Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

Question 3: Are the existing zoning restrictions for the areas you want to preserve adequate to discourage inappropriate development? Question 3 is designed to test whether the zoning that currently applies to your sending areas is well suited to a workable TOR program. In our JAPA study, we found that 18 out of the 20 leading TOR programs in the nation have sending-site zoning that limits on-site develop- ment to no more than one dwelling unit per five acres. Consequently, we would suggest that you respond yes if your sending-site zoning is one dwelling unit per five acres or more. If your sending-area zoning allows higher density, consider repeating the evaluation method de- sc'ribed in the note to Question 1. The following note provides an example. NOTE: Assume the zoning in your likely sending area requires only one acre per dwelling unit and you estimate that your com- munity issues building permits for 100 dwell- ing units each year thatare made possible by upzonings. Assuming one TOR for each of the 100 bonus units and assuming each TOR represents one acre of preserved land, your hypothetical TOR program would preserve 100 acres of land per year. If a pre-servati.on rate of 100 acres per year seems worth the effort 100 of adopting a TDR program, you would answer yes to Question 3. Question 4: Is your community willing to re- quire compliance with TOR requirements for all (or most) development in excess of current zoning limits? This question is designed to test'whetheryour , community will require TORs for all or most bonus dwelling units or whether other mecha- nisms are in place (and are likely to rema'in in place) that allow developers to achieve bonus density without buying TORs. . To offer just a few examples, some com- munities offer bonus density when developers include certain amenities in their projects or I provide community benefits. Many communities grant density bonuses when developers cluster houses or use a planned unit development ap- proval process. Needless to say, developers will not pay for TORs if they can get bonus density free (or more cheaply) using an alternative to TOR. NOTE: To offer some guidance ilJ answer- ing this question, we would suggest that you answer no if your community already has one of these alternative density-bonus techniques and not change your PUD ordinance and require TORs for all dwelling units permitted in a PUO that exceed the maximum density of the under- lying zone. SCORING THE QUIZ A yes response to allfour questions suggests that your community is TOR-ready, meaning that a plan-consistent TOR program could be adopted With only moderate time and effort. If you responded no to one or more questions, it does not mean that YI;lUr community is not suit- able for TOR. Rather, no responses indicate that it will probably take more work to adopt a suc- cessful TOR program. For example, if a commu- nity rarely receives applications for upzonings, demand for additional development can still be created, but it will likely require a compre- hensive plan revision with substantial public involvement. A major planning effort of this scale is not extraordinary but, in our opinion, suggests that a community is notTOR-ready. NEXT STEPS If your community is TOR-ready, it means adoption of a plan-li:onsistent TOR mechanism you strongly believe that your community will not change these techniques so that developers cannot easily circumvent a TOR requirement. For example, your community may have a PUO code provision that permits developments to exceed the maximum density limit of the underlying zoning district. You should answer no to Ques- tion 4 if you believe that your community would could occur relatively quickly. Nevertheless, some work is still required even in TOR-ready communities. Your community, often with the help of a citizen advisory committee, or CAC, must make decisions an the most appropriate components forthe receiving sites, sending sites, and compliance procedures. Early in the process, the elected officials should ide- ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (page 6