Planning and Zoning Commission - Packets

The Buena Vista Planning & Zoning Commission February 15th, 2023 at 7:00 PM Commission Members and Staff will meet at the Community Center. The public is encouraged to join the meeting virtually via Zoom. The public can join the meeting using the Zoom information below. To participate in Public Comment and/or Public Hearings you may connect to the video conference. Conferencing Access Information: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83656631933 Listen via phone at 1-720-707-2699 Meeting ID: 836 5663 1933 Passcode: BuenaVista AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV. Agenda Adoption V. Approval of Minutes – February 1, 2023 VI. Public Comment VII. New Business 1. Public Hearing - Cordova Park Rezone from Low Density Residential (R-1) to Open Space/Recreation (OSR) 2. Discussion of the Transfer of Development Rights Program 3. Commission vote for chair/vice chair absence for upcoming Public Hearings VIII. Staff/Commission Interaction IX. Adjournment  Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Buena Vista Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2023 CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm, on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, at the Community Center by Chair Preston Larimer. Also present were Vice-Chair Lynn Schultz- Writsel, as well as Commissioners Tom Brown, Craig Brown, and Tony LaGreca. Staff Present: Planning Technician Chase McCutcheon, Planner II Doug Tart and Planning Director Joseph Teipel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Larimer led in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Tart proceeded with the roll call and declared a quorum. AGENDA ADOPTION Commissioner Larimer called for approval of the agenda as amended to establish that the proposed rezoning is a public hearing. Commissioner Craig Brown motioned to adopt the agenda as amended and was seconded by Commissioner Schultz-Writsel. Motion #1 passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tom Brown motioned to approve meeting minutes from January 18th as amended. Commissioner Larimer seconded. Motion #2 was unanimously approved. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment was opened at 7:04 pm. No comments, public comment was closed at 7:04 NEW BUSINESS (7:04) Commissioner Larimer opened new business. Teipel opened the meeting to Mitch Southard, who represented the Estate of Ronal Southard. He provided some context regarding the change and the history of the Colorado Center to PUD zoning. Teipel stated the benefits of the original PUD designation, and explained the staff is proposing to rezone the Colorado Center as Light Industrial (I-1.) Dan Cooper with Summit Realty then spoke, saying changing to I-1 zoning would allow for more flexibility. Teipel explained why the Town wants to change the zoning of the Colorado Center from PUD to Light Industrial and briefly summarized the history of the Colorado Center PUD and the similarities between the PUD and I-1 zoning. Teipel then outlined the process of re-zoning. Teipel noted that this is a legislative decision by the Board of Trustees, and the rezone would not take effect until 30 days after the decision has been made. Commissioner Larimer opened up to public comment at 7:23 PM. With no public comment, public comment was closed at 7:23 PM. Commissioner Larimer laid out the three options the Planning and Zoning Commission have to move the rezoning forward: recommend, modify, or deny. Commissioner Larimer then asked if there are other uses that would require a special use permit, and Teipel referenced page 120 of the packet, which shows all property uses require a special use permit in the I-1 zoning. Commissioner Tom Brown asked the Town to elaborate on the open space aspect. Teipel explained that when a PUD is created, 25% of the area must be dedicated as open space. Teipel noted there are 25 acres proposed with the existing PUD that could potentially be dedicated to the Town as open space in the future upon further development and that transitioning to I-1 would risk potentially losing the open space. Commissioner LaGreca asked if there are open space dedication requirements. Tart confirmed that for non-residential subdivisions, 10% of the land is required to be designated for open space. Teipel noted the Town only owns a small amount of land in the Colorado Center, primarily for the purposes of stormwater drainage, upon LaGreca’s request. Commissioner Craig Brown asked if there is significant infrastructure that has been installed in the Colorado Center, and Teipel confirmed there is currently not much infrastructure, and no matter what zone it is rezoned to, those developing the area would have to commit to installing a lot of infrastructure. Commissioner Tom Brown asked about utilities and their potential to reach the Rodeo Grounds. Teipel showed a particular parcel within the Colorado Center PUD that, when developed, would have to extend the water line further into the Colorado Center, Teipel also noted the water line would have to be built to loop back into itself, instead of resulting in a dead end. Teipel noted the Town staff believes the rezoning and the termination of the Development Agreement would benefit the Town overall. Teipel then stated that nine out of ten property owners signed the petition to change to I-1. The only non-conforming use that would be created rezoning the Colorado Center to the I-1 restrictions would be the Fading West factory, which is 50 feet tall. The I-1 zone district height limit is 35 feet. Commissioner LaGreca asked what would happen if a property owner did not want to authorize the re-zoning. Teipel stated the Development Agreement applies on a per property basis, so a single property may maintain the requirements set forth in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Tom Brown asked of Town would want employee housing/dormitories to be scattered or concentrated within the rezoned area. Teipel stated he does not believe that large apartment buildings/dormitories should be in the Light Industrial district, but the live- work use could be very beneficial, allowing a business to keep up to four properties behind the primary building on the same land. Commissioner LaGreca motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Colorado Center PUD from PUD to Light Industrial I-1. Commissioner Craig Brown seconded. Motion #3 passed. STAFF / COMMISSION INTERACTION (7:54) Teipel made the Commission aware of potential future meeting topics in the works. Larimer then noted that he will be gone for the meetings in March, and Vice-Chair Schultz-Writsel stated that she will be gone as well but will be able to join remotely. Commissioner Tom Brown noted he will also not be attending on March 1st. Teipel noted that Commissioners attending via Zoom cannot vote for Quasi-Judicial matters. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Craig Brown motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Tom Brown seconded. Motion #4 was unanimously approved. Respectfully submitted: Preston Larimer, Chair Chase McCutcheon, Planning Technician  PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 15th, 2023 PROPERTY: Cordova Park – 142 Raven Way APPLICANT: Town of Buena Vista TOWN STAFF: Doug Tart, Planner II REQUEST The Town requests a rezone of lots 155, 156, 169, and 170 of the Sunset Vista IV subdivision (currently addressed as 142 Raven Way) from R-1 to Open Space/Recreation (OSR) to accommodate the proposed Cordova Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Trustees of the rezoning of the proposed Cordova Park lots in Sunset Vista from R-1 to OSR. ATTACHMENTS TO THE REPORT: Attachment A – Current Zoning Map Attachment B – Updated Zoning Map reflecting OSR change Attachment C – OSR Dimensional Standards 1. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Town of Buena Vista is pursuing a rezoning of four existing and adjoining lots within the Sunset Vista subdivision from R-1 to OSR to accommodate Cordova Park. This rezoning is to align the use of the properties with the primary intent of the OSR zone district, which is “to allow for open space and community recreation.” Being that these are Town owned lots that will serve as the community park for the Sunset Vista subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods, staff feels that it is appropriate and necessary to rezone from R-1. This removes most dimensional requirements, allowing greater flexibility for the planning and use of the park. 2. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND These lots were officially created in 2005 under the Sunset Vista, Filing No. 4 Final Plat, which laid out a 3- phase plan for development of the subdivision in its entirety. These lots were within Phase 2 of the phasing plan at the time. They remained under the ownership of the developers, Sunset Vista II Inc, until the bank took ownership in 2011. The current developer, Paragon Business Ventures LLC/Dallas Campbell, acquired the lots from the bank in February 2017, and the Town subsequently purchased the lots in August of that year. The adopted phasing plan from 2005 was amended in 2017 to create a total of 10 phases for the entirety of the development, with the lots being made a part of Phase 7. Water lines to serve Phase 7 were constructed during adjacent Phases 2 & 3, with the Development Improvement Agreements for each phase being approved and recorded in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Construction of Phase 7 began in 2019.  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 2 of 7 In October 2005, the Town received $52,000 as fee-in-lieu for parks, which the Town determined would be used for the development of the Sunset Vista park. Community engagement for the park began as early as 2013. Upon acquisition of the four lots in 2017, the Town submitted its first grant application for funding to construct a park but was unsuccessful. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, traction picked up significantly to re-engage the community. In October 2022, a Community Leadership Group was established to help guide development of the park. This group consists of park neighbors, parents, older adults, and a member of the Recreation Advisory Board. Meaningful conversations for development of the park began with staff in January of 2023 as the Recreation Department engaged a design professional and began to prepare for a GOCO Grant Application. The GOCO application is due on March 20, 2023, with a grant award in June 2023. After a joint meeting with the Planning Department and Earl Richmond and Shane Basford from the Recreation Department, Town Staff determined that the first two steps towards construction of the park would be the rezoning the properties to OSR and a minor subdivision to consolidate the four lots into one. These lots are located entirely within Sunset Vista and are therefore surrounded by low-density residential (R-1) development and are directly adjacent to the Sunset Vista trail, which connects with the Peak View trail to the north. North South West East Adjacent Zoning R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 Designation Adjacent Land Sunset Vista Residential Residential Residential Use Trail/Residential 3. PROCESS Rezoning is subject to Section 6.4.1 of the Town of Buena Vista’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which requires a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission and then an additional public hearing before the Board of Trustees. This decision is a legislative decision, which means that once the Board issues a decision via Ordinance, that Ordinance is subject to referendum and must wait for a period of 30 days prior to being recorded. Noticing requirements as detailed in 16.06.3.4 have been met – postcards were sent to adjoining neighbors within 300 feet on Tuesday the 31st of January, two posters were posted on the property that same day, and public notice of this hearing was published in the January 26th edition of the Chaffee County Times. 