No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCreation of Affordable Rental Housing Units - 1994 Rental Housing Commission Supply-side Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 6/7/94 Regarding: Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Selection of Target Neighborhoods Purpose: Attempts to create more affordable rental housing through changes in the zoning code must specify the zones, and thus the neighborhoods, that are most in need of such housing. The selection of such neighborhoods in the case of Ithaca must take into account factors beyond the vacancy rate and absolute price of rental housing in the area. Method: Data compiled by the City Planning Department from the 1990 census has been used to isolate the neighborhoods most in need of more affordable rental housing. Neighborhoods were selected according to immediate need and the long term benefit to the city provided by promotion of welfare in those neighborhoods. The census data provided by the Planning Department had divided the City into 19 neighborhoods, as shown on the cover map. These neighborhoods do not correspond with the current zoning of the city, but they do give a rough approximation of conditions in areas dominated by a single zoning designation. f J The factors used to select neighborhoods were: median gross rent as a percentage of household income, the per cent of households receiving public assistance, the percentage of population in college, median annual income, and the vacancy rates. Findings: The 19 Neighborhoods of Ithaca are extremely varied in terms of the composition, affordability, and quantity of rental housing contained in them and the populations which comprise them. Few generalizations can be drawn which hold even partially true for each neighborhood. The large number of university and college students (55% of the population) create a unique situation for the city of Ithaca, but as figure 1 shows the direct consequences of this are concentrated in specific neighborhoods, with secondary repercussions for the entire city. % POPULATION IN COLLEGE o 0 90.0%- 80.0%- L7 0.0%-80.0%- 0 70.0%- 60.0%- o o Expected Valutb.`or City 55.400%. 40.0%- o 30.0%- 20.0%- 1 0.0%- 20.0%- 10.0%- 0.0% r S S .S C C C 4� t co [h LoCO N. co O) O — N CO rt LO CO N- CO CA figure 1 As would be expected the number of college and university students renting units is extremely high. This is shown in the high correlation of the percentage of a neighborhoods population in college and its percentage of renter occupied housing-- a correlation of 73%. Figure 2 shows the percentage of renter occupied housing. % RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING 100.0%� o o 0 0 0 80.0%- £EX)EC—EC PERCENTAGE FOR CITY 60.0%- 40.0%- 20.0%- 0.0% ' t r S l S S S S c ' 'c ' S S S f • N C') U) (0 (0 Q) 0 '- N C') 1.0 (D N CO Cr) NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 2 The neighborhoods that contain a large percentage of college students are clustered around the colleges. These neighborhoods, having a higher than the 55% of population in college that is expected tend to have lower vacancy rates and higher median rents. The geographic proximity to Cornell, number of students bidding for units, and aversion to commuting have fueled these higher rents. Figure 3 shows the unevenness in median rent throughout the city (please note that these figures are not adjusted for number of bedrooms, and thus are useful only as a relative benchmark). Median Monthly Rent $1 ,200 $1 ,000 $800 $600 $4. i . - i i" $2001 so .. . .. „ . . . „ .. . . .._ , . .. . •- N Ch LO CO N. CO O O r N Cr) Tr CO CO N- CO W Neighborhood Number figure 3 Neighborhoods with fewer than expected college students tend to have higher vacancy rates, lower median rents, and lowerpercentages of renter occupied housing. These neighborhoods also have a higher percentage of the population receiving public assistance. Conclusions For the purposes of this report the 19 neighborhoods have been loosely agglomerated into categories. Three classifications of neighborhood, affluent/non- student,affluent mixed, and university controlled, show no demand for affordable housing or are not in the directs control of city zoning. The remaining three types, working class/mixed, working class/non-student, middle income/student, and lower income/non-student. merit immediate attention. The policy implications for each type of neighborhoods in regard to the creation of affordable housing are different and complementary. The conditions prevailing in each classification of neighborhood merit policy designed specifically for it, these policies at a city level should create more quality housing at increasingly affordable rates. Five neighborhoods classified as lower-income/non-student have higher vacancy rates and a higher percentage of median income devoted to housing costs. The need for housing is not pronounced, the need for affordable housing is. Creating quality affordable housing in neighborhoods with higher vacancy rates than the area's mean will require innovative policies. some considerations would included incentive and floating zones. The two neighborhoods classified as working class /mixed have near mean vacancy rates and near the expected share of college students. Policy that would allow for the conversion of existing oversized units to single family housing with accessory apartments would seem to be in order. The creation of more housing for students would also free up some units and allow for poorer families to move into these neighborhoods. The five neighborhoods which are predominantly student have extremely low vacancy rate and median rental rates far above the expected for the city. The demand for more student housing in these neighborhoods is high. Unit creation in this area, regardless of its affordibility will ease demand on the rest of the city's housing stock and lower prices and raise quality. Issues of parking and transportation must be resolved however--though it must be noted that residence near the colleges generates fewer trips as students are able to walk. Each of these categories of neighborhood will be investigated in more depth in subsequent reports. Rental Housing Commission Supply-side Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 6/12/94 Regarding: Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Specification of Neighborhood Types Purpose: This memo will attempt to specify the exact neighborhoods that comprise each of the neighborhoods types presented in the previous memo. The neighborhood types are working class/non-student, working class/mixed, middle income/student, and lower income/non-student. These classifications are only generalizations drawn from census data and are relative only within the City of Ithaca. They will not hold true for most individual households within neighborhoods. However, this classification will allow policy to be devised to better meet the specific needs of each neighborhood, and thereby the overall needs of the city in regard to the creation of affordable housing. Method: The criteria used to classify neighborhoods into general types are: median gross rent as a percentage