land use building sustainability • october 30, 2006 ijanuary, 1996 – amendments to tdr article...

Land Use Building Sustainability • October 30, 2006 i

Table of Contents • 10.30.06Introduction/Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Map Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Map Guide Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Boulder County Structure Size Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Summary Table Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Transferable Development Rights Implementation Systems . . . . . 16

TDR Programs: Five Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TDR Program Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Factors in Boulder County Influencingthe Design of an Expanded TDR Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Policy Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ii Land Use Building Sustainability • October 30, 2006

Introduction/Background:Land Use — Building & Sustainability Study Session� Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)

� Structure Size

� Green Building

� Comprehensive Plan

IntroductionBoulder County has undertaken many land use policy and regulatory changes since the adoption of theComprehensive Plan in 1978 to move towards fulfilling its goals and objectives. Some of these initiativesare highlighted later in this notebook. These changes have had a marked effect on the face of the county’slandscape during the past 28 years, some of them anticipated and desirable, and some not. During thesame period of time citizen surveys and polls conducted by various Boards of County Commissioners revealthat land use matters such as open space acquisition, environmental resource preservation, resourceconsumption, neighborhood character, and the kinds of development occurring in the unincorporatedareas continue to rank high as issues of importance. And locally as well as nationally, the concepts,knowledge and practice of implementing principles of sustainability in all of our activities has growntremendously. Taken together, it is time for the county to look at these issues and trends from aninteractive, interconnected perspective and to consider revisions to our land use tools that address themin effective and reasonable ways.

PurposeToday’s County Commissioners and Planning Commission study session is the first opportunity for Land Usestaff to present both bodies with information on four subjects we have been asked to research:

� Modifying and expanding the current county TDR program to cover the entire county;

� Analyzing the increasing sizes and impacts of new home and “scrape-off”construction in rural areas;

� Investigating the latest techniques and studies regarding “green building” for reducing resourceconsumption; and

� Amending the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan with the addition of a new Element addressingcounty policies regarding TDRs, house size, and “green building”.

Staff has prepared this notebook and accompanying PowerPoint presentations for the purpose of providingthe Commissioners and Planning Commission with a beginning point for discussion and so they can providestaff with further direction on how to proceed in each of these areas.

Land Use Building Sustainability • October 30, 2006 1

Chronology of Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP)Implementation Measures� April, 1978 - Boulder County Comprehensive Plan adopted with cornerstone goals of directing urban

development to urban areas and preserving the environmental, rural and agricultural character ofunincorporated areas.

� August, 1978 - Adoption of the Nonurban Planned Unit Development procedure for the Plains portionof the county permitting bonus residential densities (two units per 35 acres) for platting in return forpreservation of at least 75% of the platted area in conservation easements deeded to the county.

� 1984/1985 – Approval of a comprehensive rezoning of the county, affecting over 25,000 acres, topreserve agricultural lands, lands of environmental and natural significance, and the rural character ofthe county.

� 1988 - Adoption of the Noncontiguous Nonurban Planned Unit Development procedure permittingtransfers of density between noncontiguous parcels within the same PUD platting process in return forconservation easements being placed on the transfer parcels (a precursor to a TDR program, theNCNUPUD also allowed transfers of density from the mountains to the Plains – mountain sending parcelminimum acreage was set at 175 acres with a transfer ration of one dwelling unit per 35 acres).

� May 28, 1993 - Adoption and inclusion of the Site Plan Review process into the Land Use Code (Article4-800) to insure that access and on and off-site impacts of new development in the mountains(Forestry Zone) were addressed and mitigated through good site design (SPR was revised to includeproperty on the Plains on February 24, 1994; several revisions have been approved since that time).

� 1993 – Adoption and inclusion of the Rural Community District Overlay zoning district into the LandUse Code (Article 4-115). Its purpose is “To encourage flexibility in the land use patterns of establishedrural communities in order to achieve the objectives of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan”. TheRCD, which can only be established by written consent of greater than 50% of the owners of buildinglots within the proposed district, permits variations in such elements as setbacks, lighting, parking andarchitectural design/building mass to complement the historic rural character of the area. Finalapproval rests with the County Commissioners. Old townsites such as Niwot, Eldorado Springs andAllenspark are specifically referenced as eligible for this district although other townsites andsettlements may apply as well.

� 1993 – Land Use instituted a formal Building Lot Determination process to ascertain the legal buildingstatus of lots and parcels within the unincorporated county by identifying the date of a property’screation, its compliance with any zoning/subdivision regulations in effect at the time of its creation,and whether that legal/illegal status is still in effect today.

� November, 1993 - Voter approval of a county-wide open space sales tax program and subsequentreauthorizations of that tax over the years at the ballot box.

� July and August, 1994 – Adoption of a Plains Planning Area Element, a Cultural Resources Element,and amendments to the Environmental Resources Element (wetlands, Natural Landmarks and NaturalAreas) as part of the BCCP.

� March through August, 1995 - Adoption of text amendments to the Plains Planning Area Elementauthorizing a TDR program, amendments to the Environmental Resources Element including new textand maps for a new Environmental Conservation Areas and revisions to Rare Plant Sites, andSignificant Natural Communities subsections, and creation of a new Natural Hazards Element as part ofthe BCCP.

� March, 1995 – Adoption and inclusion of a TDR process for the Plains into the Land Use Code (Article6-700) allowing density transfers from identified and mapped sending sites, based on BCCP landdesignations, to both applicant-approved and county-designated receiving sites (TDR transfer formulabased on the NUPUD formula of two units per 35 acres with a third unit available if the county weregranted an undivided interest in deliverable agricultural water retained on the site).

� January, 1996 – Amendments to TDR Article 6-700 approved designating specific sending andreceiving sites for the Niwot area, including the percentage of eligible development rights on sendingsites that would be permitted in transfer to receiving sites.

� January, 2001 – Agreement reached between Boulder County, Bureau of LandManagement-Department of Interior and US Forest Service-Department of Agriculture to cooperate ina three-way exchange to transfer disposed BLM lands to Boulder County in return for the countyacquiring and transferring private properties within/adjacent to Roosevelt National Forest to the USForest Service.

