Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transfer Development Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic-preservation board reviews draft TDR ordinance changes; staff to refine draft after stakeholder meeting
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board reviewed a draft of proposed amendments to the city’s TDR ordinance and provided technical feedback; staff will meet with applicants and attorneys and return with a revised draft.
The Historic Preservation Board reviewed proposed amendments to the city’s transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) ordinance, provided feedback on multiple technical points and asked staff to refine the draft with stakeholder input before the board considers a formal recommendation.
Staff described four main proposal areas: (1) narrowing receiving areas by zoning district rather than the broad Unified Flexibility area; (2) extending the certificate-of-eligibility expiration from 18 months to 24 months; (3) adding a formula to calculate transferable residential units for sending sites (a formula using parcel area, FAR and an average unit size was shown and staff said the average unit size in the draft was 725 square feet); and (4) allowing a receiving site to retransfer TDRs after an initial transfer.
Staff emphasized the changes are intended to clarify how to calculate transfer amounts where sending sites and receiving sites currently have different zoning standards, and to add options such as floor-area transfers that increase tower floor plates in specified Regional Activity Centers. Staff also described mapping changes to show receiving areas (for example Uptown Urban Village and Federal Highway corridor areas) and said the certificate of eligibility would remain a required step before a recorded certificate of transfer.
Comments from board members and public commenters focused on several concerns: whether the calculation method treats all sending sites fairly given widely different land values and development potential across neighborhoods, whether certificates should expire at all (several speakers asked that certificates be revisited only at the time of a recorded transfer rather than expire automatically), how unit pools assigned by Broward County are drawn down by transfers, and whether the measure sufficiently helps small sending-site owners who cannot assemble multiple lots. One public commenter with experience using the program urged staff and the board to incorporate mechanisms such as a TDR bank or lot-merger tools to help small owners market rights.
Dwayne Spencer, city attorney, attended and summarized legal limits: impact fees and regulatory fees must relate to the service or nexus asserted; tax-increment-like tools in Florida are administered through Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) and similar statutes; and any change needs to remain consistent with Broward County’s comprehensive-plan allocations of units. Staff noted Broward County policy constrains the county pool of transferable units; if the county pool is exhausted the city cannot unilaterally create additional county units.
Staff and several board members said they have a stakeholder meeting scheduled with applicants’ representatives and attorneys next week and that staff will return with an updated draft next month. No formal vote on the ordinance changes was taken at the meeting.
