|
Much of the affordable urban housing stock today is located in
transition areas that are no longer primarily residential in nature.
In many communities, the local government officials, seeking to
discourage people from living in areas that are becoming industrialized
or commercialized, have designated older residential structures
in these areas as “non-conforming uses”. Most communities
use their zoning code to limit the use of non-conforming use or
building construction by limiting an owner’s ability to rebuild
the structure if it has been damaged or destroyed, reoccupy a building
that has been abandoned, or expand the use or the building itself.
Recognizing that these restrictions could result in the loss of
increasingly scarce private affordable housing, many communities
have undertaken reforms to preserve this source of affordable housing.
Replacing Damaged/Destroyed Nonconformities
One way local governments can encourage the continued use of nonconforming
residences is to allow reconstruction of the building in case of
damage or destruction. Broward
County, Florida requires uses with damage exceeding 51 percent
to be brought into compliance, but exempts multi-family residential
buildings in multi-family residential districts that exceed maximum
density allowances. Salt
Lake City maintains a strict 50 percent requirement for nonconforming
uses, but defines most single-family detached dwellings, two-family
dwellings, or twin homes as legal conforming uses, even though they
might otherwise be considered nonconforming.
Lewiston,
Maine increases the limit on the amount of damage or destruction
that can occur before the unit has to be brought into compliance
to 80 percent of the market value of the structure. For residential
structures in shore land areas, the damage limit remains at 50 percent.
Lewiston authorities also require that reconstruction commence within
one year and be completed within two years of the original destruction.
Santa
Ana, California allows owners of damaged or destroyed buildings
to restore the structure if the cost of repair does not exceed the
building’s previous fair market value.
New
Orleans authorities allow legally nonconforming uses to be restored
regardless of the amount of destruction or damage.
San
Diego approaches the reconstruction of nonconforming uses differently.
The City defines these types of uses as “previously conforming
uses” not “nonconforming uses”. Under these circumstances,
the City allows the reconstruction of previously conforming residential
uses subject only to the review process required for conforming
structures. Restoration of nonresidential previously conforming
structures face much stricter regulation.
Improving or Enlarging Nonconformities
Local governments can also encourage the continued use of nonconforming
residential uses by allowing improvements and expansions. While
most governments allow – and often require – maintenance
of these properties, some regulate and restrict improvements and
enlargements to the property. Salt Lake City does not allow a nonconforming
use to be enlarged or extended to occupy a part of another structure
or site that it did not occupy on or before April
12, 1995. Broward County allows owners to expand a nonconforming
use of a building to any part of the building “clearly designed
for such use”. Santa Ana allows structural alteration and
enlargement of both single and multi-family nonconforming housing
as long as the construction creates no new nonconformities. For
multifamily units, the city requires that the owner comply with
any existing off-street parking requirements in order to increase
the number or size of bedrooms in the structure. For single-family
housing, the number of dwellings on the property cannot be increased.
San Diego allows owners to expand or enlarge a previously conforming
structural envelope, but requires a “Neighborhood Development
Permit” if the structure does not comply with applicable zoning
regulations as to density or use. Lewiston allows such structures
to be repaired and maintained. They also allow the building code
official to issue a building permit for enlarging or adding accessory
structures without a variance under certain conditions that are
contained in the code.
Resuming a Discontinued Use
Relaxing restrictions on resuming a discontinued use is another
avenue local governments can pursue to encourage the use of such
buildings for housing. In Broward County, owners who have discontinued
the nonconforming use for six or more months cannot recommence using
the building for a nonconforming use. In Lewiston, owners have up
to 12 months to resume an abandoned use. However, even then, the
owner must secure a conditional use permit from the City’s
board of appeals. The authorities in San Diego allow owners to resume
a use if it has been discontinued for less than two years. The City
also allows uses that have been discontinued for more than two years
to resume; however, the owner is subject to City review of the request.
Conclusion
The cities above have adopted progressive and well-reasoned strategies
for using the zoning code to encourage, or at least not discourage,
the use of nonconforming properties for residential use. In doing
so, they maintain or increase the supply of affordable housing available
to the residents of their communities.
 |
 |
Regulating Manufactured Home Parks: Cost
vs Improved Living Conditions |
Manufactured housing is a source of affordable housing for
many low- and moderate-income Americans. While wanting to
respond to the demand for such housing, many local governments
have established special regulations for manufactured housing/manufactured
home parks to protect surrounding land uses. While many of
these regulations improve conditions for those who live in
the manufactured housing communities and protect surrounding
land uses, they often increase the cost of this affordable
housing resource. This article examines how a select group
of communities implement regulations on issues such as setbacks
and unit spacing, parking requirements, and utilities.