2 Land Use Building Sustainability • October 30, 2006

� June, 2002 – Adoption and inclusion of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District zone into theLand Use Code (Article 4-118). Similar to the Rural Community District in intent, the NCOD serves suchpurposes as the preservation and protection of the character or valued features of establishedneighborhood, recognizing the diversity and distinctiveness of neighborhoods, and reducing conflictsbetween new construction and existing development in those neighborhoods. The approval of a NCODrequires development of a conservation plan through staff interaction with the residents and thewritten consent of 60% over the owners of record of the parcels within the proposed district before theplan goes to the County Commissioners for action.

� September, 2003 - Cooperative land use management milestone achieved with the ratification byBoulder County and nine of its ten municipalities of the Countywide Coordinated ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan Intergovernmental Agreement defining Municipal Influence Areas, where all partiesconcur that future urban annexation and development is appropriate, and Rural Preservation Areas,which are those lands that should remain under county jurisdiction and management to retain theirrural character.

� 2005 - County Commissioners approved a sustainability initiative to implement environmentallysustainable operations and policies in county government and to foster sustainable practices in thewider community by reducing energy and resources consumption.


Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - 1978


Boulder County Countywide Intergovernmental Agreement - 2003

1. Private Lands Status1

Displays the number and distribution of private lands, their development status (improved residentialand commercial, unimproved/vacant), and the timeframes in which development occurred.Approximately 10,000 parcels in the Forestry zone (7,000 improved and 3,000 unimproved). Legalbuilding lot status is not defined.

� 1858 - 1961

� 1961 - 1971

� 1971 - 1981

� 1981 - 1991

� 1991 - 2001

� 2001 - 2006

Note:The Assessor database is designed and intended for use in property appraisal. While it is adequate forgeneral land use analysis, it should not be considered complete or consistent for specific or detailedanalysis of individual parcel development. In particular, parcel boundaries may not be consistent withthe definitions of the Land Use Code nor with determinations of Building Lot status. And the databasetables and data collected for appraisal purposes may not include all structures or square footageregulated by the Land Use Code.

2. Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas2

Taken from the adopted Environmental Conservation Areas map of the BCCP. Natural Landmarks are acounty designation for scenic, visual and aesthetic values providing a record of the natural heritageof the county. They may also have cultural, ecological or geological attributes. There are 26designated Natural Landmarks. Natural Areas were initially identified in Boulder County in the 1960sand early 1970s. In 1977 the Colorado Natural Areas Program was created by statute, directing thestate Department of Natural Resources to identify, evaluate and protect examples of Colorado’snatural heritage. “A natural area is a physical or biological area which either retains or hasreestablished its natural character, although it need not be completely undisturbed. The fulldefinition can be found in CRS 36-10-101 et seq. There are currently eight Natural Areas in thecounty. The differences between Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas are described on pp. 4 and 5,Environmental resources Element, of the “Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies andMaps Element”. Both Landmarks and Areas are identified as TDR sending sites under Article 6-700 ofthe county’s Land Use Code.

� Natural Landmark & Areas


Map Guide:TDR Presentation to Boulder County Commissioners& Planning Commission • October 30, 2006The following is a guide to the PowerPoint maps describing the land status andresources/attributes that have been compiled over time by the Land Use Department andother contributors. These maps are an inventory of landscape conditions and features that maybe considered in further discussions about potential TDR sending and receiving sites. As suchthey are informational at a broad scale and do not represent parcel-specific conditions ordecisions about future land uses.

3. Natural Communities, Rare Plant Sites,Riparian Corridors, & Critical Wildlife Habitat3

Taken from the adopted map of the same name in the BCCP. Natural communities are groupings ofplant species that commonly grow together because of their affinity for particular climaticconditions, soil type, moisture regime, disturbance pattern or combinations thereof. SignificantNatural Communities are those that have been determined to be in particular need of considerationbecause they are either geographically restricted and rare, have few remaining known localities, orare otherwise in peril. Rare Plant Sites are based on an assessment of the historic range of a plantand the number of remaining populations or occurrences at the state and global level. There are sixrankings of sites from “Very Rare” to “Status Uncertain”. Riparian Corridors have important functionsand qualities such as providing habitat for amphibian, reptilian, bird species and the federally listedthreatened Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, influencing stream temperature, and affecting waterquality. Critical Wildlife Habitat are areas which provide the life requirements of a given species ofwildlife and which, if significantly altered or destroyed, would jeopardize a major portion of thedependent species population.

� Critical Wildlife Habitat

� Significant Riparian Corridors

� Rare Plant Areas

� Significant Natural Communities

4. Critical Preservation Candidate Lands4

Areas identified during the five county Front Range Mountain Backdrop Planning Project (1994/1995)that were considered most vulnerable to disturbance within the Backdrop as defined by eachparticipating county and therefore deserving of preservation attention.

� Critical Preservation Candidates

5. Archaeologically Sensitive Areas5

Taken from the adopted map of the same name in the BCCP. Archaeological sites include prehistoriccomponents and all the evidence on the landscape resulting from prehistoric occupation andactivities. Sites dating back as far as 7,500 years ago have been found. Over 312 county sites havebeen reported to the Colorado Office of the State Archeologist. The map delineates areas where theprobability of finding an archaeological site is high.

� Archaeologically Sensitive Areas

6. Agricultural Lands6

Taken from the adopted Significant Agricultural Lands map of the BCCP. The map depicts lands ofNational, Statewide and Local Importance, and has been instrumental in siting considerations forNonurban Planned Unit Developments, Special Uses, Site Plan Reviews and other land usedevelopment proposals. Lands designated as having National and Statewide Importance are presentlyidentified as TDR sending sites under Article 6-700 of the county Land Use Code.

� National Importance

� Statewide Importance

� Local Importance


7. Geologic Hazards7

Taken from the adopted Geologic Hazards & Constraint Areas map of the 3BCCP. The layerpresented here depict “Geologic Hazard Areas – Major (extensive problems, high risks) and Moderate(significant problems, provisional risks)” and “Geologic Constraint Areas – Moderate (significantproblems, provisional risk). These features include composites of snow avalanches, soil creep,flooding, flash flooding corridors and associated alluvial fans, landslides, mudslides, mudfalls, debrisfans, rockfalls/rock avalanches, subsidence, and expansive soil or claystone.