4. ANALYSIS – Rezoning The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Rezoning pursuant to the criteria below and can: • Make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. • Send the Rezoning back to the Town Staff for further consideration and/or additional information. Section 6.4.1 of the UDC provides specific review criteria for Rezoning. Each criterion for the Rezoning is shown below in bold text with staff’s analysis following each criterion in standard text. The code states  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 3 of 7 (16.04.1.c.i) “In reviewing a proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Trustees shall consider whether the proposed rezoning complies with at least one (1) of the following criteria:” Therefore, staff has provided all listed criteria from the Code, but the Commission need only find compliance with one in order to consider recommending approval. (a) The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDC; or Goal 3 of Chapter 3 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan states: “Buena Vista will continue to provide community assets and a community environment conducive to attracting and retaining families.” Sunset Vista is one of the densest and fastest growing neighborhoods in town, accounting for 29% of residential building permits since 2020, and it lacks a community park. Sunset Vista is designed and priced to attract local families, and the development of a park is critical to continuing to attract and retain families. Additionally, Goal 2 of Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Buena Vista will pursue a balanced parks and recreation system.” This park would serve the local residents within and adjacent to Sunset Vista, and although being open to the general public, it would function as a non-tourism based open space tailored to accommodate local families. Furthermore, within this goal, it is specified that policies to promote this goal are as follows: • Buena Vista should embrace the development of pocket parks where appropriate. • Parks should only be built on suitable lands that are accessible and usable by the general public, bordered by public streets, and/or accessible from adjacent parks, trails, or bikeway • Park land dedication, or cash-in-lieu of land dedication, will be required in all new subdivisions and annexation developments prior to approval as specified in the 2010 Development Code and future Land Use Code rewrite. Large developments in particular should be required to include neighborhood parks in order to preserve open space and provide recreational facilities in proximity to the population. (b) The rezoning is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district; or The purpose of the OSR zone district is as follows: “The OSR district is intended to allow for open space and community recreation. The OSR district discourages any use that would be detrimental to the recreational value of the areas to be included within this district.” Rezoning of this property from R-1 to OSR for a community park is consistent with the purpose statement of the OSR zone district. (c) There have been significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change; or Outside of steady development, there have not been significant changes to warrant a zoning change. (d) There was an error in establishing the current zoning. There was no error in establishing the current zoning. The properties were zoned R-1 prior to the Town’s acquisition of the properties.  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 4 of 7 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Based upon the information and materials herein, staff supports the requested Rezoning. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the Rezoning of the Town owned lots 155, 156, 169, and 170 of Sunset Vista from R-1 to OSR. 1) The applicant has requested Rezoning of lots 155, 156, 169, and 170 of Sunset Vista from R-1 to OSR; and 2) Notice of the public hearing was posted on the property and published in the newspaper as required by the Unified Development Code, and 3) The Rezoning is consistent with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan; and 4) The Rezoning complies with applicable standards in this UDC. THEREFORE If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this Rezoning as presented in this staff report, the Planning and Zoning Commission should recommend APPROVAL to the Board of Trustees.  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B Properties to be Rezoned  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT C  February 10, 2023 Cordova Park Rezone Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT D See attached Table of Allowed Uses.  3.1.4. Table of Allowed Uses. Table 3.1: Table of Allowed Uses P = permitted by right S= special use permit A= accessory use T = temporary use Use Category Use Type R- R- R- R- MU- MU- MU- HC I- OSR AP Use-Specific 1 1.5 2 3 1 2 MS 1 Standards Residential Uses Household living Dwelling, single-family detached P P P P P P Dwelling, single-family attached S P P P 3.2.1.A Dwelling, two-family S P P P P P 3.2.1.K. Dwelling, multifamily large S P S P P S 3.2.1.B Dwelling, multifamily small S S P S P P S 3.2.1.C Co-housing S S P P P P 3.2.1.D Live-work S P P P P P 3.2.1.E Group living Assisted living facility P P P P P 3.2.1.F Continuum of care or nursing home S P P P 3.2.1.G Day care home P P P S P P 3.2.1.H Group home P P P P 3.2.1.I Single room occupancy S S P P P P P P 3.2.1.L Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses Community and Assembly hall P P P P P P cultural facilities Cemetery S S S Church or place of worship P P P P P P P P Civic organization, club, or lodge P P P P Community center S S S S P P P P P Fire or police station S S S S P P P P P P P Library S S P P P P P Museum P P P P P P Recreation and Golf course S S S S P entertainment Indoor recreation or entertainment P P P P P P Motor sports facility S S Outdoor entertainment facility S S P Outdoor recreation facility S S P Park and playground P P P P P P P P P Created: 2022-12-16 10:04:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 29, Update 6) Page 1 of 4  Shooting range P P 3.2.2.A Education facilities College or university S S S S S Elementary or secondary school P P P P P P P P Trade or vocational school S S S S P Healthcare facilities Medical or dental clinic, office, or S S S S P P P P P P laboratory Hospital S S S P P Commercial Uses Agricultural or Community garden P P P P P P P P P P 3.2.3.A Animal-related Kennel P P 3.2.3.B services Veterinary hospital or clinic S S S P P 3.2.3.C Offices and Office P P P P P P professional Personal service P P P P P 3.2.3.D services Retail Retail, general S P P P P P 3.2.3.E Building materials sales and storage P P Equipment