|
of these sites are on largely rural or urban
<br />fringe sites.
<br />A major part of a site's historic value is
<br />seeing the building in its historic setting of
<br />farmland, gardens, or yards. For example, a
<br />Greek revival plantation house with so acres
<br />of gardens surrounded by 200 acres of farm-
<br />land needs at least the home and gardens to
<br />be preserved. If the grounds around the house
<br />and garden contained many mature live oaks
<br />or other large trees, this would be the critical
<br />area to preserve, while the farmland would not
<br />be as important.
<br />Too often a historic building is preserved
<br />on an acre or so and surrounded by a subdivi-
<br />sion of much smaller lots. This only preserves
<br />the home, but the site's value —mature trees
<br />and gardens that provided the historic con-
<br />text —is lost. The building simply becomes
<br />a large old home, and its visibility to the
<br />community lost in the subdivision. This sort
<br />of preservation does nothing to make it a
<br />historic attraction. Historic sites need to have
<br />surrounding land preserved as well as the
<br />buildings to provide the context of their origi-
<br />nal function to make it an attraction.
<br />The illustrations on page 6 show several
<br />versions of historic sites. The idea is to pre-
<br />serve enough land to display them in context
<br />for visitors. Preserving the surrounding land
<br />lowers property value for development. Toots
<br />such as clustering, alternative uses, incen-
<br />tives, and TDR applied individually or in com-
<br />bination represent ways to restore the proper-
<br />ty's value. In suburban or rural environments,
<br />where the size of the property is adequate,
<br />clustering is an ideal tool to allow the needed
<br />open space to be protected without causing a
<br />loss of value.
<br />How much land is needed for context?
<br />Key variables in determining this are historic
<br />use, ancillary buildings, vegetation, or type
<br />of event. In a forested area, a relatively small
<br />site that retains the trees to screen future uses
<br />will suffice. There is no definitive measure, but
<br />in general a radius of 200 to 50o feet is desir-
<br />able. Trees, topography, property lines, exist-
<br />ing homes on nearby property, and current
<br />use of surrounding land need to be evaluated
<br />in setting the protected area.
<br />Also consider the approaches to the
<br />site via roads. Clustering allows the site to
<br />be protected as common open space while
<br />allowing the district's maximum density to
<br />be achieved.The size of the parcel is critical.
<br />If the protection area is no more than 3o per-
<br />cent of the site in suburban character areas,
<br />clustering is a viable option. Up to 5o percent
<br />open space will provide a suburban character.
<br />In estate character areas the percentage of
<br />open space is 45 to 65 percent. Clustering
<br />will be very difficult in urban areas unless the
<br />property is very large.
<br />With smaller sites, additional incen-
<br />tives will be required. Consider permitting
<br />farm buildings to change uses; for example,
<br />the barn or other buildings may be converted
<br />to residential use to increase development
<br />value. Additional incentives may be needed to
<br />ensure maintenance. Since old farm buildings
<br />or homes may require costly work to make
<br />them habitable, a pro forma can be used to
<br />determine the degree of an incentive that is
<br />needed to achieve preservation. When a site
<br />is just slightly too small for clustering to work,
<br />the code could allow a so percent density in-
<br />crease as an incentive.
<br />TDR is the most efficient way to provide
<br />an incentive when the property is too small
<br />for clustering to work. Allowing a so percent
<br />density bonus with the purchase of TDRs is
<br />typically workable. Clustering must be a per-
<br />mitted use in the district, not a conditional
<br />use. The ordinance should provide a receiving
<br />zone with five times the potential to use TDRs
<br />than there are TDRs available on the historic
<br />site so that there is an ample market for the
<br />TDRs. Ensuring a market for TDR also requires
<br />consideration of the value a seller wants and
<br />what a buyer is willing to pay. TDR works on a
<br />willing seller, willing buyer basis.
<br />It works best when the buyer is willing to
<br />pay more than the seller asks. Permitting Ls
<br />units for each TDR is a way to ensure purchas-
<br />ers want to buy TDRs. TDR makes creating
<br />larger open areas around the historic site
<br />feasible.
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />In drafting historic preservation regulations,
<br />it is important to try to offset the concerns of
<br />the landowners with incentives. A variety of
<br />approaches can be used to address specific
<br />concerns. Allowing a change in use is a simple
<br />strategy that is widely adaptable. A more
<br />complex problem is addressing the concerns
<br />about the costs of preserving and maintaining
<br />structures, which requires very specific zoning
<br />regulations that enable landowners to recoup
<br />these costs.
<br />Preserving historic sites in rural or urban
<br />fringe areas is a very different problem. When
<br />preserving a substantial amount of open land
<br />is essential to providing the historical context,
<br />regulations that allow or require clustering are
<br />important.
<br />Finally, transfer of development rights is
<br />useful for preserving individual buildings in
<br />urban environments and for greenfield devel-
<br />opment.
<br />ABOUT THE AUTHOR
<br />Lane Kendig is the founder and former
<br />president of Kendig Keast Collaborative. He
<br />has been practicing and writing about the
<br />relationship between community design,
<br />planning, and regulatory tools for more than
<br />45 years. In addition to the recent books
<br />Community Character and its companion, A
<br />Guide to Planning with Community Character,
<br />Kendig is the author of Performance Zoning
<br />and the PAS reports Too Big, Boring, or Ugly
<br />and Traffic Sheds, Rural Highway Capacity,
<br />and Growth Management.
<br />Cover: Photo byAtlasPDX82,
<br />Wikimedia (CC BY SA 3.o)
<br />Vol. 34, No. 4
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions
<br />are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign).
<br />James M. Drinan, JD, Chief Executive Officer;
<br />David Rouse, FAICP, Managing Director of
<br />Research and Advisory Services. Zoning Practice
<br />(ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA.
<br />Jim Schwab, FAICP, and David Morley, AICP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Senior Editor.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact
<br />Customer Service, American Planning
<br />Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite
<br />1200, Chicago, IL 6o6oi (312-431-9100 or
<br />subscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of
<br />the publication date. Include the name of the
<br />publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and
<br />membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2017 by the American Planning
<br />Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200,
<br />Chicago, IL 60601-5927. The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 103015th St., NW,
<br />Suite 75o West, Washington, DC 20005-1503;
<br />ptanning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permission
<br />in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o%
<br />recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 4.17
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION [page 7
<br />
|