� Major Hazard

� Moderate Hazard

� Moderate Constraint

� Minor Constraint

8. Fire Hazards8

Hazard ratings are based on physical attributes of slope (steepness), aspect (north/south exposure),and vegetative cover (density and type) and assuming moderate to severe wildfire weather. This isNOT a risk assessment map, which takes into account access and location of existing development.

� Low Hazard

� Moderate Hazard

� High Hazard

� Very High Hazard

� No Risk

9. Environmental Conservation Areas9

Taken from the adopted map of the same name in the BCCP. ECAs are large and relativelyundeveloped areas of the county that possess a high degree of naturalness, contain unique or highquality landscape features, and/or have significant restoration potential. Their size, quality andgeographic location make them an important tool for combating the affects of habitatfragmentation. ECAs are based on principles found in the fields of landscape ecology andconservation biology. Policy ER 9.01 of the BCCP specifically encourages the county to “…encouragethe removal of development rights from ECA’s through transfer…”.

� Environmental Conservation Areas

10. Intergovernmental Agreements10

Intergovernmental agreements between different levels of government for land use planning andmanagement purposes are authorized by CRS 29-20-101 et seq. The county has been a leader inutilizing this cooperative tool since 1974, culminating in the signing of the Countywide CoordinatedComprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement by nine municipalities and thecounty in 2003. The Agreement defines municipal influence areas where urban growth is anticipatedand rural preservation areas where lands are to remain under county jurisdiction as well asamendment procedures. It also incorporates by reference underlying Agreements between thecounty and individual municipalities, some of which describe the terms and conditions for use of TDRreceiving sites within municipal influence areas.

� Rural Preservation

� Municipal Influence


Map Guide Footnotes:1. County Assessor data.

2. Natural Landmarks: nominated by the public, federal, state and local agencies and interests; field visitsby Boulder County Nature Association and Boulder County Parks and Open Space staff. Adopted as part ofMap Sheet 4 of the BCCP in 1986; revisited and revised in Docket BCCP-94-02.

3. Significant Natural Communities and Rare Plant Sites: Colorado Natural heritage Program data base,Colorado State University; Boulder County Parks and Open Space staff; Boulder County Nature Association.Adopted as part of Map Sheet 4 of the BCCP in 1986; revisited and revised in Docket BCCP-95-02.

4. CPCLs based on inventories of occurrences of a) Rare, Imperiled, Threatened or Endangered flora,fauna and fish; b) Important Wildlife Values; and c) Vegetative Cover Types as compiled by the ColoradoNatural Heritage Program (CSU) and combined with visual significance and current degree of protectionfrom potential development disturbances.

5. Colorado Office of the State Archaeologist. Map adopted as part of the BCCP in 1983.

Note: Sites recorded with the state are not subject to the Sunshine Law and therefore are not public orlisted in the BCCP.

6. Based on criteria in PL-95-87; “Colorado Important Farmland Inventory”, Soil Conservation Service - USDept. of Agriculture; modified Storie Productivity Index; State Experiment Station in cooperation with theColorado Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Boulder Soil Conservation District; aerialphotography, and field surveys/Assessor identification of existing agricultural land uses. Drafted1977/1978, adopted 1984, revised 1997.

Natural Areas: six identified in 1960s; assessment studies conducted by the University of ColoradoGeography Department in 1970; provided statutory protections in 1977 (House Bill 1184). Revised with twomore added in Docket BCCP-94-02.

Riparian Corridors: Boulder County Parks and Open Space, Boulder County Nature Association, BoulderAudubon Society, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Adopted as part of Map Sheet 4 as High Quality AquaticHabitat; revisited, reclassified and revised in Docket BCCP-95-02.

Critical Wildlife Habitat: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, US. ForestService Region 2, Boulder Audubon Society, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies – University of Colorado,Boulder County Parks and Open Space, Boulder County Nature Association, Volunteer Naturalists ofBoulder County. Adopted as part of Map Sheet 4 of the BCCP in 1986; revisited and revised in DocketBCCP-95-02.

7. Prepared by Thomas Gray, Boulder County Geologist. Complete bibliography contained in the “GeologyElement” of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (1st edition 1976; 3rd edition adopted 1978;revisions in 1982 and 1983).

8. Based on US Forest Service BEHAVE model and Van Wagner’s crown fire spread equations.

9. Prepared by an ad hoc working group of county Land Use and Parks/Open Space staff, City of BoulderMountain Parks/Open Space, Us Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Boulder County NatureAssociation, The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Division of Wildlife,University of Colorado Herbarium, and Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. Originally adopted as part ofMap Sheet 4 of the BCCP, 1986; revisited, redefined and revised in Docket BCCP-95-02.

10. The text of all active land use Intergovernmental Agreements including the Countywide CoordinatedComprehensive Development Plan IGA can be found at http://www.co.boulder.co.us/lu by scrolling downto and clicking on Intergovernmental Agreements.


Boulder County Structure Size Data:Existing Conditions and TrendsContents, Data Limitations/Methodology, and Summary of section Tables (all tables are for UnincorporatedCounty and private land)

Summary TablesTable 1: Structure Size Table (All Structures & Residential)Source: Assessor Data

Table 2: Average Structure Size by Year TableSource: Assessor Data

Table 3: Count of Structures by SizeSource: Assessor Data

Table 4: Structure Size by Period Built Table (All Structures)Source: Assessor Data

Table 5: Average Structure Size by Year Table (All Mountain Structures)Source: Assessor Data

Table 6: Average Structure Size by Year Table (All Plains StructuresSource: Assessor Data

Table 7: Count of New Single Family Construction by Size and YearSource: BP Data

SPR Data tables to come.

Data LimitationsThe following pages contain data relating to structure size trends in Boulder County. Limitations in thedata require us to look at different sources of data to paint the broad trend picture in Boulder County. Weare looking at three data sources to be able to the capture the past, recent and current trends instructure size.

Staff is using Assessor data to capture size of existing stock and the trends back through time. The analysisis done using the data fields with square footage information, classification of building and the year thestructure was built.

