Four years ago, in August 2001, an article appeared in the The
Washington Post highlighting a program in which developers
and Fairfax County, Virginia officials worked together to create
a “Great House” – multifamily housing constructed
to be both architecturally harmonious with other homes in the surrounding
single-family neighborhood, and to comply with the county’s
affordable housing and density bonus program. In addition, the Great
House concept seeks to incorporate design elements that help ensure
long-term compatibility with the neighborhood’s aesthetic
values, thereby minimizing potential objections to multifamily housing.
Since families have lived in these units for a few years now, we
thought it would be worthwhile to visit a few of the sites to see
if the original objectives are being fulfilled.
Fairfax County, Virginia’s Affordable Housing
Program
Located just outside of Washington D.C., Fairfax County has a population
of over 1,000,000 and a growth rate of over 3 percent during the last
five years. In the early 1990s, local authorities enacted a program
wherein developers provided affordable housing in exchange for increases
in the allowable density for a development. According to Gordon Goodlett,
Affordable Dwelling Unit Administrator for Fairfax County, officials
revised the program in the late 1990s to make it more appealing to
the development community. The revised ordinance reduced the compliance
period from 50 to 15 years, and increased the minimum number of units
to which the program applied from 15 to 50.
The program is voluntary. It only applies if a developer seeks
a change in zoning or other regulation for developments of 50 units
or more. The county uses a formula to determine the number of affordable
units, rather than leaving the decision to negotiation between county
staff and the developer. The ordinance balances the affordable requirement
with an increase in the density allowed by the county. The county
does not require that the affordable housing be comparable (in terms
of size or amenities) with other units in the development; and they
may be either rental or for-sale units.
Goodlett observed that another attractive aspect of the program
is the flexibility that can be exercised in setting the sale prices
for affordable units. He said that the county’s program has
a maximum sale price for affordable units based on the size of the
unit, but allows pricing adjustments for a number of different amenities.
Such amenities might include unfinished basement or garage space,
additional baths, or exterior architectural upgrades, such as a
brick façade.
Market Concerns
“Still,” Goodlett said, “developers and the county
were very concerned that the affordable units might appear out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood.” The county wanted
the affordable units to have the same look as other units in a development
and wanted them distributed throughout the neighborhood. For their
part, developers feared that the affordable units might have a negative
impact on sales of market units. As a result of these fears, some
developers offered to build townhouses in one section of the development.
Market Response
Dissatisfied with the status quo, a few creative developers conceived
a design for affordable housing that eventually became known as the
“Great House” – a multifamily structure that would
be aesthetically and size compatible with the surrounding single-family
neighborhood. One company, Edgemoore Homes, designed a quadraplex
incorporating exterior aesthetics that blended almost seamlessly into
the neighborhood. Each four-unit structure…
- Has approximately the same total square footage as surrounding
properties;
- Contains two stories and has a brick veneer;
- Incorporates bay windows and other offsetting features that
break up the roof lines and façades; and
- Includes garages and entrances that do not face the street.
Sue Robertson with Edgemoore Homes says it makes good business
sense to participate in the program. These houses face less neighborhood
opposition, and the county has assisted in marketing these units
by selecting potential property owners and pre-qualifying buyers
for the homes.
Another concept features a duplex design with entrances and garages
facing different directions, thus giving the appearance of a single-family
home. According to Stan Settle, Pulte Homes’ Regional Director
of Operations, this duplex model fits in very well with the county’s
requirements. “These well-designed units reduced local resistance,
and we thought they would be a great asset to our single-family
product in Fairfax County,” Settle observed. “The two-family
home works very well in neighborhoods that are exclusively single-family
detached housing.”
Continuing to Conform
Goodlett reports that since the inception of the program, four
projects have used the Great House concept. On a recent visit to
several of the sites where these units were constructed, we had
to refer several times to maps of the neighborhood to ensure that
we found the right units. The bay windows, entrances that face different
directions, and garages that open from the rear of the structures
continue to allow the structures to effectively blend in with others
in the neighborhood. Off-street parking, in particular, results
in less crowded streets. The only visible sign that these are multifamily
units is the number of mailboxes that can be found out front.