of household income, the per cent of households receiving public assistance, the percentage of population in college, median annual income, and the vacancy rates. Findings: Of the nineteen neighborhoods contained in the 1990 census report, fifteen fall into the four categories outlined above. These fifteen neighborhoods should be targeted for the creation of more affordable housing. Table 1 shows the neighborhoods, their numbers which correspond to the census map, their designations and their type classifications. I., - lc c 1 d61g"lb'irh0001 g 5esrrinati0r T y-pe Lower Northside 1 0 Lower Income/N.S. 1 Western South Hill 1 1 Lower Income/N.S. 1 Northside Triangle 1 3 Lower Income/N.S. 1 Southside 1 4 Lower Income/N.S. 1 Titus Flats 1 5 Lower Income/N.S. 1 Fall Creek 6 Working Class/N.S. 2 C.B.D. 7 Working Class/N.S. 2 West End 1 8 Working Class/N.S. 2 Lower East Hill 9 Working Class/Mix 3 Eastern South Hill 1 7 Working Class/Mix 3 Collegetown 3 Middle Inc./Student 4 Cornell Heights 4 Middle Inc./Student 4 Lower Collegetown 8 Middle Inc./Student 4 North Campus 1 2 Middle Inc./Student 4 University Hill 16 Middle Inc./Student 4 Table 1 TYPE 1 NEIGHBORHOODS Five neighborhoods can be classified as Type 1. They are Lower Northside, Western South Hill, Northside Triangle, Southside, and Titus Flats. As the map shows these neighborhoods are all geographically adjoining and concentrated on either side of Route 13 near the Southwestern portion of the city. They comprise some 30% of the city's area and hold 20% of the city's population. These neighborhoods are characterized as having lower than expected median incomes, a higher percentage of the population receiving public assistance, and a low percentage of residents in college. Figures 1 & 2 show the dire economic straits of type 1 neighborhoods. Percent Below Poverty Level and Receiving Public Asst. 50.0%— 40.0%— II Percent Below Poverty t. d 30.0%— LA d 20.0%-- ❑ % Households w/ public a assistance 10.0%- 0.0% 10 11 13 14 15 Neighborhood Number Figure 1 Median Family and Non-Family Income $25,000 $20,000 f : $15,000 '' El Family f F Fj $10,000 ,::,,::.� >; 1. .r :,/;/.!;, ,:7F:�'., , i%S.. as !'i% Non-Family Er 114 $5,000 %'' • / fJ 10 11 13 15 Neighborhood Number figure 2 These income factors weigh heavily into the exceptionally high percentage of income that is devoted by residents of these neighborhoods to housing. Figure 3 shows that each of the type 1 neighborhoods is above the normative goal of 30% income devoted to rent. Median Gross Rent as % of HH Income 36.0%, 35.0%- / 34.0%- / 33.0%- 32.0%- 31 .0%- 3.0%- 32.0%- 31 .0%- / / 0 Median gross rent as % of 30.0%- HH Income 29.0%- 28.0% / l l /- 10 11 13 14 15 Neighborhood Number Figure 3 A neighborhood average rent of $384 compared to a city average of $444 would seem to suggest that exorbitant rents are not the paramount cause of type 1 neighborhood's housing concerns. However it must be understood that although the average rent level in type 1 neighborhoods is 14% lower than that of the city, the average family income is 35% lower--thus the high percentage of income devoted to rent. It must also be noted that qualitative issues have not been factored into relative rent prices. Vacancy rates in these neighborhoods fall both above and below the city average. However, high vacancy rates in type 1 neighborhoods may only indicate poor quality housing, and not a lack of demand for affordable housing. The percentage of the populations in college is far below that of the average for the city due to the geographic location of these neighborhoods in regard to Ithaca College and Cornell University. The percentage of population in college is shown in Figure 4.Therefore, any policy which attempts to assuage market pressures on rental housing by creating more student housing will have little effect in these neighborhoods. Percentage of Population in College 25.0%J ! / 20.0%- // 15.0%-/ 10.0%-/ — — 5.0%- 0.0% / 10 11 13 14 15 Neighborhood Number figure 4 Conclusions: Policy in regards to the creation of affordable housing in type 1 neighborhoods must be design to meet the specific need of each neighborhood. The creation of more student housing will have little effect on the cost of rental housing in type 1 neighborhoods, given the low number of college student who have chosen to live there. The lower average family income of these areas must be considered in any policy decisions, not only the average price of housing. While in some of these neighborhoods there may be no need for a drastic increase in the number of affordable housing units available, the city would do well to address qualitative issues in all. These issues, however, must be addressed in a manner that promote the general welfare without infringing on supply and thus cost of available units. DriFT ivia FORWARD The City of Ithaca faces, as do many across the nation, shortage of affordable housing. In many respects, however, the situation in Ithaca is unique. The presence of two major institutions of higher learning, Cornell University and Ithaca College, create a captive student population nearly equal to that of the City's. The relative isolation of Ithaca from other cities concentrates changes in supply and demand within the City's housing market, without the opportunity for significant spill-over to adjacent markets. The City's 1994 Abbreviated CHAS paints a picture of housing market that is not responding to the needs of a growing segment of the renting population--those renters with low to moderate incomes. While this segment of the population grows the rental options available to them in the City of Ithaca appear to be decreasing. The CHAS states that the current operation of the housing market "results in a continual shrinking of the inventory of affordable rental housing for low income families." While the rents have increased 93%, the median household income in the City of Ithaca has increased only 72% (City of Ithaca, CHAS, p.1). The normative level of 30% of household income devoted to housing costs (recognized by New York State CHAS and HUD) was exceeded by some two- thirds of Ithaca's population in 1990 (1900 Census). The upward pressure on rents shows no sign of abating in the immediate future. The City's population increased by ####### percent since 1980, while the number of available housing units increased only 6% over that same period of time (1980 Census and City of Ithaca, CHAS, p.8). The obvious effect of an exacerbated shortage of rental housing units coupled with a burgeoning population will be higher rents. The expanding market of students, with greater purchasing power than many local residents had spurred the conversions of single-family houses and further limited the options of local residents of limited means. Cornell University could in theory reduced demand, and therefore the pressure fueling rising rents, through the creation of more on-campus housing. This, however, would not be beneficial to the overall local economy. A conservative estimate of 10,000 renting students each paying 1 4.