Wed
Aug 31 2011
08:37 pm

Tomorrow is the final facilitated joint session of City Council and County Commission. Last time they got into the details of the plan, and I learned something new.

Mark Donaldson described the density swap concept differently than he has before. He spoke of a density "budget" that is calculated based on the acreage in different slope categories. It's not a new concept, just a clearer way to describe it. However, he also spoke of a "clearing budget," and it turns out the clearing restrictions work the same way.

This means developers have maximum flexibility when doing site planning.



continued...

Here's how it works:
Since this plan primarily applies to subdivisions, not single homes, I'm going to pick an example parcel big enough for a subdivision. Let's say we've got 10 acres under 15%, 4 acres of 15-25% and 1 acre over 25%.

We compute our density budget:
10 ac. X 6 units = 60
4 ac. X 2 units = 8
1 ac. X 0.5 units = 0.5

Total 68.5 units

We compute our clearing budget:
10 ac. X 100 percent cleared = 10 ac.
4 ac. X 50 percent cleared = 2 ac.
1 ac. X 15 percent cleared = 0.15 ac.

Total 12.15 acres

We can now pick the easiest 12.15 acres to clear and fit the 68.5 units on them however is best. Better still, if we leave a flat acre wooded because a creek runs through it, we can spend that acre of our clearing budget upslope. This could be especially useful for parcels steeper than in my example.

In any case, we end up able to clear 12.15 of the 15 acres and build 5.64 units/acre. Allowing for roads, that gives everyone about a fifth of an acre. It would also be possible to mix in smaller duplexes for retired couples who want less house and spread your single-family homes further apart.

In short, what the plan does is preserve most of the development capacity of a given parcel and add flexibility in how that capacity is sited on the land. For every example of a parcel that loses potential there are probably five that gain potential from the added flexibility. It's good for smart developers and not so good for those who work fast and leave mudslide hazards and runoff messes in their wake.

reform4's picture

Whaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!

Whaaaahhhh!!! Why can't I just clear 100% of my 15 acres and build 6 per for 90 units??? It's my gawd-given right, ya damn hippie!!!!

LOL's picture

it is

Important to sound reasonable when you are taking something that is not yours to take.

rikki's picture

The hillside plan does take

The hillside plan does take some clearing rights away. I neglected to mention most of the new rights it gives (other than added flexibility in site planning), so I should probably mention those:

  • density bonuses for acreage placed in conservation easements
  • density bonuses for public access to such acreage
  • reduced road widths
  • reduced setbacks
  • reduced parking requirements

Since the new density limits start at 40% slope, most parcels will retain their existing capacity or, with the bonuses, increase it. The clearing limits are balanced out by numerous allowances, and they are also reasonable in that they serve to minimize risks of mudslides and reduce flooding and runoff issues suffered by downstream land owners.

Like I said, for every parcel whose development potential is scaled back by the plan, there are probably five whose potential increases due to the flexibility and allowances granted by the plan.

Ignatius's picture

"Let's say we've got 10 acres

"Let's say we've got 10 acres under 15%, 4 acres of 15-25% and 1 acre over 25%."

Let's say we have 4 acres under 15%, 10 acres of 15-25% and 1 acre over 25%.

Now what? Show your work.

Are you a civil engineer? What is your interest in this?

rikki's picture

4 X 6u = 24 10 X 2u = 20 1 X

4 X 6u = 24
10 X 2u = 20
1 X 0.5u = 0.5

44.5 units

4 X 1 = 4
10 X 0.5 = 5
1 X 0.15 = 0.15

9.15 acres

Not sure why you couldn't do the math yourself, but there it is. A few notes: 44.5 units is the allowable density under existing guidelines; the plan does not change that. This example has an average lot size of one-third acre and gives the developer more cleared land to work with per unit (0.20 acre vs. 0.18 acre) than in the first example. The plan allows more flexibility in site planning than existing guidelines allow.

And no, I'm not a civil engineer, but it's just multiplication. I do have an engineering degree from MIT, but my focus was aerospace. My primary interest is debunking misinformation about the hillside plan in hopes that elected officials will cast informed votes.

Ignatius's picture

"My primary interest is

"My primary interest is debunking misinformation about the hillside plan in hopes that elected officials will cast informed votes."

You admited that clearing and grading is reduced under this plan. Do you also admit that less land is usable for development?

If not, look at your examples.

rikki's picture

Obviously uncleared land is

Obviously uncleared land is not usable for development, but as I've demonstrated, this does not translate to less development. The plan provides several avenues for doing as much or more development with less land clearing.

vernon's picture

What I learned from Rikki

Good developers are slow

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives