HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - TDR IZ Committee - 01/30/2019MINUTES of TDR Committee Meeting 1/30/19
Members Present: Tim Barritt, Chair, Andrew Chalnick, Tom Bailey, Clerk, Monica Ostby, Jacob West
(representing the Economic Development Committee)
Members absent: None
Staff and Guests: Amanda Lafferty, Asst. City Attorney, Paul Connor, Dir. Of Planning and Zoning and Kelly
Lord
The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. A wide ranging discussion occurred in which everyone
participated. Much information was presented and no formal action was taken. Some of the points of discussion
were:
Monica suggested the mapping of areas under Current Use and completed TDR transfers. (Tom had circulated
before the meeting a list of properties in Current Use along with a map of water and sewer infrastructure in the
SEQ.) Monica also asked Tim to clarify the City Council’s expectations for the TDR Committee which Tim did.
Then Andrew commented that the Committee’s initial task is to “lay out the facts” pertaining to TDRs so that the
Committee has a good foundation for making recommendations. Tom agreed but responded that the Committee
had already looked at some data. In response to questions Paul explained the development that can occur in the
Natural Resource Protection areas under current zoning.
Then Andrew asked: “Do TDRs serve a conservation purpose?” Paul, Tim and Tom all responded distinguishing
between TDRs and zoning and clarifying that when TDRs are transferred from a parcel, that parcel can no
longer be developed.
When the discussion turned to TDR “sending” and potential “receiving” areas, Paul projected a map of the SEQ
on the wall and added different layers as Committee members requested. Then Tim stood and pointed to
different areas on the map while he and Paul fruitfully clarified some of the history and development status of
many parcels in the SEQ and adjoining areas.
Kelly complained that there is a disconnect between owners of TDRs who want to sell them, and developers,
who may wish to buy them. She suggested that a mechanism be developed to facilitate the TDR market. She
acknowledged that the City is not (should not be) in the business of buyer and selling TDRs but expressed
concern that, since the City owns TDRs, it might want to sell to developers (who are seeking permit approvals
from the City) before other TDR owners had a chance to participate. She indicated that she had retained
development rights on property sold property in the Natural Resource Protection areas and worried that attempts
to change the nature of TDRs or extinguish them would cause hers to lose value.
Monica pointed out that the Planning Commission was discussing imposing minimum density requirements for
residential and mixed use area where development is to be incentivized. She suggested that a biproduct of such a
plan may be to encourage TDR sales. A discussion followed where Paul posted on the wall a map showing
developable parcels in the City of greater than four acres and answered questions about many of them. Tim
suggested that expanding the “receiving” areas to parcels outside the SEQ might help solve the marketability of
TDRs problem. Andrew and Tom suggested the Committee consider eliminating TDRs and using traditional
zoning tools to provide for low density and high density districts (instead of TDRs) to achieve the same goals
more simply. Andrew also expressed concern that an effect of TDRs is to increase the cost of housing. Tom
wondered whether there is a sense that “justice” towards TDR holders should at least be a factor in the
Committee’s recommendations.
The discussion returned to the TDR transfer markets and there seemed to be a consensus that , if TDRs were to
be retained, a “clearing house” should be set up to make buying and selling easier. Monica asked Paul if his staff
could consider whether there are any “problems” outside the SEQ that TDRs could be leveraged to help resolve.
Paul had mentioned that developers have requested more flexible parking regulations in the Shelburne Road
corridor.
As the range of different options for Committee recommendations intensified, Paul suggested that the
Committee should identify each possible recommendation option clearly and then attempt to develop each
option independently as a workplan (before any decision is made as to the Committee’s final recommendation).
The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, February 11th at 7:00 PM at a location to be determined.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.
Tom Bailey
Clerk