* -*PY5 -11,4• • DRAFT DRAFT $300 creates $36,000,000 of revenue for landlords who are predominantly local residents. With a multiplier of 2.5, it can be argued that students rents generate some $90,000,000 in local business annually. This revenue is taxable. The removal of a significant number of student renters would prove detrimental to local business and the City's tax base. The creation of more housing for the student population by the private sector, although not beneficial directly to the population that affordable housing is intended to serve, would mitigate pressures on existing housing stock. This paucity of new developments of affordable housing and the increasingly polarized housing market has created an untenable situation. The City of Ithaca has therefore begun to investigate possible regulatory and zoning changes that may assuage the situation. The controls and limitations of a zoning ordinance, and how the intents of the ordinance are physically manifested in development, cannot be underestimated. Modern zoning has developed along with the American city, and therefore represents an amalgamation of the many issues confronting cities. Issues of ventilation, sanitation, lighting and fire safety are all addressed within the earliest zoning codes. Another strain of zoning regulations developed concerning the regulation of land use in order to preclude incompatible uses on the same property. The multi-lineage of zoning has made it a tool which must simultaneously address both goals of American housing policy- -quality and quantity. The setting aside of certain areas of land exclusively for residential use (defined as the "highest use" of zones) is an attempt to allow for both the availability and quality of housing. As quality standards are more easily and affordably addressed they generally win out over quantity issues in local zoning codes. When quality issues are predominant they invariably lower the supply of housing and increase it's cost. Qualitative restrictions (although necessary for the insurance of a minimum standard of quality of life) contract the supply of available housing, thus increasing its cost. Local zoning codes must then precluded inferior dwellings while simultaneously allowing for acceptable development. The definition of "acceptable" is amorphous and markedly different for different members of a community. A community may be correct in zoning specifications that protect a neighborhood's character from high-density development, but it I J DRAFT would be unconscionable and unlawful to excluded those who would live in a high-density development from the entire community. The zoning code must then allow for the inclusion of housing serving all segments of the population, regardless of income level. As the population of a community changes, so do its housing needs, and the performance of its zoning code. As the needs of the population of Ithaca have changed the need to revamp certain areas of the existing zoning code and perhaps add new zones has become apparent. These changes must be made in a very specific manner as to effect beneficial outcomes, while preserving the character and history of the City. Any inquiry into possible zoning code changes must begin with an exploration of the needs of the neighborhoods which comprise the City. The following is an attempt to explore the needs of the City of Ithaca in regard to affordable housing and explore means of meeting those needs. Possible courses of action for the City are also explored. The first section is a statistical summary of the 1990 census and how it relates to each of Ithaca's 19 neighborhoods. pSi DRAFT Rental Housing Commission Regulatory Issues Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 8 / 15 / 94 Regarding: Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Investigation of Current Liabilities and Needs Purpose: The creation of the future affordable housing within the City will prove futile if existing stock is not maintained. An understanding of liabilities to the City's present affordable housing stock will enable policy makers to tailor policy decisions towards the maintenance of existing and future affordable housing stock. Method: Any single method of inquiry into the many liabilities that threaten affordable housing proves insufficient. The evidence and conjectures in the following section is both empirical and anecdotal. The issues discussed are considered in broad categories and are not by any means exhaustive. Findings: The number of affordable units available in the City of Ithaca are insufficient to meet the demand created by the population. The Tompkins County 1994 CHAS states, DRAFT DRAFT The 1990 Census indicates that two-thirds of all rental households in the City are paying more than 30% of their income for rent, with 57% of low and moderate income family households found to be paying over 35% of their income for housing costs. The Tompkins County CHAS found that "half of the renter households in the County are low income, and that 36% of the low income households pay more than 35% of their income in rent. The CHAS goes on to suggest that the rental market is responding to pressures created by an increasing number of college students. As the number of college student renters increases the pressure on existing rent levels in neighborhoods surrounding the University and College increases. Students who are unable to attain or unable to afford units in close proximity to the campus spill into outlying neighborhoods and place further upward pressure on rents. As long as the demand for units by college students exceeds the number of units readily available affordable units will be lost to ascending rent levels. The private market has not kept pace with the demand created by students. The lack of buildable space in most of the neighborhoods surrounding the University has truncated the number of opportunities available to developers. The dramatic increase in the number of units in Collegetown during the 80's did assuage and even reduce the spill-over of college students into adjoining neighborhoods, but as the CHAS states the upward pressure on rents is still potent. The creation of more housing for students, though as outlined in the introduction it would be beneficial if this was undertaken by the private sector rather than Cornell, would help relieve some of the upward pressure on rents. This would slow the loss of affordable housing in some neighborhoods, though it would not create any to fill the need of the City. If the demand for housing created by the students is left untended, the creation of affordable housing may prove futile as it is converted to serve the more profitable student population. Therefore the ascending pressure on rents must be addressed before any effort to create affordable housing via the market will be ineffective. As the private markets has of yet failed to address the demand created by the student sector of the market, it should not be expected to create less profitable affordable housing without some manner of DRAFT DRAFT stimulation and incentive. While certain aspects of the zoning code can be revamped and rewritten to ease the development of more affordable housing, efforts must be made to insure that it is actually built and