Minimum Development/Lot Sizes and Densities
Most communities set minimum sizes for manufactured housing
developments. Communities with extremely large minimum park
size requirements, however, limit the number of parcels available
for development. Similarly, communities with low densities
and large minimum lot sizes increase the amount of land required
per unit. The following table provides some examples of various
community minimums.
Setbacks and Unit Spacing
Local governments establish setbacks to provide residents
with semi-private open space between units and for fire safety.
Setbacks that are too large, however, take up valuable land
and may increase the cost of providing this type of housing.
King County’s minimum separation between manufactured
homes is 10 feet. Santa Ana’s minimum distance between
units is also 10 feet. In addition, the Santa Ana ordinance
specifies a number of front, side, and rear yard setbacks.
Lancaster County does not allow a manufactured home to be
closer than 40 feet to any other home and no closer than 100
feet from any manufactured home park property line.
Roads
All local governments require park owners to create a vehicular
transit system within the park. Private road system mandates
have the potential to dramatically increase the cost of creating
and maintaining a manufactured home park. Reading requires
that internal streets be at least 20 feet wide and that cul-de-sac
streets have a 40-foot right of way and paved surface of 24
feet. Santa Ana requires a 28-foot minimum paved surface.
The Santa Ana ordinance goes on to say that such streets must
be paved with 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of
aggregate base, and must have rolled curbs and gutters on
both sides of the street. Lancaster County requires the right
of way to be at least 50 feet, and the road to be at least
30 feet wide. The County further requires that driving surfaces
have at least 2 inches of crushed stone base or be paved with
asphalt or tar and gravel.
Parking Requirements
Parking is a requirement of almost all local ordinances.
Depending on the number of spaces required and the design
regulations, however, this requirement also has the potential
to substantially add to the cost of producing a manufactured
home lot. The communities below require either one or two
spaces per unit and Santa Ana also requires the provision
of guest parking. Several communities also have specific design
requirements for the individual parking spaces.
Community |
Resident Parking |
Guest Parking |
Other Conditions |
|
King County, Washington |
1 per lot |
None Stated |
Must be located on or adjacent to manufactured home
pad. |
|
Lancaster County, Virginia |
2 per unit |
None Stated |
Must be 8 feet wide, 20 feet long and paved. |
|
Reading, Pennsylvania |
2 per unit |
None Stated |
|
|
Santa Ana, California |
2 per lot |
1 for every 4 lots |
Spaces must be within a specific distance of the manufactured
home lot. |
|
St. Petersburg, Florida |
2 spaces per unit |
None Stated |
|
Utilities
All local governments require owners of manufactured home
parks to provide residents with public utilities, but some
communities’ requirements are more extensive than others.
Reading and Santa Ana require that all utilities be placed
underground. In addition, Reading requires fire hydrants to
be within 250 feet of each group of 12 manufactured houses.
Open Space
Many ordinances require a manufactured housing park developer
to set aside a certain amount of land within the development
for open space and recreation. As more land is required for
park and open space, less land is available for income-producing
lots. As seen below, some communities list the requirement
as a strict percentage while others make the requirement as
an amount of land per unit in the development.
|
Community |
Open Space Requirements |
Additional Conditions |
|
King County, Washington |
260 sf per unit |
|
|
Lancaster County, Virginia |
20 percent of gross land area |
Includes interiors of buildings designed for community
use. |
|
Reading, Pennsylvania |
10 percent of site |
Exclusive of rights-of-way. |
|
Santa Ana, California |
100 sf per unit |
|
|
St. Petersburg, Florida |
10 percent of site |
|
Screening
Most local governments require owners to install some type
of screening between manufactured home parks and surrounding
land uses. The cost of providing these buffers depends on
the type and amount of screening required. Authorities in
Reading require screening along all sides abutting public
streets or other properties. St. Petersburg, Santa Ana, and
Lancaster County require a six-foot high barrier to be installed
between the development and other property. Lancaster County
requires a fence or hedge along the road frontage, while St.
Petersburg requires the screening along the boundary with
all adjoining properties. Lancaster County also requires that
any hedge must reach six feet in height within two years of
installation. Santa Ana’s requirement for a six-foot
high barrier can be a wall or a screen with plant materials.
Conclusion
There are no definitive, across-the-board standards for what
constitutes safe living conditions in manufactured housing
developments, and some communities demand more from the developer/owner.