A limitation of the Assessor data is it doesn’t capture the more recent trends. Also, square footage data iscollected for tax assessment purposes and not for Land Use or building purposes. Structures constructedover the past several years are not included in the Assessor’s data until they are substantially constructed.In order to capture the more current trends staff is supplementing the Assessor data with informationfrom our Building Permit system and our planning case tracking software.

The data from the building permit system allows us to look at the breakdown of square footage in moredetail than the other data. Unfortunately as we go back through time we lose reliability in the data.


SummaryThe following data is meant to help quantify the trend is structure and home size in unincorporatedBoulder County. These numbers are a starting point for future discussions and research regarding theimpacts to sustainability issues including energy usage, material and land consumption and impacts toneighborhood compatibility and rural character.

According to Assessor data the average size of existing structure is 3,502 sq. ft.1 The average size of anexisting single family home is 3,294. This is an increase of 74% over homes that were built pre-1970. Theaverage size of homes built since 2000 is 5,200 sq. ft. which is a 158% increase over the pre-1970 stock and94% larger than the housing stock as a whole. Over the past 30 years the average house size in the UnitedStates has increased 700 square feet to 2,227 or 46%2 . Over approximately the same period houses inBoulder County have increased by 3,184 square feet or approximately 158%.3

Looking at building permit data of the 53 permits issued as of September of this year the Average size was6,616 Sq. Ft. while the average size for 2005 was 6,007 sq. ft. This more recent information demonstratesthe structure size is still trending upwards at about 10% over the past year. The building permit analysis isonly looking at construction of new homes and does not at this time take into consideration additionswhich are adding square footage to the existing stock.

Summary Table Footnotes:1. Does not include agricultural or institutional buildings.

2. Nancy Cambria, “Kids gone boomers’ nest grow,” The Denver Post, 15 October 2006: 4K

3. From 2,359 for homes w/year built 1976 and previous to


Table 1: Structure Size Table (All Structures & Residential)

StructureSize Sq. Ft.

AllStructures

ResidentialStructures

(All)

MountainStructures

(All)MountainsResidential

PlainsStructures

(All)

PlainsResidentialStructures

CommercialStructures

(All)Mountains

CommercialPlains

Commercial

Mean 3,502 3,294 2,507 2,484 4,143 3,822 12,854 4,016 16,119

Median 3,094 3,089 2,329 2,338 3,486 3,476 3,760 1,742 5,000

Range 523,228 34,755 72,614 17,801 523,188 34,555 523,188 72,524 523,188

Minimum 80 80 80 80 120 180 120 170 120

Maximum 523,308 34,835 72,694 17,881 523,308 34,835 523,308 72,694 523,308

Count 18,073 17,680 7,084 6,978 10,989 10,702 393 106 287

Table 1 Data Source: Assessor Data

Table 2: Average Structure Size by Year TableAll Structures

Structure SizeSq. Ft. Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006

Mean 2,169 3,052 3,725 4,545 5,040

Median 1,646 2,879 3,334 4,080 4,352

Range 523,212 149,920 199,880 156,776 60,064

Minimum 96 80 120 80 96

Maximum 523,308 150,000 200,000 156,856 60,160

Count 5,354 4,634 4,649 4,031 1,069

All Mountain StructuresStructure Size

Sq. Ft. Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006

Mean 1,370 2,378 3,037 3,611 3,577

Median 983 2,322 2,848 3,442 3,327

Range 17,148 52,308 72,502 17,801 10,330

Minimum 96 104 192 80 160

Maximum 17,244 52,412 72,694 17,881 10,490

Count 2,248 1,574 1,445 1,374 443

All Plains StructuresStructure Size

Sq. Ft. Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006

Mean 3,328 3,468 3,999 5,299 6,694

Median 2,592 3,183 3,622 4,652 6,367

Range 523,028 149,700 95,876 156,416 59,260

Minimum 280 300 120 440 900

Maximum 523,308 150,000 95,996 156,856 60,160

Count 2,276 2,773 2,971 2,450 519


Table 3: Count of Structures by SizeAll Structures All Mountain Structures All Plains Structures

Structure Sizesq. ft. # % Cumulative % # % Cumulative % # % Cumulative %

1 - 999 1,660 9% 9% 1,548 22% 22% 112 1% 1%

1,000 - 1,999 2,507 14% 23% 1,485 21% 43% 1,022 9% 10%

2,000 - 4,999 11,277 62% 85% 3,587 51% 93% 7,690 70% 80%

5000 - 7,999 2,123 12% 97% 408 6% 99% 1,715 16% 96%

8,000 - 9,999 296 2% 99% 32 0.5% 100% 264 2% 98%

10,000 & up 210 1% 100% 24 0.3% 100% 186 2% 100%

Total 18,073 100% 7,084 100% 10,989 100%



Table 4: Structure Size by Period Built Table (All Structures)Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006

StructureSize sq. ft. # % Cum. % # % Cum. % # % Cum. % # % Cum. % # % Cum. %

1 - 999 1,236 27% 27% 253 6% 6% 93 2% 2% 59 2% 2% 19 2% 2%

1,000 - 1,999 1,136 25% 52% 658 15% 21% 420 10% 12% 222 6% 7% 71 7% 9%

2,000 - 4,999 2,058 45% 98% 3,224 74% 95% 3,265 74% 86% 2,281 60% 67% 449 47% 56%

5000 - 7,999 76 2% 100% 166 4% 99% 567 13% 98% 1,052 28% 95% 262 27% 83%

8,000 - 9,999 6 0.1% 100% 14 0.3% 99% 32 1% 99% 140 4% 98% 104 11% 94%

10,000 & up 12 0.3% 100% 32 1% 100% 39 1% 100% 70 2% 100% 57 6% 100%

Total: 4,524 100% 4,347 100% 4,416 100% 3,824 100% 962 100%


Table 5: Average Structure Size by Year Table(All Mountain Structures)

Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006


1 - 999 1,144 51% 51% 247 16% 16% 84 6% 6% 55 4% 4% 18 4% 4%

1,000 - 1,999 601 27% 78% 397 25% 41% 255 18% 23% 174 13% 17% 58 13% 17%

2,000 - 4,999 488 22% 99% 899 57% 98% 990 69% 92% 926 67% 84% 284 64% 81%

5000 - 7,999 13 1% 100% 27 2% 100% 104 7% 99% 192 14% 98% 72 16% 98%

8,000 - 9,999 1 0.04% 100% 1 0.1% 100% 7 0.5% 100% 13 1% 99% 10 2% 100%

10,000 & up 1 0.04% 100% 3 0.2% 100% 5 0.3% 100% 14 1% 100% 1 0.2% 100%

Total: 2,248 100% 1,574 100% 1,445 100% 1,374 100% 443 100%


Table 6: Average Structure Size by Year Table(All Plains Structures)

Pre 1970 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2006


1 - 999 92 4% 4% 6 0.2% 0.2% 9 0.3% 0.3% 4 0.2% 0.2% 1 0.2% 0.2%

1,000 - 1,999 535 24% 28% 261 9% 10% 165 6% 6% 48 2% 2% 13 3% 3%

2,000 - 4,999 1,570 69% 97% 2,325 84% 93% 2,275 77% 82% 1,355 55% 57% 165 32% 34%

5000 - 7,999 63 3% 99% 139 5% 98% 463 16% 98% 860 35% 93% 190 37% 71%

8,000 - 9,999 5 0.2% 100% 13 0.5% 99% 25 1% 99% 127 5% 98% 94 18% 89%

10,000 & up 11 0.5% 100% 29 1% 100% 34 1% 100% 56 2% 100% 56 11% 100%

Total: 2,276 100% 2,773 100% 2,971 100% 2,450 100% 519 100%


Table 7: Count of New Single Family Construction by Size and Year2006

Garage

Covered Area(Porches,

Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)

Total(IncludingGarage)

Total(Less

Basement)

Total(IncludingGargage &

Covered Area)

Mean 945 530 4,272 3,565 6,168 4,409 6,616

Median 980 365 3,912 3,653 6,726 4,486 6,948

Range 1,487 2,297 8,740 6,897 11,818 9,308 13,762

Minimum 231 — 745 745 944 944 965

Maximum 1,718 2,297 9,485 7,642 12,762 10,252 14,727

Count 47 45 53 53 53 53 53

Table 7 Data Source: Building Permint Data


Table 7: Continued2005

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 959 559 3,912 3,146 5,569 3,910 6,007

Median 919 449 3,460 3,122 5,599 3,807 5,929

Range 1,690 2,308 8,944 6,067 11,807 7,606 12,714

Minimum 240 28 921 513 950 513 950

Maximum 1,930 2,336 9,865 6,580 12,757 8,119 13,664

Count 76 80 102 102 102 102 102

2004

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 869 427 3,446 2,940 5,050 3,683 5,381

Median 804 320 3,241 2,775 4,973 3,602 5,189

Range 2,193 1,992 8,353 6,339 12,255 8,262 13,905

Minimum 270 45 621 621 621 621 621

Maximum 2,463 2,037 8,974 6,960 12,876 8,883 14,526

Count 98 93 120 120 120 120 120

2003

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 808 475 3,437 2,894 4,995 3,563 5,337

Median 764 397 2,958 2,612 4,232 2,951 4,579

Range 1,427 1,720 9,458 8,904 16,963 10,382 17,941

Minimum 196 32 804 784 804 784 804

Maximum 1,623 1,752 10,262 9,688 17,767 11,166 18,745

Count 50 46 64 64 64 64 64

2002

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 856 365 3,080 2,674 4,500 3,379 4,742

Median 809 316 2,662 2,437 3,561 3,056 3,627

Range 1,847 1,204 8,907 6,774 10,104 8,203 10,574

Minimum 292 12 528 528 528 528 540

Maximum 2,139 1,216 9,435 7,302 10,632 8,731 11,114

Count 99 91 137 137 137 137 137

2000

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 871 — 3,416 2,925 5,027 3,755 5,027

Median 825 — 2,868 2,500 4,470 3,362 4,470

Range 2,343 — 9,069 6,409 12,967 8,481 12,967

Minimum 294 — 270 270 270 270 270

Maximum 2,637 — 9,339 6,679 13,237 8,751 13,237

Count 125 — 157 157 157 157 157



Table 7: Continued1995

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 777 — 3,142 2,823 4,733 3,584 4,734

Median 750 — 2,920 2,680 4,520 3,500 4,520

Range 1,840 — 12,603 11,400 17,360 14,460 17,360

Minimum 160 — — — — — —

Maximum 2,000 — 12,603 11,400 17,360 14,460 17,360

Count 193 — 237 237 237 237 237

1990

Garage


Etc.) Finished

Finished(Less

Basement)


Total(Less

Basement)


Covered Area)

Mean 593 — — — 2,672 2,437 4,056

Median 634 — — — 2,544 2,402 3,881

Range 2,000 — — — 7,700 5,368 9,600

Minimum — — — — — — —

Maximum 2,000 — — — 7,700 5,368 9,600

Count 253 — — — 267 267 267


New Construction Square FootageTotal sq. ft. includes garage and covered porches.

New Construction Chart Data Source: Building Permint Data


Site Plan Review DataThis data is currently being compliled and will be to come.


BonusDensities TDR Bank

OverlayAllocations

Square FootConversions Fee-In-Lieu

OtherMethods

Increase thenumber ofdevelopmentrights that canbe transferredfrom a sendingarea over thatwhich the basezoning of thesending areawould allow.

Created withinthejurisdiction’sstructure ordelegated to athird partynon-profit.Banks buy andsell TDRs orTDCs (transferdevelopmentcredit).

Environmentalresources,infrastructure,other factorsare givenTDR/TDCvalue.Sendingsite allocationsbased on thenumber ofoverlay valuesassociated withthe property.

TDRs/TDCs areconverted tosquare feet andused as bonus/supplementalsq. ft. foradditions ornewdevelopment.

Potentialcomponent of aTDR program.Additionaldensities/sq.ft. arepurchased byapplicantsrather than aTDR. Feescollected areearmarked forpreservationpurposes.

Allow limitedadditional useson sending sitewith easementand deedrestrictions.Extinguishsending sitedesignations iforiginalpurposefor/values ofsite change.