Converting
Motels into Affordable Housing Through Regulatory Reform
|
Mary Ann Walsh hates to see a good idea go to waste. When
she saw that the owner of a rundown motel on Cape Cod had
abandoned plans to convert the property into affordable housing,
she decided to do something about it. Just as the permit was
about to expire, she stepped in to rescue the project. As
a first-time developer, she had the money to complete construction,
but was not sure she could count on the town’s cooperation.
Rather than obstructing her efforts (as she’d initially
feared), she soon discovered that the Town of Dennis’
land use regulations would actually be of great help in her
efforts to redevelop the property.
Dennis, Massachusetts’ Zoning Bylaw
The Town of Dennis has a population of 13,900 residents and
is located at the center of Cape Cod, 75 miles southeast of
Boston. In 2001, the town faced two important housing issues.
According to Town Planner Dan Fortier, the town wanted to establish
guidelines that would allow them to exercise better control
over housing development. In addition, the Town of Dennis faced
a decision about the fate of a number of older commercial structures,
such as hotels and motels that no longer meet the needs of the
traveling public.
The town’s zoning bylaw, adopted in 2001, contains
a number of new incentives to encourage affordable housing
development. Many of the incentives focus on using existing
structures and encouraging the creation of new housing within
these underutilized buildings. Section 4.9 of the town’s
zoning bylaw allows the Planning Board to grant special permits
for affordable housing. To qualify, at least 25 percent of
the for-sale or rental housing units must be affordable to
those earning at or below 80 percent of the county’s
median income.
Affordable Housing Apartment Regulations
The bylaw encourages developers to create affordable housing
as part of a new or existing residential or commercial use.
It contains specific minimum square footage requirements for
units, depending on the number of bedrooms in the unit. One
section of the ordinance also allows the Planning Board to
approve proposals from developers to convert existing hotels
or motels into dwelling units. The original version of the
bylaw placed two requirements on such conversions. First,
there were minimum square footage requirements for each unit.
Second, the Board has the right to require that up to 10 percent
of the units be two-bedroom units.
To encourage Affordable Housing Apartments, including the
conversion of hotels and motels, the Planning Board can grant
density increases and reduce or suspend the minimum lot area
requirements. If the current use is nonconforming, the Board
can allow a conversion of that nonconforming use to another
nonconforming use, but only if it is dedicated for use as
affordable housing. The Board also has the authority to reduce
off-street parking requirements when the developer agrees
to restrict more than 25 percent of the units to low- and
moderate-income people, and can prove that the reduced parking
is sufficient to meet demand.
The Board of Selectmen may act as a sponsor for certain affordable
developments known as Municipally Sponsored Housing Projects.
Should the Board deem the project worthy, it can reduce the
minimums for the lot area per unit, the area of the entire
tract, the lot area per bedroom, and can also reduce parking
requirements. In this instance, the town requires that at
least 50 percent of the units be affordable to those earning
less than 80 percent of the median income, and that the remainder
of the units be affordable to those earning no more than 120
percent of the area’s median. Now that the parameters
have been set, let’s check back in with our intrepid
developer to see how it plays out in practice.
South Cape Apartments
Mary Ann Walsh secured title to a 24-unit motel located on
State Route 28 in West Dennis. The motel sits on commercially
zoned land, surrounded by commercial uses. The previous owner
abandoned any attempt to convert the motel, but Walsh stepped
in with a plan to gut the entire building and create a mix
of studios and one- and two-bedroom units. She also wanted
to include a laundry.
During negotiations, the town allowed the conversion of the
nonconforming use (motel) to another nonconforming use (housing)
and reduced the amount of land required for each unit. Because
the applicant could show that the structure was adjacent to
a transit route, the town also agreed to reduce the number
of required parking spaces. In return, Walsh must restrict
12 of the 24 units to those earning less than 80 percent of
the median income. The owner also agreed to convert the motel
manager’s unit into a two-bedroom unit. Currently under
construction, the completed project will contain six studios,
17 one-bedroom units, and one two-bedroom unit.
When asked if she thought Dennis’ bylaw assisted in
making the project financially feasible, Walsh responded,
“Absolutely. This project would not have happened without
the affordable housing bylaw regulations.”
The conversion of older motels into affordable housing is
one tool that communities can use to promote housing for low-
and moderate-income households. In undertaking such efforts,
however, special care must be taken by communities to ensure
that such housing is not only affordable, but that it’s
developed in appropriate, ‘people-friendly’ neighborhoods,
so that the resulting project contributes to the quality of
life for both its residents and neighbors in the surrounding
area.
