance based on that half acre for four stories, the existing house hasn’t
used much of that. Russett clarified that if it’s in a residential district the maximum height is
probably 35 feet where the most she could transfer would probably be two stories.
Shope asked again about the half-acre lot size. Russett said the transfer would just be two stories.
For the height, it doesn’t matter what the lot size is. Shope asked if it was based on the size of the
current structure. Russett said the height of the current structure.
Karr said he understood it was limited and was concerned that existing homes that are already
landmarked wouldn’t be eligible, especially for the six or seven that were recently landmarked.
Karr said he loved the fact that this is incentivizing preservation of individual landmarks, but he
would be upset if he was one of the recent landmarks left out of this incentive.
Karr wondered what happens when we look at the Downtown District. He said he felt this would
have ramifications there. He noted if there were some building owners downtown who probably
weren’t excited about getting in the district, this would be a fantastic way to entice them.
Boyd said those may not be individual landmarks. That may be a district. Karr and Boyd asked if it
had to be individual properties. Russett said it must be local historic landmarks. Karr said he was
asking about an entire district, such as the proposed Railroad Depot District on Clinton Street.
Boyd said he thought the railroad qualified because it is currently in Riverfront Crossings.
Russett clarified it is only for individual landmarks in Riverfront Crossings, as well. They need the
landmark designation.
Boyd asked if people could be incentivized individually to be a landmark if a Downtown District
didn’t happen. Karr thought that would give a landowner downtown a reason to fight the district and
go on an individual landmark basis, because it’d be worth more money to them. Russett believed
that may be true. Bristow asked if the downtown becomes a district, would it then be removed from
the receiving sites. Russett said yes, Historic districts, conservation districts, and landmarks are not
eligible as receiving sites.
Bristow followed up on Karr’s comments about the recent landmarks. She said that because this
deferral and TDR development process came up when the five that achieved landmark status
happened, she wondered if there would be any condition that included just those five because they
were done at the same time when this process started. Russett said if the Commission wanted to
recommend that, if they wanted to recommend changes to the proposed receiving areas, she could
pass that along to the Council and the Planning Commission.
Boyd said he was glad they were talking about this. He said he thought it was helpful because the
Commission gets a lot of questions about the economic incentives that can be provided for
landmarks. He said TDRs are being discussed because one particular property owner asked for it.
Boyd asked if there were other incentives that could be considered. He said that there is an
example in North Carolina where new local landmarks receive automatic property tax deduction.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 10 of 16
Boyd said there may be other incentives that help achieve some of the goals in the comprehensive
plan. He said he felt we were doing this because one property owner asked and the focus had
been narrowed very rapidly based on a very rapid timeline and a deadline that was set by the
property owner and the City Council. Boyd said he wondered if the City could consider other
potential incentives, regardless of what happens with the TDRs. He wondered if the Commission
was supposed to bring those ideas or if Planning and Zoning Commission came with them.
Russett said if the Commission had ideas for Planning and Zoning to investigate, staff could
definitely do that. She wasn’t sure if the property tax idea was something we could do here, but she
knew other communities do it, so staff could look into that.
Bristow clarified that the property owner for 410-412 didn’t necessarily come up with the Transfer of
Development Rights out of the blue. The Tate Arms project had been successful and the idea of
protecting historic properties this way had been considered by the planning staff in the past. Staff
had always thought about the possibility of adopting something like this to protect historic
properties, partly because through research, we have learned that this is something that other
communities, and there are some examples in the packet, have taken on to promote the
preservation of their historic properties. The first few communities that came up with the process
found there were some lessons to be quickly learned, and they had to tweak the way the process
happened. She said there was a document put out by the National Park Service that she may have
given the Commission earlier in the year. She said it goes talks about those lessons learned and
how a community can make sure TDRs work as they are supposed to.
Russett asked if they could have wording for the downtown stating that if there is a proposed
district, those properties cannot individually landmark for the TDR bonus instead, to avoid a non-
incentive for a potential historic district. Bristow wanted clarification on whether this incentive could
be possible for a future Downtown District. Russett said that once an area has been selected for a
district, if the group of property owners say no to the district, then they cannot individually landmark
to get the TDR. An owner can agree to the district, but you cannot strategize to reject the district in
order to go for the individual landmark and the incentive of the TDR.
Russett said the reason they were not allowing future districts to be eligible is that there are certain
properties in an historic district that might not be contributing or might not be as historically
significant and wouldn’t meet local landmark requirements, so it isn’t fair to provide the incentive for
the entire district. She said another option is that future districts could potentially be eligible to
utilize the incentive.