sales P P 3.2.3.F Flea market or auction house S S S P S Greenhouse, nursery, or garden supply P P P P P store Recreational vehicle and large equipment P 3.2.3.G sales Retail and medical marijuana stores and P P P dual operations Lodging facilities Bed and breakfast S S S P P P P 3.2.3.H Dormitories S S S S S S Hotels, motels, and other forms of public S S S S P lodging and boarding Short-term rentals P P P P P P S 3.2.3.I Food and beverage Bar or tavern S P P P S 3.2.3.J services Microbrewery, distillery, or winery P P P P P P 3.2.3.K Restaurant P P P P S 3.2.3.L Automobile leasing or sales P S P 3.2.3.M Created: 2022-12-16 10:04:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 29, Update 6) Page 2 of 4  Vehicular and Automobile service, major P P 3.2.3.N transportation Automobile service, minor S S P P 3.2.3.O Fueling station P P P 3.2.3.P Parking lot or structure P P P P P P P Railroad transshipment facility P 3.2.3.Q Transit facility S S S P P P P Sexually Oriented Sexually oriented business P 3.2.3.R Businesses Industrial Uses Storage and Above-ground bulk storage tank S S S S P 3.2.4.A Warehousing Wholesale distribution or warehouse P P Mini-warehouse S P P 3.2.4.B Manufacturing Manufacturing, light P P P P P S 3.2.4.D Manufacturing, medium or heavy P 3.2.4.E Energy and utilities Geothermal facility, small P P P P P P P P P P P 3.2.4.F Geothermal facility, large S S S 3.2.4.G Public utility distribution or transmission S S S S P P P P P 3.2.4.H facility Radio and television transmitting station S S 3.2.4.I and studio Solar energy facility, small P P P P P P P P P P S Solar energy facility, large S S Wind energy facility, small P P P P P P P Wind energy facility, large S S S Wireless service facility, building/roof- P P P P P P P P P P 3.2.4.J mounted Wireless service facility, free-standing P P P 3.2.4.J tower Accessory Uses Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P P 3.3.4.A Enclosed storage P P P P P P P P P P P 2.8.2.D.5 and Section 3.3 Home occupation P P P P P P P 3.3.4.B Created: 2022-12-16 10:04:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 29, Update 6) Page 3 of 4  Retail display S P P P P P 3.3.4.C Screened storage S S S S P 3.3.4.D Temporary Uses Short-term parking of recreational/camping P P P P P 8-44 vehicles Long-term storage of recreational/camping P P P P P 8-44 vehicles Special events T T T T T T T T T T T 3.4.4.A Temporary seasonal camping T 3.2.4.C Temporary office, contractor's quarters, T T T T T T T T T T 3.4.4.B and equipment storage Temporary vendors T T T T T T T T T T T 3.4.4.C (Ord. 21 §4, 2018; Ord. 1 , §§ 2, 4, 2020; Ord. 16 § 2, 2020; Ord. 5 , § 9, 2022; Ord. 17 , § 1, 2022) Created: 2022-12-16 10:04:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 29, Update 6) Page 4 of 4 Chaffee County Land Use Code Rewrite Biweekly BOCC Coordination Meeting 19 December 2022 Virtual via Teams Agenda I. Schedule Update A. Dec 19 (PM) – Logan Simpson to deliver a draft of Module 2 Version 2 to staff and BOCC for review B. Jan 3 – BOCC Coordination Meeting to discuss questions and proposed edits to Version 2 draft C. Jan 4 (AM) – Staff comments due to Logan Simpson D. Jan 5 – Staff Coordination call with Logan Simpson E. Jan 6 – Logan Simpson to deliver final draft of Module 2 Version 2 to staff for distribution to the community forums and Community Advisory Committee as well as post on Konveio for public review F. Early January – Planning Commission work session on Version 2 G. Mid-late January – Presentations to Salida, BV, and Poncha City Councils on potential TDR program H. Jan 30-Feb 1 – second round of community forums will be held in addition to another Community Advisory Committee Meeting I. Feb 7 – Planning Commission work session on Version 2 J. Mid-late Feb – Deliver version 3, adoption draft and discuss adoption schedule II. TDR Research Update A. See pages 2-4 for a preliminary analysis of land area for potential sending areas B. See pages 3-10 for a memo describing successful TDR programs (we will pass along to community forum groups next week) III. Discussion A. Roadway standards. Primary concerns brought up at community forums: 1. Borrow ditch 2’ below road is not always feasible – propose language requiring a certain width and max side slopes 2. 2% grade at intersection is too tight – this is typical language to cover cross slope 3. Question on 300’ intersection spacing – this is a fairly typical dimension for safety, we will continue to research additional options 4. Question about the 90 degree angle (adjustment to 80-100) for intersecting roads – again this is typical for safety considerations. Have previous subdivision applicants had suggestions on alternatives? 1|P age TDR SENDING & RECEIVING AREAS DISCUSSION The following information is intended to provide context and topics for consideration regarding the identification of “sending” and “receiving” areas as part of a TDR program. The “sending” and “receiving” areas highlighted below are conceptual and the results of an initial spatial analysis to identify the general acreage of potential land available for both sending and receiving areas. Additional data, including MSA and MPA area boundaries for all municipalities, will be needed to refine this analysis. In addition, areas of high ecological value, such as wildlife corridors, could also be incorporated into sending areas in the next iteration of this analysis. Establishing a sound methodology to identify sending and receiving areas is a critical next step in the process of developing a TDR program. Key questions for consideration are as follows: 1) What criteria should Chaffee County use to identify sending areas? a. Considerations: i. Should there be a minimum parcel size? ii. What criteria should be used to identified agricultural parcels for inclusion in sending areas? Should all existing agricultural parcels be included? Is there relevant soil, crop production, or water access criteria? iii. What criteria should be used to identify key wildlife corridors? 2) What criteria should Chafee County use to identify receiving areas? a. Should only vacant parcels be considered? b. Should receiving areas include each municipality, MSA, and MPA? i. What are your thoughts on a tiered approach to receiving areas which incentivize receiving areas closest to existing development and density? 