that it remains affordable. The lack of development of affordable housing during the last few years, the CHAS states that only 53 subsidized units have been created in the last decade, has meant a net loss of units while the population needing them has grown. Not only have units been faced with ascending rental pressures, but many have been lost to fire. The Ithaca Fire Department has had some 33 fires in residential multiple-units which caused more than $1,000 during the last for years alone. This reflects the need to protect not only new, but existing housing stock form lose by fire. The conversion of existing vacant and underutilized building stock into affordable housing is an option that should be fully utilized by the city. These conversions should be pursued with vigor and assistance whenever possible. This avenue has been curtailed by current building rehabilitation regulations on the state level. Amendments to the state regulations making it possible to utilize building stock as affordable residences, especially in historic areas such as the C.B.D., should be vocally supported by the City. In the likely event that the necessary amendments are not immediately forthcoming, the City should investigate the possibility of creating a loan pool to be drawn from by developers attempting to rehabilitate buildings in accordance with the code. DRAFT A Rental Housing Commission DRAFT Regulatory Issues Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 8 / 12 / 94 Regarding: Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Investigation of Efforts Pursued By Similar Cities Purpose: In order to formulate changes and additions to the current zoning code it is necessary to investigate the effects of proposals on the affordable housing market in similar cities. This investigation will shed light on the actual outcomes of theoretical proposals and point out potential pitfalls. This initial inquiry will allow Ithaca to avoid many of the problems other cities have experienced while implementing code changes. More importantly it will narrow the scope of considered changes and additions to the zoning code by excluding ones that proved ineffective or undesirable in other cities. Method: A list of cities comparable to Ithaca in terms of surrounding area, population demographics, and presence of a University was created. This list included six cities which were contacted via mail and asked to complete a survey (a sample copy is contained in Appendix I) created by the Rental Housing Advisory Commission. The initial response of two cities was bolstered to five of the seven cities queried by a second round DRAFT 7 DRAFT mailings--one survey did not indicate which city had completed it, and therefore will be refereed to as Huron. The Survey contained two sections, the first regarding general issues and the second relating to specific policies. Each of the surveys ###### basic questions, were augmented by follow-up questions to add •depth to answers. The findings were categorized according to section and then basic question. Findings: SECTION I The first question asked was "What do you feel is the paramount regulatory impediment to the creation of affordable housing in your city?". Three cities felt that there were no major impediments created by their regulatory system. Boulder cited the time taken to process project applications. Boulder does have a growth management program and has discouraged higher densities in the past few years. These measures and it linkage fee program (explored later) create a longer period of bureaucratic navigation for developers. Burlington felt that the multiple layering of regulatory levels (local and state) created over-lapping interests and lost time. The second question asked to what degree the presence of a large college population effected the rental housing prices. Three of the Cities found the effects to be "strong" while the remaining two choose "extreme". "Extreme" was the most potent choice offered, with "strong" being the next. The third question asked for the percentage of housing units that are renter occupied, and what percentages of those are occupied by college students and families or individuals below the poverty line. The chart indicates that each of the cities surveyed have a slightly lower percentage of housing units occupied by renter than Ithaca (71%). Lawrence, Huron, and Gainsville obviously rely heavily on the private market to provide rental housing to students, and the markets predominantly serve students. Only Lawrence has a higher percentage of renters below the poverty line than Ithaca. DRAFT Housing Units Rental Units DRAFT % Renter Occupied %College Students % Below Poverty Line Lawrence, Ka 51 % 60% 56% (est.) Huron 60% 80% 5% Boulder, Co 50% na 23% Burlington, Vt. 65% 12-15% 17% (est.) Gainsville, Fl. 51 % 60% (est.) 14% (est.) The fourth question asked whether a policy has been implemented to concentrate or disperse the student population. Only Gainesville has chosen to pursue such a policy. In an attempt to concentrate the student population near campus, land use designations near the University have been granted higher densities to encourage the development of student housing. The fifth question asked what efforts had been taken to create more rental housing for students. Three of the five cities have opened negotiations with the Universities, and two have taken no action. Of the three that have negotiated with the University, Burlington seems to have made the most progress. It has finished an agreement that changed the campus housing policies of the University (creating a more flexible meal plan and having Sophomores live on campus) and had the University build more housing. These efforts have resulted in higher occupancy for the dormitories and new units. In total they have resulted in "some easing up of student demand in private sector housing," although the effect on rent levels are harder to measure due to the impact of the recession. Boulder has allowed higher densities on the campus, and then allowed the University to deal with the problem. These efforts have been described as "marginally" effective as students are commuting from farther and farther away and still having a "strong" impact on the market. In a statement, nearly verbatim with the City of Ithaca own 1994 CHAS, Boulder notes that "students continue to impact rental housing as they can pay $300/bedroom (which is ) out of reach for families." It must also be noted, however, that DRAFT 0 DRAFT the changes made by the City where made recently and have not had time • become effective. Lawrence is working with the University, but this does not seem to be a high priority of the City as "it is not a large concern--because market forces with provide rental housing for college students." Lawrence is not facing undo pressures on its rental housing market from students due to a lack of student housing on campus. In fact, the University of Kansas has and "abundance of 'on campus' student housing. The University is trying to reduce the number of units available due to high vacancy rates." Gainesville is currently making no effort to create student rental housing