Boyd noted that all our current historic districts are largely non-commercial districts. He said he
wondered if there could be a consideration about how we think about commercial districts, which
was something that needed to be considered anyway. Expectations for a residential district are
different than expectations for a commercial district. The buildings are used differently now than
they were historically. In the residential districts those structures are largely being used as they
were when they were built, for the most part.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 11 of 16
Boyd said if there is an effort to limit the scale of this proposal, commercial is one thing to think
about. He said he thought high-density residential by itself, was the highest zoning piece. He
thought that’s largely where these properties probably are anyway, just given where our historic
properties are.
Boyd thought one item of consensus would be including anything that’s been landmarked in 2018.
Kuenzli asked about the receiving areas that allow multiunit development. Kuenzli thought that was
a little vague. Boyd questioned if that was the red area on the map. Russett said yes it includes all
multifamily residential zones and commercial zones that allow multifamily.
Boyd said since those are the receiving sites, could those also be the categories that we use for
landmarks or districts. Russett said that was a possibility and she liked the suggestion of
commercial districts because residential districts, even though you could maybe get more units,
have lower height limit. Commercial districts generally allow a lot more development potential, so it
could be more of an incentive in a commercial district and a landmark designation could restrict the
ability to develop that property to its maximum allowable density or height under the zone. She said
to her, the commercial districts make sense because the base zoning designation probably allows
a lot more height than is currently there.
Boyd said he thought one other item for consensus was the idea of individual properties and
potentially future commercial districts. Russett said we could bring this back to the Commission at
the next meeting if they want to think about it more, but she needed to move it forward to Planning
and Zoning next week. She asked for the Commission’s feelings on if this was something they
wanted the City Council to consider or if there was no interest in providing this type of incentive for
historic properties.
Boyd said he thought we should find incentives for landmark and district designations. He thought
the City should consider it, and the Commission was one step in that consideration. He said
Planning and Zoning will consider it, and ultimately City Council will consider it. He believed the
Commission’s job was to look at the impact on historic preservation. He said TDRs are a potential
tool that helps incentivize historic preservation. He noted there were some things that needed to be
worked out as a City, but he didn’t believe the Commission was the one to work out all of those
details.
Russett restated what she’d heard from the Commission. She heard this should apply to landmarks
that were designated in 2018, and maybe consider future commercial historic districts being
eligible. She heard some concern about the receiving sites. She said if they wanted those
changed, even if it was not a consensus, she would pass that information along.
Boyd agreed there was some concern about the receiving sites, particularly those in residential
areas. He didn’t think there was a lot of concern when there was already a lot of density and a lot
of other taller buildings. He said the Commission was open and interested in exploring what other
incentives might be available outside of this particular program.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 12 of 16
DeGraw said there was a concern with the calculation with regard to lot size that used with Tate
Arms, because at times that would create an overly generous handing out of TDR that couldn’t be
honored.
Shope was concerned that this is currently restricted to future landmarks. He said he understood
the rationale, which is that those existing landmarks are already protected, but historic landmarks
also have higher costs of maintenance. He had a bit of an issue with precluding the benefits of this
from those who already own those historic landmarks. Boyd wondered if there was a way for us to
think about other incentives for existing landmarks.
Shope noted this is the incentive that’s before us right now. He asked for a clarification on the
following: On page 3 of the October 11th memo it says 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 an historically significant building per a survey. He said he
thought what was presented as eligible is an Iowa City landmark, and that’s not the way he read
this sentence.
Russett said that portion of the October 11 memo was a summary of the current ordinance in
Riverfront Crossings. She clarified that if the property is in Riverfront Crossings and is registered
on the National Register, it is eligible, but is still required to get local landmark designation before
receiving the incentive.
Russett said she would pass these suggestions forward and incorporate some of them into the
draft ordinance if there was consensus. Russett said if the Commission wants to, it could move this
forward to Planning and Zoning with amendments. The Commission could move that it be deferred
until the next meeting and we it could be brought back.
Boyd asked if the Commission could move that they are generally in favor of this, but have a few
concerns that have been identified. Russett said that was an option. Boyd asked if the Commission
could still revisit the amendment at some point. Russett said it could be revisited at the next
meeting on November 8th, which would be before the amendment goes to City Council for public
hearing.
Boyd said he’d like to move that the Commission is generally in favor of the TDR amendment to
the zoning code and has made some suggestions. The Commission’s role is to decide if this is a
tool that historic preservation should use.
Russett suggested moving the amendment forward and then, for a property owner that wasn’t
thinking about development but still wondered what was going on with the TDR, add the offer of a
simple tax reduction. That would be appealing and save that person the burden of having to
research how to capture this potential. Russet said she thought some property owners would do
that.
MOTION: Boyd moved that the Commission is generally in favor of incentives, including
this amendment. The Commission has shared some specific concerns but are broadly in
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 13 of 16
favor of moving forward. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0
(Agran, Burford, and Clore absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review.