Future Regulatory Reforms on the Cape
According to Dan Fortier, the results of the new bylaw have
been somewhat mixed. The town is very excited that developers
used provisions of the bylaw to create affordable housing.
At present, the town has approved 128 new housing units under
this bylaw, and 51 of these (39.8%) are deed-restricted to
those earning less than 80 percent of median income. To date,
50 units have actually been built and occupied under the bylaw,
with 19 of these (38%) deed-restricted. By the end of the
summer of 2005, developers expect to finish 37 additional
units of housing, with 19 of these (51%) deed-restricted.
On the other hand, the town was disappointed that many of
the new units created by the conversion of hotels and motels
were quite small. In 2004, the Dennis Board of Selection placed
additional restrictions on the hotel/motel conversions that
utilize these ordinances, so that the town now requires a
minimum size of 250 square feet. In addition, 25 percent of
the units must be at least 700 square feet, and no more than
25 percent of the units can be less than 400 square feet.
Walsh says, however, that these types of regulatory reforms
are spreading to other communities on the Cape. Yarmouth is
currently considering similar regulations to increase affordable
housing, and it is hoped that other communities will soon
follow suit.
Regulating Duplexes |
Duplex housing has long been a path toward affordable
homeownership. Early in the twentieth century, the great
cities of the east met affordable housing needs by building
hundreds of thousands of two- and even three-family
(‘triple decker’) homes that housed a generation
of newly arriving immigrants. As populations in these
cities have changed, these homes have provided opportunities
for homeownership and rental housing for new generations
of immigrants.
Such housing has long been seen as a way for people to
purchase a first home, and build equity more quickly through
rental income. Those wishing to purchase a duplex can
use the income of the rental unit to help them qualify
for a mortgage loan. Others consider duplexes as a buffer
between single-family neighborhoods and more intensely
developed residential neighborhoods or commercial and
manufacturing land uses. How a community uses this type
of dwelling to meet the community’s housing needs
is reflected in its decisions regarding whether to allow
duplexes in single-family zoned areas, to increase lot
size requirements, and to create special duplex districts.
Unfortunately, in most developing suburban communities,
zoning that allows duplexes (and other variations on
the two-family home concept) has become increasingly
rare. Fear of depreciating property values, a distaste
for renters, an increased burden upon schools, and the
desire to avoid changing the neighborhood’s ‘character’
have all contributed to reducing the number of locations
where such housing can be built ‘as of right.’
Some communities have broken free of this somewhat myopic
pattern by recognizing the importance of duplex housing,
and the contribution that such housing can make toward
meeting the need for affordable homeownership and rental
housing.
Spokane, Washington
Authorities in Spokane
allow duplexes in the most restrictive residential zones
(CR, RS) under certain circumstances. Developers in CR1
zones can propose one- to four-family housing structures
as part of an innovative residential development project.
The residential lots in the development can be of any
size, but overall density cannot exceed one dwelling per
gross acre. Similar requirements apply to innovative developments
proposed for the slightly less restrictive RS zone. Spokane
only allows duplexes in areas zoned R1 if the property
adjoins property zoned for business, commercial, or manufacturing
uses. Spokane authorities allow two-family residences
in residential zones that are less restrictive than the
R1 zone. Owners may also build or renovate three dwelling
units in certain designated zones (R2D) to encourage neighborhood
preservation and reuse of older residences. Spokane also
allows duplexes on smaller lots in the R2 zone if the
lot contains at least 9,000 square feet and existed before
1958
Recent building permit statistics suggest that in 2005,
Spokane’s ordinances allow the development of
duplex housing. In 2000, duplex units accounted for
2.8 percent of all housing stock. For the first five
months of 2005, duplex units represented 5.4 percent
of all building permits.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis
allows duplexes in certain residential zones, but not
in the most restrictive residential zone (D-1). In less
restrictive residential zones, the city permits duplexes,
but imposes certain limitations. Indianapolis allows
duplexes only on corner lots and each unit must face
a different street. In addition, the city requires slightly
larger minimum lot areas and lot widths, as you’ll
see in the table below.