3) Should sending and receiving areas be identified on a map or should applicants qualify for the program based on a set of established criteria? See Boulder County example in TDR Memo. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 2  SENDING & RECEIVING AREAS PER ABOVE ANALYSIS Total Acreage of “Sending Areas” (Conceptual) Total Acreage of “Receiving Areas” (Conceptual) 33,633 Acres 2,585 Acres (excluding MPAs and MSA in all municipalities except Salida and Buena Vista) VACANT PARCELS IN CHAFFEE COUNTY Total Acreage of “Vacant” Parcels in Chaffee County Total Acres of “Vacant” Parcels located within Municipalities in Chaffee County 22,555 Acres 1,704 Acres PROPOSED RECEIVING AREAS BY MUNICIPALITY (Concept Based on Vacant Parcels) Total Acres of “Vacant” Total Acres of “Vacant” Total Acres of “Vacant” Parcels with Municipality Parcels within MSA Parcels with MPA Totals Salida 86 Acres 10.5 Acres 218 Acres 314.5 Acres Buena Vista 504 Acres 0 Acres 653 Acres 1,157 Acres Poncha Springs To be inserted To be inserted To be inserted To be inserted Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 3 The above map used the following criteria to establish sending areas. Wildlife corridors are not included at this time, but they could be incorporated as part of sending areas. Criteria: 1. High yield agriculture parcels based on USDA soil type (2.5 or greater expected yield per acre with irrigation)* 2. Parcels identified as agricultural by Chaffee County 3. Parcels larger than or equal to 80 acres *According to USDA Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data Base, no parcels are considered to be “prime agricultural land” in Chaffee County. However, there is data available regarding crop yield, which could be used as a proxy for key agricultural land. Further identification of key agricultural parcels is needed to establish appropriate sending areas. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 4 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Memo INTRODUCTION In November, the Logan Simpson consultant team met with four community groups and the Land Use Code (LUC) Community Advisory Committee to discuss initial revisions to Module 2 of the LUC. As part of those revisions, staff and the consultant sought direction from the participants regarding revisions to the County’s transfer of development rights (TDR) program as part of a suite of tools to preserve working agricultural lands and valuable natural resource areas. Interest was also expressed by many of the forum participants on how to integrate TDR and affordable housing, which has not been done to date. The following memo provides background on TDRs, highlights five TDR programs in comparable communities, and notes considerations for integrating a TDR program with affordable housing considerations. WHAT ARE TDRs? Transferable development rights (TDRs) are market-based land conservation programs which allow the rights to develop land to be severed from the physical property and moved from one piece of land to another. TDR programs requires a willing seller and buyer for the development right, but participation in the program is voluntary. TDR programs were first developed in the 1970’s as a means for preserving farmland. The goal of TDR programs generally, is to direct development away from areas communities want to preserve – known as sending areas – and into areas where development is deemed more appropriate – known as receiving areas. The sending areas in a TDR program are generally areas of “high-value”, whether that be historic value, cultural value, agricultural value, or ecological value, whereas receiving areas are areas which have been identified as more appropriate for development due to availability of facilities, services, public transit, and proximity to existing development. Nationwide, TDR programs range from city-scale programs to county-wide and even regional programs. AUTHORITY TO ADOPT COUNTYWIDE TDR PROGRAM In the state of Colorado, both municipalities and counties have the statutory authority to adopt TDR programs. However, a county-wide TDR program is often accompanied by an intergovernmental agreement between the incorporated municipalities and the surrounding county, especially when density is transferred from the county into a municipality. Intergovernmental agreements are authorized by C.R.S §29-20-105 (2) which reads: “local governments may provide through intergovernmental agreements for the joint adoption by the governing bodies, after notice and hearing, of mutually binding and enforceable comprehensive development plans for areas within their jurisdictions… a comprehensive development plan may contain master plans, zoning plans, subdivision regulations, and building code, permit, and other land use standards, which, if set out in specific detail, may be in lieu of such regulations or ordinances of the local governments.” Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 5 EXAMPLE TDR PROGRAMS King County, WA King County Code Section 21A.37 General Provisions - Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) The King County, WA TDR program was initially developed in 1988, codified in 1998, and revised four times to increase the efficiency of the program. King County’s TDR program has been noted as the program which has preserved the most acreage of any TDR program in the country, preserving over 144,500 acres of lands and relocating subdivisions for over 2,800 potential dwelling units out of the County’s rural landscape and into its urban areas. King County’s TDR program has been used as a model for many other TDR programs, and therefore functions similar to many other programs mentioned in this memo with one key distinction: the TDR bank. The King County TDR Bank was established in 1999 with an appropriation by the Metropolitan King County Council of $1.5 million. The TDR Bank bridges the time gap between willing sellers and buyers of TDRs and serves as a revolving fund for continued land protection by strategically acquiring development rights from in coordination with municipalities. The TDR bank sells TDRs to developers within cities as well as facilitates private sales between buyers and sellers. The TDR Bank may also enter into a revenue share agreement with municipalities. King County may either: provide the municipality with a portion of the proceeds it receives from TDR sales resulting in increased density inside the municipality for amenities including infrastructure improvements, creation of parks/open space, streetscapes, etc.; provide additional property tax revenues to municipalities who agree to receive density on a 25-year basis; or as a “signing bonus” at the time of acceptance of TDRs. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 6 Montgomery County, MD Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.9.18 Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Overlay Zone In 1980, Montgomery County, MD created the Agricultural Reserve to reduce fragmentation of productive working lands within the County. Following the adoption of the Agricultural Reserve, the County adopted both a TDR program and Building Lot Termination (BLT) program. The Montgomery County TDR program functions as an overlay zone, which allows development to meet the underlying zone district standards without requiring purchase of TDRs. However, the TDR Overlay permits an increase in the maximum residential density if the development is willing to purchase TDRs. The base densities and TDR bonus densities vary by zone district. The BLT program is like the TDR program, but the TDR program pays based on theoretical density, whereas the BLT programs pays for actual buildable density. The TDR program pays for development rights on a per acre basis, whereas the BLT program pays at higher, per lot rate if the property owner can prove that the land can support development with a site plan and a percolation test. TDR requests are processed as a preliminary subdivision plan. The Agricultural Reserve protected 85,000 acres and subsequent Master Plan updates around the Agricultural Reserve have preserved an additional 8,000 acres of working agricultural lands. Approximately 52,000 acres of TDR easements have been acquired to lock properties into their current density of 1 DU per 25 acres. About 25,000 acres of those lands with TDR easements have additional, more restrictive easements. It should be noted that State legislation controls much of the Montgomery County program and its functions. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 7 Palm Beach County, FL Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code Section 5.G.3 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) - Special Density Program The Palm Beach County, FL TDR program is unique because the program has an affordable housing requirement for using TDRs, which requires the equivalent of 34% of all TDR units to be provided as “Workforce Housing Program” (WHP) units with specific deed-restricted affordability ranges, in addition to County inclusionary zoning requirements. The Palm Beach County TDR program allows increases in density ranging from 1 to 5 units per acre, tied to the location of the receiving site and the services which are available. Within sending areas, applications for sending development rights are processed administratively and a conservation easement and maintenance plan are approved by the County Attorney. For receiving areas, a pre-application conference is required, and the proposed density determines the review procedure. A transfer of 2 DU/ac or less is reviewed administratively, a transfer of more than 2 DU/ac to a residential subdivision is reviewed as a conditional use with a public hearing, and a transfer into a planned development is reviewed under the planned development procedure. Revenue generated from the Palm Beach County TDR Bank is allocated to the Natural Areas Fund for acquisition and management of environmentally sensitive lands and wetlands. The Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners sets the price of TDRs annually using the median sales price data established by the Realtors Association of the Palm Beaches. The purchase price for single-family units and multifamily units is set at 10% of the median sales price and the price for WHP units or Affordable Housing units are set at 5% and 1% respectively, of the full TDR price. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 8 Collier County, FL Collier County TDR Overlay – 2.03.07D.4 The Collier County TDR program has a base TDR credits of 1 TDR per 5 acres and three bonus credit options: one “early entry credit” for each base TDR severed before September 27, 2019; and up to two bonus credits for TDRs severed with an approved Restoration and Management Plan for wetlands or swamp land restoration. Severing of TDRs in Collier County is permanent and memorialized through a perpetual conservation easement on the sending area. Collier County doesn’t have a TDR bank, but it did set a minimum purchase price of $25,000 per base TDR credit unless the credit is transferred between related parties. However, there is a proposal by staff to remove the minimum purchase price due to developer preference for lower-priced bonus credits over base credits. In lieu of a bank, Collier County created a registry for interested sellers and buyers to facilitate sales, but sellers may also find buyers on their own. County approval of the sale is not necessary, but TDR issuance is through an application process approved by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. Collier County also set a maximum density of 1 DU/acre, and a minimum project size of 40 acres. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 9 Boulder County, CO Boulder County TDR Program – Article 6 Boulder County TDC Program – Article 4-1300 The Boulder County TDR program is different than many other TDR programs in that it does not specifically map its receiving areas due to concerns over speculative pricing, but instead provides clear receiving area criteria in their land use code. Property owners are given flexibility to propose their land as a receiving site and show how it meets the criteria for approval, and when a receiving site is proposed, neighboring property owners are notified, and public hearings are held. Additionally, there is no specified acreage for a receiving site in Boulder County, but the maximum total number of units which may be placed on one site is 200. In general, 75% of the units transferred to a receiving site must come from the sub-area surrounding the site. However, certain intergovernmental agreements have stricter requirements, such as requiring all TDRs to come from within its planning area. The TDR program was replaced by the transferable development credit (TDC) once most the sending areas’ development rights had been severed and the receiving areas had been developed. The TDC program requires that homeowners who receive approval to build residences with floor areas greater than 6,000 square feet purchase TDC Certificates. Homeowners who own vacant parcels or smaller homes in unincorporated Boulder County can obtain TDC Certificates which can be sold in the TDC market. Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 10 KEY FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DEVELOPING A TDR PROGRAM In developing a TDR program, many factors need to be considered to ensure that the program is successful in transferring density out of agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas and into areas which can be serviced by municipal or central services. The capacity for municipalities to service additional development, alternatives to TDR programs, and willingness of landowners to serve development rights are all important to consider, but the following two factors are noted as defining features of successful TDR programs: 1. Demand for Bonus Development In order for a TDR program to function, there has to actually be a demand for bonus density, meaning the base zoning allowances in the receiving areas leaves room for additional density or development. In essence, TDR programs are unsuccessful when the base zoning provides ample development density by right, so there is no incentive for developers to pay for TDRs. The longevity of a TDR program is also dependent upon demand for bonus development. For example, Boulder County replaced their TDR program with a TDC program once the majority of receiving areas had been developed because there was still demand for bonus density. 2. Customized Receiving Areas Customized receiving areas are key to a functioning TDR program to function because they ensure that there is infrastructure capacity to serve the development, that increased density is compatible with existing development and the comprehensive plan, and that density is permitted in locations where developers perceive there is a market for higher density. The need for TDR programs to consist of receiving areas which contemplate local conditions is one of the reasons why Boulder County does not map receiving areas, but instead has specific criteria for designation of receiving areas. INTEGRATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TDR PROGRAMS TDR programs were not initially designed to function as incentives for affordable housing, but TDRs were successful in increasing density and housing stock when the desire for townhomes and condominiums in the 1980s – 1990s was high. However, following the 2008 recession and housing market crash, many TDR programs had to pivot to find new values for TDRs beyond square footage or unit bonuses. There are some TDR programs – notably Collier County, FL and Montgomery County, MD – who are reviewing their TDR programs for ways to use TDRs to facilitate or incentivize affordable housing. The following are preliminary recommendations for facilitating affordable housing with TDRs: 1. Provide increased density bonuses on a sliding scale for projects which include deed-restricted affordable housing 2. Set prices annually and have a reduced price for affordable deed-restricted units 3. Require a portion of TDRs used on receiving sites to be used for affordable housing Chaffee County TDR Memo | December 12, 2022 11 TDR Program Background Summit County’s transferable development rights (TDR) program protects Summit County’s natural resources by allowing development rights to be voluntarily transferred from rural, backcountry “sending areas” to urban “receiving areas.” Find information below on the program’s successes, history and background, including information on the Joint Upper Blue TDR Bank and the Countywide TDR Bank. The current price of a TDR sold from the Joint Upper Blue Bank is $99,045 and the price of a TDR sold from the Countywide Bank is $63,065. Upper Blue TDR Program The Upper Blue Basin TDR Program was initiated in 2000 and has been the most successful TDR program in the county. In 21 years it has protected approximately 2,200 acres and generated over $4.5 million to be recycled for more open space purchases. The success of the Upper Blue TDR Program stems from the joint efforts of the County and towns of Breckenridge and Blue River to implement the program, and more importantly the public foresight, initiative and support to develop the program. The Upper Blue Basin is about 80,400 acres in size. Roughly 78 percent of the basin is national forest system lands, the majority of which comprises undeveloped mountainsides. The primary areas of development are within and adjacent to the towns of Blue River and Breckenridge, in close proximity to the valley floor of the Blue River. The Upper Blue Basin backcountry consists of hundreds of private mining claims that are often located in sensitive environmental locations and on ridgelines or in above-timberline locations. These mining claims have the ability to be developed for residential purposes. Development on these claims could subsequently obstruct valued viewsheds and recreational access to national forest system lands. Thus, the initial and primary goal of the Upper Blue TDR regulations was to implement a program to help protect backcountry areas, resources and open spaces on the mountains surrounding the towns of Breckenridge and Blue River from residential development. Owners of backcountry parcels may voluntarily participate in the Upper Blue TDR program. In exchange for giving up their right to develop a backcountry parcel, the property owners are monetarily compensated. When a property owner is compensated, the development rights associated with their property are transferred into areas that can more appropriately accommodate development (areas within or near the Town of Breckenridge or Blue River). There is a market for TDRs because county and town policies prohibit the upzoning of land (i.e., adding more units of