The cost of these additional requirements is often passed
on to those who look to manufactured home parks as a source
of affordable housing.
 |
|
Award-Winning Program Streamlines
Processing for Affordable Housing |
San Diego recently received the San Diego Housing Federation’s
"Outstanding Local Government Support" award
for the City’s Affordable Housing Expedite Program.
The Program, created after the City Council declared
a city-wide housing state of emergency, streamlines
the application process for affordable housing developments
or developments that use sustainable energy technology.
In 2003, the San Diego City Council recognized that
the City’s severe lack of affordable housing was
having an adverse impact on many of San Diego’s
residents, including those who work in the City’s
health care, education, biotech, and tourism industries.
As part of an overall effort to ease this problem, the
City adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, set-aside
funds for new affordable housing, and created the Affordable/In-fill
Housing and Sustainable Buildings Expedite Program.
Program Features
The Program consists of a number of features to increase
private sector participation in creating affordable
housing.
- Mandatory Initial
Reviews: A preliminary review, in
which the applicant submits enough information so
that city staff can initiate an environmental review
early in the process and identify any potential fatal
flaws in the proposal.
- Easily Accessible
Information: The entire program, including
the mandatory preliminary review process, is explained
in detail in Information Bulletin 538, and the mandatory
preliminary review process is explained in Bulletin
513. In addition, San Diego provides Form 530, which
contains a checklist developers can use when seeking
to apply under the Program. All of this information
is available online.
- Committed Staff:
According to Mike Westlake, Program Manager,
Affordable/In-Fill Housing and Sustainable Buildings
Expedite Program , the City Council is committed to
the Program and ensures that staff is available to
undertake these reviews in a timely manner. Anywhere
from 12 to 15 City departments or agencies review
each application . The staff in each department are
knowledgeable, experienced, and customer service oriented.
In addition, they work exclusively on the Program.
- Fees: The
Council authorized a $500 fee per unit to assist with
staff costs for these new positions. Most developers
consider the fee to be a minor inconvenience, especially
in comparison to how much they save in carrying costs.
- Program Priorities:
Recognizing that the Program had the potential for
overwhelming City staff resources, the Council established
nine priorities for expedited processing. If at any
time staff could not undertake timely reviews of all
projects due to heavy workloads, they were authorized
to reduce the number of priorities that would qualify
for streamlined processing.
Accomplishments
The Program is just over a year old, and in that time,
the City has processed 23 projects comprising over 2,250
units. Of those units, over 2,170 are new affordable
units and 80 are sustainable units. The City has approved
discretionary permits for four projects, but none have
yet applied for building permits as of July 2004. Westlake
says that the processing time is twice as fast as under
the old review process. While he admits that many of
the projects would have been built without the Program,
he believes that these much-needed housing resources
will be on-line much quicker than before. He also states
that several developers have indicated to him that they
have added affordable units to the project mix in order
to qualify for expedited processing.
Keys to Success
According to Westlake, there are a number of factors
that have contributed to the success of the Program.
- Meetings with Developers:
One key to the program’s success is the meetings
staff conduct with developers before plans and proposals
are submitted to the City. In addition, the mandatory
preliminary review meeting also serves as an important
milestone in making the review process run smoothly.
- Commitment by the
Development Community: The $500 per
unit fee has resulted in developers being more conscientious
about submitting the appropriate material in a timely
fashion.
- City Staff Resources:
Westlake attributes the City’s staff
commitment as one of the keys to the success of the
Program. Each of the City’s departments is represented
by staff who genuinely wants the best projects possible
for the City. Their commitment, coupled with the City’s
commitment to have them work exclusively on these
type of projects, is a major factor in the success
of the Program.
- City Communication:
Staff comments are provided via email, so that each
of the other departments can promptly be made aware
of issues being raised by other departments. If the
conflict cannot be resolved, it is immediately forwarded
to the department head and is usually settled within
two days.
Problems Remain
Ironically, the success of the Program could be its
downfall. Because so many people are participating in
the Program, in May 2004, staff had to curtail expedited
reviews for all but the top three priorities listed
in the original City Council Program. While City officials
are working to secure additional staff for the program,
there will inevitably be delays in processing requests
for projects that are not deemed a priority.
The other concern with the Program is that it has
not reduced NIMBYism or local opposition to affordable
housing. While the Council remains committed to the
Program and staff recommendations have garnered strong
political support, neighborhood opposition remains and
has the potential for slowing the review process.
More Information
For more information on this effort, visit our web link
at https://www.huduser.gov/rbc/search/rbcdetails.asp?DocId=644.
|
|
|