as their comprehensive plan states that "the University of Florida and the private sector shall be responsible for providing housing for college students." The before-mentioned efforts of the City to increase allowable densities around the campus have, however, proven positive in this regard as "several higher density housing projects for students have been developed and are currently being developed near the University." All Cities surveyed, other than Burlington, are then relying on the Universities and private sector to provide students with more housing in attempts to mitigate the "extreme" and "strong" effects students are having on rental the housing market. Cities have aided both the Universities and private sector in this regard by allowing higher densities near campuses. The sixth question asked whether profits from market-rate housing developments had been tied to affordable housing projects. Three of the cities have not created programs, although one of those (Lawrence), has begun discussing the idea. Two of the cities have created linkage fees tying profits of developments to affordable housing. Boulder has levied a housing excise tax on both residential and non- residential development. The units created by funds from this tax are targeted for working households that earning from 30-60% of the AMI (area median income). These efforts have succeeded in creating 150 permanently affordable units in the past three years. DRAFT , n DRAFT Burlington also utilized such a linkage agreement during the 80's. A subdivision of affordable housing (37 units) was developed in connection with a market-rate condominium development. The agreement also included a land swap, rezoning, and beach dedication. SECTION II The first question asked about the use of incentive zoning to attract the creation of affordable housing. Two of the five cites had not utilized incentive zoning, while the remaining three had. The City of Gainesville have used density bonuses as a form of incentive zoning if affordable housing was included in the development. These densities are triggered when 10% or more of the project is affordable housing. The City also has a policy that will "implement and promote the opportunity for zero lot line and cluster subdivisions as incentives for low income housing." These allowances lower development costs for developers. Gainesville rates these policies as "marginally" effective. The City of Boulder promotes the creation of affordable housing by mandating that 20% of its allocations are given to affordable housing projects through its growth management system. ######call Bob Cole 441- 3270 The effort has not yet been implemented, and will go into effect in January 1995. The City of Burlington has implemented numerous forms of incentive and inclustionary zoning. Density bonuses are used commonly and given regularly to elderly housing projects. Elderly housing projects are also subject to less stringent parking requirements. Impact fees are also waived for desired developments. These efforts are considered "moderately" effective by the City. The second question asked about changes in the zoning code that allowed single-family houses to be converted to multiple-residences or to have accessory apartments. Burlington, Boulder, and Kansas have made no DRAFT 11 DRAFT changes in the code, although Burlington has allowed such conversions with zoning board approval for single-family homes on large lots since the 1970's. Gainesville has recently turned down a proposal to allow accessory apartments. Huron has recently attempted to do just the opposite of allowing single- family houses to be converted. The zoning change they enacted was intended to end the conversion of accessory building area into living space. The third question inquired about alterations in regulatory review process to ease the creation of affordable housing developments. Only the City of Burlington had made such changes, and these changes had been substantial. The City has added a technical review committee (TRC) comprised of all members of all the departments involved in developmental review. The TRC reviews all projects at the conceptual stage: which allows for an expedited review as all regulations and issues have been identified and dealt with. The City has also waived impact fees for affordable housing projects. Burlington has also adopted a new "user friendly" zoning ordinance. Answers to question four indicate that none of the five cities has modified its regulatory review process to ease the conversion of single-family houses to multiple-unit apartment houses. Boulder has gone so far as to note that greater densities are being actively discouraged in single-family neighborhoods. It must also be remembered that Boulder is actively pursuing greater population densities on the campus. Question five asked about the existence of "floating zones" to allow a pre- determined number of projects to enjoy certain zoning variances where affordable housing is desired. Only Huron has attempted to utilize this method, creating a floating zone for elderly housing projects. The ordinance can not be evaluated as it has only recently been passed. Question six asked about the use of "performance standards" rather than traditional Euclidean zoning to allow for more affordable housing projects. This type of standard had not been adopted by any of the cities surveyed. DRAFT DRAFT The final question asked respondents to discuss and evaluate any policies regarding affordable housing that had not been addressed by the survey. The City of Burlington has enacted a condominium conversion ordinance which slows down the rate of conversions to condominiums in an effort to conserve affordable housing stock. A security deposit ordinance which regulates the amount and return time of security deposits has also been created. Minimum housing inspections are mandated for rental housing units. A housing trust fund has been created through the transfer of fees and a one cent property tax levy. An ordinance that requires the replacement of affordable units lost to demolition or non-residential conversion is also in effect. The City is also supporting a network of non- profit housing developments including land trusts and cooperatives. The City of Lawrence is attempting to implement the suggestions of the 1994 report of the Mayor's Appointed Housing Study Group. The Group has urged the creation of a Housing Trust Fund in order to procure permanently affordable housing. The City is also considering creating several housing education workshops and seminars. The City of Gainesville provides available city owned parcels to private and non-profit housing developers for the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households. The City has assisted in several such projects with various developers (HomeBuilders Assoc., Habitat for Humanity). Assistance to private and non-profit housing developers identifying sites for low income and manufactured housing is also provided by the City. The City of Boulder has created a Community Housing Assistance Program (CHAP) that is used to leverage funds to create affordable housing for residents who