Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission advances planning code changes on building massing and TDR/bonus allocations at first reading
Summary
On first reading the commission advanced amendments to the Transit Supported Development District to address building massing (architectural review, peer review, waiver process) and to revise bonus allocations including transfer of development rights (TDRs) and payment‑in‑lieu procedures; staff will refine the technical details between readings.
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City Commission on May 19 held first‑reading action on two planning items that seek to manage building massing and to revise bonus allocation/TDR processes in the Transit Supported Development District.
Planning staff described proposed code language to give the commission clearer architectural review authority for large‑scale developments, require rotating peer review by licensed architects at the applicant's expense for some projects, and create a waiver process intended to limit continuous large ground‑floor plates on six‑story blocks. Staff presented modeling results showing tradeoffs between larger open‑space requirements and development viability and said more work is needed to calibrate rules for open space, floor plate caps and specimen tree retention.
Separately, staff explained changes to bonus allocations and the TDR program that would allow developers to satisfy bonus floor area with a mix of in‑kind public benefits, TDRs or payment‑in‑lieu. The proposed approach shifts some of the TDR perfection obligations later in the process (at permit stage) to make the program more feasible, but staff recommended a cost‑deposit mechanism and a percentage penalty for applicants who fail to perfect TDR transfers to protect the city from uncompensated review costs. Consultants and private‑sector counsel asked for data on typical upfront permit fees and suggested the city and applicant work through realistic deposit and penalty figures between readings.
Commissioners generally supported the objectives but asked staff to continue modeling and bring refined language, specific thresholds and parking/massing tradeoffs at second reading.