* MontgomeryCo, MD BoulderCo, CO

*New JerseyPinelandsSummit Co, CO

*Collier Co, FLTahoe RPA, CA

*Pitkin Co, COSan LuisObispo, CA

Berthoud, CO -Westfield, MA -Livermore, CA -Clifton Park, NY


Transferable Development RightsImplementation Systems:Successful TDR programs typically include some form of incentives to encourage their use sincemost depend on a willing seller/willing buyer relationship. This table summarizes five of themore commonly used types of incentives and references some others that are less widelyemployed. Four of the five are cross-referenced to a specific program described in the TDRPROGRAMS: FIVE EXAMPLES section of the notebook and noted with an *.

TDR Programs • Five Examples1:As of 2003 there were more than 140 TDR programs in place in 32 states around the country.Programs range in objectives and scale from reducing the development potential on a number ofvery small, old vacant subdivision lots platted in sensitive areas (Cambria, CA – 9,000 lotsaveraging 25’x 70’ in size) to preserving important ecosystems on a vast landscape scale(Pinelands, NJ – 368,000 acres). Typically TDR programs are crafted to preserve environmentalareas, farmlands and historic landmarks, but they have also been used to retain and expandhousing opportunities (Seattle, Portland OR), tie growth to infrastructure capacity (Cupertino,CA), revitalize downtowns (Los Angeles, Washington D.C.), and maintain rural character (BoulderCounty, CO). Whatever the purpose, it is important that the jurisdiction’s comprehensive planenables the development and use of TDRs as a strategy and tool for achieving plan goals.

All TDR programs involve moving development rights or credits from one location (sending sites)to another (receiving sites). Conservation easements, some with no more development optionsand some with additional limited development options, are placed on the sending sites. Receivingsites may or may not be designated. The more successful programs contain specific elements thatare designed to facilitate the accomplishment of the regulatory jurisdiction’s goals, and typicallyoffer incentives to landowners and developers for participating in the process. The followingexamples summarize particular components of five programs that were included to improve theprospect of meeting their TDR objectives.


1. Agricultural Land Preservation – BONUS DENSITIES:Montgomery County, MD (1980 – present)Sending Areas:

Agricultural Reserve lands zoned Rural Density Transfer (91,591 acres).

Receiving Areas:

Zoned areas in nine communities – base densities and bonus densities are defined.

Transfer Formulas/Ratios:

RTD zoned areas base density = 1 dwelling unit/25 acres. Sending ratio = 1 dwelling unit/5 acres (5:1).Approximately 40,583 acres preserved (2000).

Incentives:

(a) Speed of Approvals

(b) High Transfer Ratios of 5:1

(c) Simple Process

(d) Designated Receiving Sites

Other Features:

Montgomery County has been a prototypefor many other programs. Procedures forTDR acquisition, recordation, review andplatting of receiving sites are similar toBoulder County’s plains TDR program.TDRs can be held under option contractsuntil receiving sites have been approved.Had a banking program but dissolved in1990 due to open market success andlack of need for a bank to facilitatetransfers.


2. Environmental & Farmland Preservation – TDR BANK:New Jersey Pinelands, NJ (1980 - present)Sending Areas:

Designated Preservation Area of 368,000 acres containing 22,500 Pinelands Development Credits (PDCs).

Receiving Areas:

Designated and zoned Regional Growth Areas located in 23 municipalities. Can accommodate up to 46,200PDCs, more than 2 times the number in Preservation Area.


One PDC = four dwelling units for use in receiving area. Approximately 31,400 acres preserved (2001).Credits are fractional and based on acreage/resources values e.g. one PDC per 39 acres for uplands, 0.3PDCs for wetlands, 0.25 PDCs for some vacant lands, one PDC for some partially developed lands if unusedportion exceeds 10 acres, etc. PDC allocations for receiving site applications are determined by PinelandsCommission.

Bank:

Pinelands Development Credit Bank established by state statute in 1987 with seed money from the state.

� Bank is a “buyer of last resort”; open market sales preferred/protected

� Bank cannot pay more than 80% of market value for PDCs

� Bank has five criteria for purchasing PDCs and three criteria for hardship eligibility(buyer of last resort)

� PDCs sold at auction with base price set in advance; auctions held as needed

� Bank maintains PDC registry for buyers and sellers reference

Incentives:

(a) bank provides central source of credits,stability, commitment to program

(b) high transfer ratio (4:1) and fractionalPDCs authorized

(c) some flexibility in using sending sites afterPDCs are severed

(d) strong public education/outreach program

Other Features:

Building in the Preservation Area not a use byright but by conditional use permits at lowdensities. PDCs can be sold between privateparties (and are encouraged to) not justthrough the PDC Bank. The program wasmandated by state legislature’s adoption ofthe Pinelands Protection Act in 1979.


3. Environmental Preservation – Overlay Allocation System2:Collier County, FL Rural Lands Stewardship Program (1974 – present)Sending Areas:

Designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). Sending credits based on Stewardship Natural ResourcesIndex. Approximately 195,000 acres are in the SSAs.

Receiving Areas:

Not specifically designated but based on lower/lowest Resource Index credits and other criteria includingdevelopment guidelines. It is “density neutral” – no bonuses applied.


The Stewardship Natural Resources Index assigns numeric values (credits) to the type and number ofeligible resources found on a SSA site e.g. habitat stewardship area = 0.6 credits, wading bird restorationareas = 0.4 credits, etc. Developers must acquire eight credits from the Stewardship Sending area for eachacre of receiving area developed.

Overlay Allocation:

Stewardship Natural Resources Indexhas 26 “overlays” or factors under sixdesignations/indices in the SSAs thathave credits attached to them whicha developer can acquire to meet theeight credits needed perdevelopment acre. SSA landownersare free to choose which of sevendevelopment layers they want toforego. The more foregone, the morecredits assigned.

Incentives:

(a) no credits required for acres to bedeveloped as schools or for otherpublic uses

(b) SSA development potentialencumbered by strict regulations andreview procedures

(c) number and variety of overlayallocations and development layersthat can be sold as credits offersoptions to sellers and buyers.