are earning between 30%-60% of the Area Median Income. The initial funds are locally generated, some $800,000 each year, through a housing excise tax on new development and a small property tax. These funds leverage CDGB and HOME monies. The CHAP funds have been used to acquire and renovate some 150 units in three years, 30 over the initial DRAFT DRAFT goal of 40 per year. The program is part of a City effort to place at least five percent of the Cities housing stock into the "permanently affordable" category. Conclusions: A variety of methods have been employed by those cities surveyed to increase the amount of affordable housing, some of these approaches are applicable for consideration in the case of Ithaca's housing needs. All of the cities surveyed felt that the presence of Universities had a profound effect on the rental housing market. The first section of the survey shows that most of these cities have relied on the private market to provide needed units. Some attempts have been made by all cities to focus the market forces into development favorable to the community. Although only Gainsville acknowledged a policy which attempts to focus the University population, most cities had increased allowable densities either near or on campus. These efforts are reactions to market pressures and attempts to increase efficiency by reducing trip-generation and impact on existing neighborhood character. Efforts to ease conversions of single-family houses to structures more likely to be utilized by students were not entertained in three of the cities surveyed, rebuffed in Gainsville, and a measure creating the opposite effect was passed in Huron. Programs that have tied market rate housing to affordable projects have proven successful in both Burlington and Boulder. These types of linkages require projects of fairly large capital inputs and a strong market. The low percentage of buildable land near Cornell (the only market seemingly able to support both requirements) would limit the use of such methods in Ithaca. However the success of the CHAS program in Boulder does indicate that linkage fees of some sort should be fully investigated. Changes in the zoning code that would lower construction costs, such as zero lot line zoning and cluster zoning, are limited by the lack of buildable land in the City of Ithaca. These techniques could be tailored to meet the needs of Ithaca by reducing the size requirements The same reductions DRAFT i a DRAFT could also apply to the issuance of density bonuses. The concept of floating zones could be combined with the use of density bonuses in order to promote the creation of affordable housing in certain areas. The inapplicability of some existing ordinances can be seen by the under- utilization of the City's current cluster zoning ordinance. Another area of concern in Ithaca is the conservation of what is currently affordable housing. The efforts of Burlington to insure the replacement of affordable housing, and Boulder in permanently securing affordable housing should be considered in Ithaca. The efforts of INHS have been rewarding, but the creation of a fund devoted to the conservation of affordable housing for families would be beneficial. The regulatory changes pursued by Burlington, creating a technical review committee (TRC) should be noted. Such a committee can theoretically guild developers through the process with a more expedient and pleasing outcome for all parties. In the case of Ithaca, however, the committee would add little to the process if the current site-plan review process is not altered. If the Planning Board were to shift the scope of review totally away from technical issues, such a committee could potentially expedite the process. Burlington's adaptation of a "user friendly" zoning ordinance would seem to be ineffectual for the City of Ithaca as the current code is considered clear and accessible by developers. DRAFT 15 Rental Housing Commission DRAFT Supply-side Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 8 / 8 / 94 Regarding: Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Survey of Local Developers Purpose: The effects of existing regulations on the development of affordable housing must be understood before any meaningful investigation of proposed policy can be undertaken. In order to best understand the effects of current regulations the input of consumers of the system was sought. The consumers in this case are developers, architects, and landlords who must navigate the system in order to create developments. Method: A list of local developers, architects, and landlords was compiled and cross- referenced. Input came from representatives of the Building Department, Real Estate Industry, member of the community, and from developers themselves. Each member of the final list was asked to provide input in an anonymous interview. Some 80% obliged, with the other 20% siting lack of time and insufficient qualifications as mitigating factors. The interviews were conducted in an informal manner with a focus on both regulatory code and process. Findings: DRAFT DRAFT There was a strong consensus among most of those interviewed that the current zoning code of the city was satisfactory. No individual interviewed sited a single change in actual zoning code that they felt was unneeded or outdated. While some of those interview did not support the theoretical underpinnings of zoning in general, they did accept that the code was as fair as could be expected. Many of those interview gave positive to glowing reviews of the City Building Department and staff. The Planning Department was also praised as efficient and professional by most of those interviewed. While those interview did not criticize the zoning code, they were extremely vocal about the manner in which the City choose to enforce the code. Each interviewee sighted a measure of arbitrariness and political opposition to development in the way applicants were handled. Most were referring directly to decisions of the Planning Board and in particular the open-ended nature of the site-plan review law. The site-plan review process was roundly criticized by nearly all of those interviewed. The complaints were not because the process existed, but the manner in which it was currently being applied. When asked to state exactly when they felt development became problematic in the City, those interviewed did not mention the inception of the site-plan review process, but a period of time ranging from 5 to 3 years ago. One individual pointed out that the site-plan review process was in theory a more rational and efficient manner in which to deal with requests of a proposed development's surrounding neighborhood than the informal negotiation process that preceded it. The individual went on to state that the process had lost its rationality within the last four years, and that it was now perhaps more inefficient than its predecessor. Most of those interviewed complained that the process had become politicized to the point of arbitrariness, and that it only served to halt the development process. When asked what the paramount hindrance to development in the City was nearly all