HomeMy WebLinkAboutWork Session - Transfer Density RightsCity 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
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.
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
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.)
TDR Example —Tate Arm
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St
Ir 1'
MW
r
r 't
ii
34,800 sq. ft
27,400 sq. ft.
--------------------
------ ----- - - ----------------
Total
----- -Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft.
s, 916 S. Dubuque St.
Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St.
1,13
7,400 sq. ft. v
------------
-------
-- -
�W
oaa
a9
I
Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft.
Research & Analysis
Sending Sites
• Only analyzed existing local and
national landmarks
• Several other buildings eligible for
local landmark designation
• HPC proactively identifying sites to
locally landmark
• Used the RFC Transfer Formula:
No. of stories
X
Area of sending site
Development Transfer
Potential
Research & Analysis
Receiving Sites
• Identified vacant and
underutilized sites
• Removed sites within
floodplains, sites with
historic buildings, publicly
zoned land
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
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?
Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing
& future local historic landmarks.
Option b. Eligible sending sites only include
future local historic landmarks.
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?
Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer
formula.
Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that
considers existing development.
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?
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?
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?
Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings
review and approval procedure by the City Council.
Option b. Establish anew 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.
b. Downtown and/or
5. Eligible receiving sites? c. South Johnson /Van Buren area and/or
d. Multi -unit sites throughoutthe city and/or
e. Other sites
a. Existing & future Local Landmarks
1. Eligible sending sites?
Fair & Consistent / May not have adequate receiving site capacity
b. Only future Local Landmarks
• May be easier to accommodate transfers / Inconsistent with current process
a. RFC transfer formula
• More generous & consistency in administration; easier to understand
2. Transfer formula?
May not have adequate receiving site capacity
b. New transfer formula
• Maybe easier to accommodate transfers/ More complex & difficult to administer
3. Bonuses & Priority of preserving
a. Current bonus provisions
historic resources compared to other
Simpler & easier / May dilute effectiveness of preserving historic resources
public benefits?
b. Exceed current bonus provisions
• More of an incentive/ Community concerns & unknown impacts
a. Existing RFC process (i.e. approval by City Council)
4. Review & approval process for
Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty in approvals
transfers?
b. New process
• Streamline the review & allow Council review for larger transfers
• Not consistent with current RFC process
a. RFC
b. Downtown and/or
5. Eligible receiving sites? c. South Johnson /Van Buren area and/or
d. Multi -unit sites throughoutthe city and/or
e. Other sites
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 (1st reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2018 City Council (2nd & possible 3,d reading of ordinance)
January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412
North Clinton Street