Other Features:

Procedurally simple to sell credits.Transfers are approvedadministratively. Rights (credits) canbe severed from SSAs independentlyfrom their use on receiving sites.Environmental restrictions placed onSSA lands encourage sale of creditsfor use elsewhere.


4. Rural Character – TDR for Additional Residential Floor Area4:Pitkin County, CO (2006)

Sending Areas:

Legal lots or parcels in the R/R, TR-1 and TR-2 zones plus “constraint sites” not within the R/R zone undercertain conditions. Called Preservation Sites.

Note: The black cross-hatched areas on the above map are sent TDR sites.

Receiving Areas:

Limited to unincorporated areas of the county and excluding the TR-1 zone.


For the TR-1 and R/R zones = 1 dwelling unit/35 acres starting at one acre (1.0 – 69.9 acres = 1 TDR, 70.0 –104.9 acres = 2 TDRs, etc). Legal parcels less than one acre may qualify for one TDR if certain criteria aremet. For the TR-2 zone = 1 dwelling unit/10 acres starting at one acre (1.0 – 19.9 acres = 1 TDR, 20.0 –29.9 acres = 2 TDRs, etc). “Constraint Sites” outside of the R/R zone may be eligible for one or moreTDRs.

Additional Residential Floor Area:

House size “by right” in the county is limited to 5,750 square feet. Additional square footage can beacquired by purchasing TDRs at a conversion of 2,500 square feet per TDR with a maximum house sizeceiling of 15,000 square feet (base 5,750 square feet + four TDRs @ 2,500 square feet each = 15,000square feet).

Incentives:

Staff analyses of building sizes and potential TDRs show a TDR supply adequate to meet demand for 10years.

Other Features:

“Conservation Development” option for owners of 200 or more acres provides formula for allowing on-sitedevelopment on Preservation Sites and sale of TDRs depending on the home size e.g. one home of 7,500square feet on 200 acres would have three TDRs available for sale OR two homes of 5,000 square feet and<2,500 square feet with no TDRs for sale.


5. Any Preservation Objective – Fee-In-Lieu of TDR:Berthoud, CO; Westfield, MA; Clifton Park, NY; Livermore, CAIt is not clear at this point whether a fee in lieu of TDR is available to the county (see footnote 4),therefore we have not provided any specific details about the programs cited above. In generic terms thistool would allow a developer to pay a fee in lieu of transferring development rights, referred to as aDensity Transfer Charge by some jurisdictions. The fee would be held in a separate fund that is used bythe jurisdiction to purchase development rights from eligible sending sites on a willing seller/willing buyerbasis. This is similar to a banking system, but does not involve a resale of development rights to otherinterests for development purposes. A fee in lieu option provides the advantage of flexibility, but involvesup-front work in calculating and adjusting the fee amounts over time.

TDR Program Footnotes:1. The Pinelands, Collier County and Montgomery County examples as well as the reference to the numberof TDR programs currently in place around the country are from Beyond Takings and Givings: SavingNatural Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density TransferCharges by Rick Pruetz, AICP. Arje Press, Marina Del Rey CA. 2003

2. There are three different TDR programs in Collier County. This summary outlines one of them, the RuralLands Stewardship Program (2002).

3. Pitkin County Community Development Department Web site; report on “Revised Integrated Approachto GMQS, TDRs, House Size and Conservation Development” presented to Joint Meeting of Pitkin CountyBoard of County Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Committee & land Use Code Technical AdvisoryCommittee – July 20, 2005; “Decoding the County Land Use C ode”, The Aspen Times – April 10, 2006.

4. Berthoud Colorado is a home rule municipality and therefore has greater flexibility in adopting fee inlieu programs than statutory governments like Boulder County. Other states cited have differing enablinglegislation for fees in lieu. The County Attorney’s Office is researching the Colorado statutes forprecedent/authority to consider such a tool.


1. The Current TDR ProgramArticle 6-700 of the Land Use Code contains the regulations governing the county’s TDR program. It isconfined to the Plains, offers a two dwelling unit per 35 acre transfer ratio (with three per 35 in somecases), lists criteria that must be addressed to obtain a receiving site approval, and otherrequirements. The program generally contemplates TDR transfers from large tracts of eligiblesending site lands to develop multiple lot TDR Planned Unit Developments, not single transfers fromone parcel to another or transfers to authorize the expansion of proposed or existing structuresabove their current or proposed size thresholds. A very limited number of receiving sites havepre-existing designation approval, so it is incumbent on an applicant to make the case for a receivingsite and on the county to evaluate its merits.

No provisions for a TDR program exist for the mountains. Nor do the current regulations orComprehensive Plan policies speak to single TDR transfers for sending site preservation, their use ona receiving site that can accommodate only one dwelling, or other applications of the TDR tool.These gaps will need to be addressed for a countywide program.

2. Rural PreservationThe vast majority of unincorporated lands, developed or otherwise, are designated as RuralPreservation Areas in the Countywide Comprehensive Development Plan IGA of 2003. Recognition ofthis designation memorializes several of the core goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,and post-dates the creation of the TDR program presently in the Land Use Code. Rural PreservationArea covers both the Plains and mountains, and by definition does not contemplate or promoteurban-type development such as the more traditional subdivisions that were platted between the1960s and 1970s in areas like Gunbarrel, Niwot, and elsewhere. Establishing multiple lot TDRreceiving sites in the Rural Preservation Area may therefore require a reexamination andreconsideration of the current criteria regarding design, location, size, impacts, proximity of eligiblesending sites, the benefits derived from approving receiving sites, and other values.


Factors in Boulder County Influencingthe Design of an Expanded TDR ProgramTo broaden a TDR program in Boulder County several conditions and factors that are somewhatunique to the county will need to be considered which are not common among other programsaround the country. Four in particular are summarized here. The section of this notebookentitled TDR Programs: Five Examples and the TDR Implementation Systems Table willhopefully provide some food for thought on ways to respond to them.

3. Parcel Sizes, Locations, and ConfigurationsThe Comprehensive Plan and affiliated amendments to the Land Use Code have been very successfulin controlling the subdivision and platting of land since 1978. Most platted approved subdivisions haveeither been Nonurban Planned Unit Developments or TDR PUDs, and have preserved thousands ofacres of agricultural and other lands of importance identified in the Plan. The inventory of vacantplatted lots, both in the pre-1978 subdivisions and their successors, is dwindling for purposes of newconstruction either as a Use By Right or as sending/receiving sites, leaving a stock of private vacantlands consisting of parcels of widely varying sizes and configurations. This is particularly true in themountains where patented mining claims and metes and bounds parcels have been historically laidout in two dimensions on a three dimensional landscape with little regard to the kinds of sitingfactors the county considers today.

Another layer of influence on the suitability of parcel size, geometry and location for either sendingor receiving sites (or both) is the distribution of public lands in the form of acquired open space,conservation easements, federal lands (especially the US Forest Service) and the like. How publiclands influence the value of adjacent or nearby vacant or partially developed private lands may needsome consideration. A third layer is the Municipal Influence Areas adopted as part of the 2003Countywide IGA, and whether any of those lands can be used for TDR purposes beyond what ispresently permitted in underlying IGAs between the county and the cities of Lafayette, Longmontand Boulder. All these factors suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” TDR program e.g. a sending formula of“x” TDRs per “y” number of acres may be overly simplistic and unappealing to land owners as well asthose wishing to acquire TDRs.

4. Incentives and BonusesAs noted the current county TDR program offers bonus densities for transfers based on the twodwelling units per 35 acres formula developed for the NUPUD program. Receiving sites can beapproved if the conditions spelled out in Article 6-700 G. and other sections of the Land Use Code aresuccessfully addressed. There is no NUPUD or TDR option for the mountains and therefore no bonussystem for sending sites or criteria for designing receiving sites. Assigning incentives or bonuses willalso need to take into consideration the diversity of parcel configurations, sizes and locationsmentioned described above. Whether TDRS are to be valued as dwelling units like the presentsystem, by square feet, by some dollar amount or other conversion methods, incentives for sendingand receiving will need to be developed to encourage participation.


Policy Questions: Issues for ConsiderationSustainability Issues:Including Green Building and a Renewable Energy Mitigation Program

Options Comments

Add goals and policies to the BCCP to supportgreen building, a Renewable Energy MitigationProgram and other sustainability initiatives

While the BCCP does discuss the importance ofenvironmental preservation, there are no goals orpolicies regarding green building or othersustainability issues.

TDR Program - Goals

Options Comments

Preservation of open space – In order to build alarge size structure, all the development rightsfrom a vacant parcel would have to be purchased

This would be a simpler program. It could be donewithout use of partial TDRs or a Countyadministered “bank.” It is most like our currentTDR program.

Preservation of rural character and thepromotion of more sustainable structuresthrough the transfer of square footage topromote modest development and off-set largesize structures

This is a more detailed and complex program thatwill require some type of partial TDR ordevelopment credit and most likely will need toinclude a County administered “bank.” This wouldgive property owners more options to insure thecharacter of their property would not change.

A combination program that preserves importantenvironmental resources by transferring alldevelopment rights and allows for thepreservation of rural character by shifting squarefootage between some parcels.

Eligible Properties

Options Comments

Any Property inunincorporated BoulderCounty

All unincorporated property eligible for either preservation as sending site ordevelopment as a receiving site - This would continue the existing scatteredsite development throughout the County, and may allow large sizedevelopment on sensitive sites

Some Properties as“sending areas”

All mountain property and current mapped plains sending areas eligible tosend development credits

Only defined mountain areas and current mapped plains sending areaseligible to send development credits

Allow sending from currently non-legal building lots (BLOTNOTs) which couldbe made legal through a subdivision exemption


Options Comments

Some Properties as“receiving areas”

Some mountain properties (based on site characteristics) and all plainsproperties would be eligible for large size development

Some mountain property and some plains property eligible - both based onsite characteristics

Only plains property – no mountain property could qualify as a receiving site –this will eliminate scatted site development in the mountains

Allow receiving of TDRs on currently non-legal building lots (BLOTNOTs)which could be made legal through a subdivision exemption

Relationship Between Sending and Receiving Sites?

Options Comments

None, no relationshiprequired between sites

Any property in the county could transfer square footage or development toany other property

Mountains to Mountainsonly

Valuation may be more comparable

May allow large structures in the mountains but preserve other mountainproperty

Mountains to Plains only Valuation differences between sending and receiving sites

Would have the benefit of protecting critical environmental areas in themountains

May reduce pressure to build large structures in mountain areas, but wouldallow for increased size in the plains

Plains to Mountains May be sending from less sensitive lands to more sensitive lands

Could allow for large size structures in mountains

Plains to Plains Currently done through the TDR/PUD process

Accepted by public

Identification of thesending and receivingsites for each transfer?

Equal valuation between the two parcels versus maximum flexibility for landowners

Whole or Partial TDRs?

Options Comments

Whole TDRs only Simple to administer

Would require significant financial outlay to expand above a certain size

Could make County bank less necessary

Works well with current TDR/PUD program


Options Comments

Partial TDRs Complex – increments could be in square feet or portions of a TDR (¼, ½, ¾)

TDR purchase only pays for what is needed and does not give an incentive tobuild more to use entire TDR value

Enables the sale of partial TDRs from already developed properties

May be difficult to administer and integrate with current TDR/PUD program

TDR Bonuses or Valuation Differences?

Options Comments

Yes, a bonus to the baseTDR is available

Bonus could be based on the unique characteristics of the sending site –parcel size, environmental values, comprehensive plan designations

This could become very complex – requiring a case-by-case analysis

May require the use of partial TDRs

This would provide an incentive to preserve critical resources

No, each developmentright is treated thesame

Easier to administer – treats each development right equally

The standard TDR valuation may not provide enough incentive for propertyowners to transfer TDRs from critical parcels

TDRs for Non-Residential Development?

Options Comments

Yes, TDRs would berequired fornon-residentialdevelopment over aspecific size or intensityof use.

This may encourage impacting land uses in areas where they may be lessappropriate

Determining the formula for the TDR requirement may be complex – basedon square footage, intensity of use?

No, TDRs for residentialuses only

Simple to administer

Impact associated with non-residential structures mitigated through greenbuilding


land use building sustainability • october 30, 2006 ijanuary, 1996 – amendments to tdr article...

Documents