density) unless TDRs are acquired. Important components to making the Upper Blue TDR Program work are the development of the Backcountry (BC) Zoning District and the Upper Blue TDR Bank. In conjunction with the development of the Upper Blue TDR Program regulations, the hundreds of private mining claims in the basin were rezoned to the Backcountry Zoning District. The purpose and intent of the Backcountry Zoning District is to retain the relatively undeveloped character of backcountry areas while allowing for very low impact development. However, the Backcountry Zoning District provides trade-offs to backcountry property owners. For example, there are limitations on the size of structures that can be built in exchange for relaxed county road improvement standards to access these private mining claims. Joint Upper Blue and Upper Blue TDR Bank The Joint Upper Blue TDR Bank provides a benefit to potential users of TDRs and was created as a way to help bring prospective purchasers and sellers of TDRs together. A backcountry property owner who is interested in selling their development rights would normally have to locate a potential purchaser on their own. Vice versa, a developer would normally have to do extensive research to locate prospective sellers. The Joint Upper Blue TDR Bank allows either party to voluntarily come to one known location to complete these arrangements. The county administers the TDR Bank, in coordination with the Town of Breckenridge. One TDR is equal to 20 acres of backcountry property (with a couple of exceptions) and in 2022 is sold by the County for $99,045 or approximately $4,952 per acre. This price is adjusted annually based on the median sales price of all vacant backcountry zoned property sales within the Upper Blue Basin since January 1, 2000, the year the TDR program was established. At the time of each TDR purchase, an administrative fee must also be paid to the County Planning Department. Currently, the base administrative fee is $2,915 for any transaction of one development right or a fraction of a development right. For transactions involving more than one development right, an additional incremental fee of $360 must be paid for each additional development right or portion of a development right. This administrative fee is adjusted annually in March of each year based on the percentage increase in the hourly staff rate published annually in the Summit County Planning Department Development Review Fee Schedule. Since it was initiated, the Upper Blue TDR Program has protected 2,200 acres of the identified backcountry area in the Upper Blue Basin. In addition, the program has now been amended to allow platted properties in designated receiving areas containing high quality wetlands to possibly qualify as TDR sending areas. To date, the program has protected 27 wetland lots, totaling about 14 acres. Based on the success of the Upper Blue program, in 2006 the Snake River and Tenmile basins developed TDR program regulations almost identical to the Upper Blue’s. Additionally, rezoning of approximately 341 backcountry claims to the Backcountry zoning district in these basins was completed in August 2007. The County has been working to achieve continued growth, success and a more coordinated approach to utilization of TDRs throughout the county. Countywide TDR Program & Basin-Specific Information The Lower Blue Basin TDR regulations were adopted in September 2007, and the basin has had two transaction protecting 55 acres. The Tenmile Basin TDR regulations were adopted in July 2006, and the basin has had one transaction protecting 193.93 acres. The Snake River Basin has had a TDR program in place since 1998 and has had nine separate TDR transactions protecting approximately 300.43 acres. Countywide TDR Bank On September 14, 2010, the Summit Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the establishment of a Countywide TDR Bank with separate accounts for the Lower Blue, Snake River, Tenmile and Upper Blue Basins, to provide a more uniform framework for the transfer of development rights within the county. The Countywide TDR Bank was established, separately from the Joint Upper Blue TDR Bank, to provide a known location where owners of Sending Area properties throughout all areas of the county could go to sell development rights and where owners of Receiving Area parcels could go to purchase development rights, to be used within any of the county’s four basins. The County is authorized to issue Certificates of Development Rights to third parties for use on approved TDR Receiving Sites through the Countywide TDR Bank. The value of a development right sold by the Countywide TDR Bank is determined as follows: Lower Blue Basin Account: No set value has been established for development rights sold from the Lower Blue Basin account. The value of development rights sold by the Lower Blue Basin account is determined by the County on a case-by-case basis and is the fair market value of a development right. Snake River and Tenmile Accounts: This price is adjusted annually based on the median sales price of all vacant backcountry zoned property sales within the Tenmile and Snake River Basins since August 14, 2007, the date backcountry zoning was established in those basins. At the time of each TDR purchase, an administrative fee must also be paid to the County Planning Department. Currently, the base administrative fee is $2,915 for any transaction of one development right or a fraction of a development right. For transactions involving more than one development right, an additional incremental fee of $360 must be paid for each additional development right or portion of a development right. This administrative fee is adjusted annually in March of each year based on the percentage increase in the hourly staff rate published annually in the Summit County Planning Department Development Review Fee Schedule. One TDR sold from each of these Countywide TDR Bank accounts is equal to 20 acres of backcountry property (with a couple of exceptions) and in 2022 is sold by the County for $63,065 or approximately $3,153 per acre.  Upper Blue Basin Account: The price of TDR sold from the Countywide Account in the Upper Blue Basin uses the same methodology as the Joint Upper Blue TDR Bank. Staff DirectoryStaff Directory