1037 East Washington Street.
This project will repair about five of their original windows and replace storms, which we don’t need
to review, but they put it on the application anyway.
722 East College Street.
This project will replace the concrete steps that were an original part of the building. They have
completely deteriorated.
900 North Johnson.
This project is repairing siding that was deteriorated and repairing the rear deck.
430 Ronalds Street.
Bristow said the owners of this property are repairing windows
Minor Review – Staff Review.
Bristow said the University Partnership property at the last minute had to replace the roof because
it had failed suddenly. She said it was being replaced, but it would not be metal. It will be shingles.
Boyd wondered if it was just staff review if they go from metal to shingles. Bristow said yes, that
was something that changed at the beginning of the year.
927 South 7th Avenue.
Bristow said this property was part of a series of bungalows that could have been their own historic
district at the end of 7th Avenue, but they are a part of the Dearborn Street Conservation District.
The siding on just the front and rear dormers was failing and so they are replacing the siding and
trim.
412 S Summit Street.
Bristow said this roof has been deteriorating for a long time and they are replacing it. The internal
gutters will remain.
900 N Johnson.
Bristow said they will be putting in a radon mitigation system in the area where all other utilities are
located.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 14 of 16
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
DeGraw thought there was one area, page 9 of 14 paragraph 4, where it says DeGraw noted. She
thought that was supposed to be Kuenzli, and then the Kuenzli after was supposed to be DeGraw.
Bristow said she would go back and listen to the audio copy of the minutes. She said she would go
back, review, and correct it.
Boyd referenced page 11, the second paragraph, second sentence, where it says, “Boyd noted if a
termite of moisture will not affect them” should be attributed to Pitzen. Pitzen agreed.
MOTION: Builta moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s
September 13, 2018 meeting with the changes noted. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 7-0 (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent).
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Downtown District Survey:
Bristow said the final survey and report from our consultant Alexa McDowell is uploaded on the
City’s website. It is separated on the website into parts so that readers can download smaller
portions instead of the entire document. The report is the first part which includes the findings.
Bristow said McDowell talks about her methodology and makes recommendations to the City
based on her findings. Another section is the Multi-Property Document, which is historically what
Iowa City has used to discuss the overall built history of Iowa City. This document discusses
downtown history, the types of architecture, and the types of material.
Bristow said McDowell also includes appendix items such as maps and the table, tax incentives,
and information about the National Register Criteria. She said another appendix item is the
Secretary of the Interior standards, which would be the basis for any review that would occur.
Bristow said a public presentation by the consultant is scheduled in the Old Capitol Building in the
Senate Chamber on October 22 at 5:30 pm. She said there will also be a presentation with a City
Council work session the following morning, October 23, at 9:00 a.m.
Old Settlers’ Cabins:
Boyd noted the Old Settlers’ cabins in City Park are coming along quite nicely. He thought we
should look at exploring what it would take to make those a local landmark. They are City-owned.
He thought it really would highlight the work the City has invested in those properties and really
help talk about their history, which is really kind of interesting. Boyd asked to put this on a future
agenda unless there were strong concerns not to.
Bristow said staff would investigate that.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 15 of 16
ICAAR:
Karr received an email last week from Monica Hayes, who is in charge of ICAAR, the local realtor
conglomeration, who would like to do a lunch and learn with HPC at the ICAAR building in
Coralville. He didn’t know if it mattered that it was not in Iowa City, but the intent would be to
hopefully have some Commissioners do a short presentation to explain to them what historic
preservation is, what we’re trying to accomplish, and some of the guidelines, so hopefully more
realtors would know what’s going on when they are potentially listing or have a buyer for a house in
an historic district. Boyd said that was great and that he’d love to be a part of it.
Karr said they were going to try and push it into 2019, but if anybody would like to help, that would
be great. He said he may also try to get the Home Builders Association involved, too, because
there is a Remodelers’ Council and there could be a nice group of people there.
DeGraw said she could design print materials, if needed.
Award Nominations:
Bristow said the award season process would be beginning again. She would be putting out a call
for nominations. She said staff keeps a big list of potential things that people point out throughout
the year and other projects, but of course any Commissioners who know of any projects that might
be eligible for an award, should nominate them.
The Awards will be Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:30 pm in the Iowa City Public Library with a
reception at 5:00 pm.
ADJOURNMENT: Kuenzli moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Shope.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
NAME
TERM
EXP. 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/9 8/23 9/13 10/11
AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E
BAKER, ESTHER 6/30/18 X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- --
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X O/E X O/E
CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X O/E
DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X
KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
MICHAUD, PAM 6/30/18 X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- --
PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X
SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X O/E X
SWAIM, GINALIE 6/30/18 O/E X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- --
WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/18 X O/E O/E X X X X X -- -- -- -- --