Lot
Areas and Widths in Indianapolis Single Family
Zones |
Zone |
Minimum
Lot Area |
Minimum
Lot Width |
|
Single Family |
Duplex |
Single Family |
Duplex |
D-2 |
15,000 |
20,000 |
80 |
120 (on each
street) |
D-3 |
10,000 |
15,000 |
70 |
105 |
D-4 |
7,200 |
10,000 |
60 |
90 |
D-5 |
5,000 |
9,000 |
50 |
90 |
In subdivisions of five or more lots, the city will
reduce the size of lot allowances for up to 20 percent
of the lots, if the average of all lots remains at least
15,000 square feet.
Building permit statistics for the first half of 2005
suggest that Indianapolis’ ordinances allow the
development of duplex housing. In 2000, duplex units
accounted for 3.4 percent of all housing stock. For
the first five months of 2005 duplex units accounted
for 4.2 percent of all building permits.
Burlington, Vermont
Burlington
authorities allow duplexes on lots in the most restrictive
residential (RL) zone if the lot existed before 1973
and measures at least 9,900 square feet. RL zones have
slightly higher duplex densities: 5.5 units per acre
versus 4.4 units per acre for single-family homes. Burlington
permits duplexes in all other less restrictive residential
zones (RM, RH), as well as commercial zones in the city.
Recent building permit statistics do not point to a
trend in duplex construction in Burlington. Although
duplex units accounted for 7.2 percent of all units
in 2000, the city did not issue a building permit for
any duplexes during the first half of 2005. On the other
hand, they only issued nine single-family permits.
St Paul, Minnesota
Authorities in St.
Paul do not allow duplexes in single-family zoned
residential districts. There is a zoning classification,
RT1, that applies to one- and two-family dwellings.
The city identifies certain areas where owners can convert
larger houses from single-family to two-family residences
as a means of extending the useful life of the property.
St. Paul also permits duplexes in townhouse residential
and low-density multifamily districts.
A comparison of requirements for single-family housing
in the least restrictive single-family zones with requirements
for two-family dwellings indicates that there are few
additional requirements on two-family homes. The city’s
requirement for minimum lot sizes and yard setbacks
are similar for single-family and duplex housing.
St. Paul also has a traditional neighborhood district
designation that allows for a mix of residential uses.
The city allows single-family, duplex, and multifamily
housing in each of three traditional neighborhood districts.
In these zones, densities for two-family/townhouse developments
are higher than those established for single-family
developments. As in other communities, there are minimal
differences for building heights, lot size, and yard
setbacks.
Traditional
Neighborhood Zoning Requirements |
Building
Type/Zoning District
| Density/acre |
Lot
Size |
Lot
Width |
TN1
|
Single-family
| 6- 12 units |
3,500 |
30 |
Two-family
| 8-20 units |
4,000 |
20 |
TN2
|
Single- family
| 6-12 units |
3,500 |
30 |
Two-family
| 8-20 units |
4,000 |
20 |
TN3
|
Single- family
| 8-12 units |
3,500 |
30 |
Two-family
| 10-20 units |
4,000 |
20 |
Recent building permit statistics suggest that in 2005,
St. Paul’s ordinances do restrict the development
of duplex housing. In 2000, duplex units accounted for
three percent of all housing stock. For the first five
months of 2005, duplex units equaled only one percent
of all building permits.
Los Angeles, California
The Los
Angeles code allows duplexes in single-family zones
under limited circumstances. Each duplex lot must adjoin
a commercial or industrial-zoned lot. Moreover, the
lot on which the duplex is located cannot extend more
than a certain number of feet from the less-restricted
lot. Lot sizes vary by residential zoning district,
but are similar for duplexes and single-family homes.
The city also has a two-family zone (R2) wherein it
allows two-family dwellings or two single-family dwellings
on a single lot. Generally, minimum lot sizes in the
R2 zone are 2,500 square feet per unit for both single-family
and duplex housing.
Los Angeles’ building permit statistics suggest
that in 2005 the city encourages the development of
duplex housing. In 2000, duplex units accounted for
2.7 percent of all housing stock. For the first five
months of 2005, duplex units accounted for three percent
of all units that received a building permit.
Conclusion
While some different approaches are represented in
this admittedly brief cross-country analysis, the ordinances
adopted by these five cities have all been crafted to
allow and ease the use of duplex housing. However, each
ordinance places specific conditions on duplexes that
can limit their use as a viable source of affordable
housing. It may be that a kind of gradual introduction
process could be at work in some of these communities,
whereby local acceptance of these types of properties
is being cultivated a little bit at a time.
|
|
|