of those interviewed sited an anti- DRAFT 17 DRAFT development attitude on the part of the Planning Board. Many of those interviewed asserted that the current Planning Board did not adequately reflect the community of Ithaca and therefore did not always consider the full spectrum of the community's needs. Some felt that the site-plan review process was used to create obstacles to slow and halt development. Others felt that if the Planning Board were more specific and directly forthcoming in what they desired less time would be lost and the results would be more pleasing to both sides. While most of those interviewed stated that the Planning Department itself was professional and competent, one individual charged that it too had become politicized and involved in favor trading. Interviewees stated that requests and comments made by the Planning Board were often non-concrete and tangible, and as such were difficult to fulfill. Most complained that the Planning Board did not have a defined area of influence and input in regards to developments, and thus tended to make decisions in areas in which they had little or no expertise. Most felt that the site-plan review process needed to be better defined n scope and thus allow the Planning Board to concentrate on issues it felt were paramount to the community, and allow the Planning Department to handle technical issues. The monthly meetings of the Planning Board, the lack of communication between developer and Board during the interim and the inexact nature of the Board's requests were sited as increasing the time needed for approval of a development and therefore the development's cost of production. One developer made the point that by slowing down the development process and increasing costs the site-plan review process was creating capital burdens to large for smaller developers and marginal or small projects. He stated that in the current political climate only large capital intensive developments were feasible. Developers refereed to the requests of the Planning Board as "extortion" because they received no incentive other than the possible approval of the project to meet them. Some stated that the system did not allow for barter between the City and developer, which might have meant that more DRAFT 1R • DRAFT projects would have been developed, and those developed would be more beneficial to the entire community. Some asserted that if the City could give a little, they would be more willing to alter projects according to the requests of the Planning Board. Conclusions The complaints of those interviewed centered not around the regulatory review process or the existence of a zoning code, but the manner in which the regulatory mechanism was employed to enforce the code. The two most prevalent complaints were those of the politicization of the board and the scope and applicability of the Board's requests. The nature and original concept of the site-plan review law demands that the requests of the Planning Board have some measure of flexibility and breadth. This malleability is intended to augment the effectiveness of the zoning code in creating a more pleasant community. However, the Planning Board is limited in the scope of its investigation by the intent of the site development plan law. The intent states that the site plan review process, is not intended to prohibit development that is otherwise permitted under the applicable zoning regulations; rather it is intended to improve the design, function, aesthetics and safety of projects and site plans which are otherwise in conformance with zoning regulations. It is also intended that this site review process be conducted in a timely fashion... (p.27602, Ithaca City Code) This passage also appears to effectively limit the Board to areas of inquiry dealing directly with the particular site in question. The Planning Department can, and should, be used as the primary resource of the Planning Board in attempts to understand the implications and effects of DRAFT t4 proposed developments on the city as a unit, but layout of existing zones defines the plan for the city in the physical realm. Since all projects before the Board conform with the zoning code, they should be considered as conforming with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Therefore, while particular aspects of the projects proposal may be considered for desirability, the project itself should be assumed to be desirable. The number of respondents who judged the Planning Board to be politically motivated and anti-development (whether or not these assertions are valid) warrant serious consideration. This level of distrust of the process seems to belie a serious lack of communication and interactive shaping of developments between developers, the Planning Board, and the Planning Department. Increased communication and accessibility would create a more comprehensive and informed understanding for all parties. Direct and frank interaction would mitigate delays and produce more desirable developments for all parties. The Planning Board should make an effort to present all requests in terms that are as clear and finite possible. This will allow developers to better meet the requests of the Board, and avoid the appearance of ambiguous and arbitrary desires on the part of the Board. The requests of the Board must also encompass the needs of every member of the community, regardless of race, gender, religion, or income level. The board must embrace to Herculean task of creating a community that is accessible and responsive to all of its present and future members. In this regard, decisions of the Board will augment and clarify the intentions of the zoning code and the Planning Department as part of the overall plan of the city, not reconstitute it. The effectiveness of the site-plan review law is then dependent on the comprehensively representative nature of the Planning Board's decision process. DRAFT n DRAFT Rental Housing Commission Regulatory Issues Sub-Committee City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca ,NY 14850 To: Rental Housing Commission From: Colin Forth Date: 8 /27 / 94 Regarding: Interpretations and Proposed Solutions to Regulatory Issues Involving the Creation and Maintenance of Affordable Housing in Ithaca. Purpose: Any propositions regarding the creation and maintenance of more affordable housing in Ithaca must meet a stringent criteria. They, as a whole, must address the needs of the entire City's population. In this they must be sensitive to the existing character of Ithaca, without compromising the goal of offering attainable, satisfactory housing to the citizens of the community. While being representative proposals must be comprehensive in serving all groups that require affordable housing and all areas. In order to achieve these goals, proposes to changes in regulation must investigate two areas, the actual code and the process by which it is implemented. This memo will investigate both the areas of actual regulation and regulatory process, then add a third category of inquiry; systemic regulation. Systemic regulation explores the basic premises under which regulations are created, and investigates whether or not the current system of zoning is obsolete. P P' FT 71 DRAFT Method: This memo attempts to combine aspects of the previous sections of the report into a comprehensive overview of the affordable housing needs of the City of Ithaca. It is divided into three sections (regulatory changes, regulatory process changes, and systemic changes) which will outline interpretations and explanations for each of the proposals included under each section. Findings: It must be understood that the following proposed changes in code to facilitate the private market will not solve Ithaca's housing problems. The market has been hindered by the existence of some codes, and the changes will allow it to be more productive. The market, however, is driven by effective demand and will operate in an efficient manner only if it responds to such demand. No matter the efficiency and skill of entrepreneurs in the Ithaca area, the market responds not the needs of the people, but to the effective demand created by the people. Therefore, the inability of local developers to meet the housing needs of those that do not have sufficient effective demand to signal the market should not be seen as a shortcoming of the developers--they are simply responding to the market. The affordable housing needs of the City can only then be predominantly meet by the workings of the market, the remaining need must be meet by social institutions. Section I: Regulatory Changes Perhaps the first step that should be taken by the City is to determining the number and type of affordable units needed in the City--and proclaim that in the next decade it will take steps to insure that need is met. Such a proclamation and setting of a concrete goal of unit creation and preservation would prove a catalyst to the City. The City of Boulder has DRAFT ? , DRAFT set such a goal, which forced the City to define the population it was to serve and the means in which it was to serve them--which it is now very effectively doing. The City of Ithaca cannot solve the housing problem alone, but it can make a substantial impact--and should decide the priority the creation of affordable units has on the agenda. While the financial means by which the City can directly influence the situation are not infinite, they can be marshaled in a more focused manner. The creation of a tangible goal will allow the City to begin to make a focused effort to meet the dearth of affordable units head on. The end of affordable housing will only be achieved by a proactive means, taken after the relatively action of goal setting is accomplished. The modification of regulatory code and procedure in order to utilize the private market can be considered a proactive move of limited scale. Changes must be made periodically as codes and procedures grow obsolete, failing to meet new demands of the populace, or are proven inefficient. These modifications, however, must be undertaken with caution, as the original codes and procedure were themselves created by public pressure. The original intent of these codes and procedures, regardless of the efficiency that regulation has met this intent, cannot be ignored. Where even the original intent of these laws proves obsolete, change is long overdue. The zoning code of Ithaca is a remarkable clear and concise piece of legislation. It has guided the growth and physical manifestation of Ithaca since its inception. The codes original intent of separating incapable uses from one another has been met very successfully. The code, in its own right, is considered fair and clear by the vast majority of contemporary developers in the City of Ithaca (see section detailing the results of the developer's survey). While the code may be clear, it is not producing the desired number of affordable housing units. The impetus for actual production of course falls on the market mechanism, but any legislated deterrents to the creation of such housing should be addressed. The current zoning of Ithaca increases the costs of housing construction, as all zoning codes must, by restricting the quantity of land available to DRAFT DRAFT housing and outlining minimum standards. These standards are defined within the code according to each zone. The long standing use of different zones has created neighborhood within Ithaca of differing character, a desirable outcome. The standards created by these zones, however, do not represent the needs or desires of all cohorts in the City. Every existing residential zone in the City calls for minimum sideyards. This contingency is desirable for most zones in creating pleasant neighborhoods, but it excludes the possibility row houses. The creation of a new row house zone would allow for lower construction costs, higher living densities, and more efficient utilization of scarce buildable land. The use of such a zone would allow for the creation of more affordable units which could be utilized by families. These zones could be placed in areas that currently have dilapidated housing stock in an effort to stimulate the re-development process. The argument that these zones would destroy "neighborhood character" should be weighed against the discriminatory effects of mandated sideyards and minimum lot sizes. Row houses create neighborhoods of extremely desirable character, the total exclusion of which would prove economically discriminatory. The current "Cluster Zone" has proven ineffective as it has proven nearly totally non-exploited. The apathy displayed by the City in regards to the current incarnation of this zone is demonstrated by its failure to include a description of the zone on its zoning chart. The current zone should be modified to better fit the needs of the City. Cluster zoning can be utilized as a modified density bonus which gives credit for unbuildable land to adjacent lots. While the overall density of a neighborhood will not exceed the spirit of current zoning legislation, more units could be built. In order to insure the creation of affordable units with the cluster zone stipulations could be built into the voluntary application for a zoning designation. While correcting such oversights of the current code, such as the lack of a row house zone, will passively allow the development of more affordable units, the City should take a more active role. By creating a zone with the exclusive purpose of promoting such housing, the City would become a catalyst to its creation. Such a zone must balance many concerns. It must DRAFT � a DRAFT provide an incentive for the development of affordable units over more market-rate units. It must insure that such units remain affordable. It must not concentrate the creation of such housing, thereby "tilting" or significantly altering the character of specific neighborhoods. It must be conducive to the creation of housing within the restrictions created by Ithaca's lack of buildable space. It must allow for the creation of units that correspond within reason to the existing architecture and character of the neighborhoods in which they are placed. In order to meet this criteria the City should establish an "Affordable Housing Zone" to promote the creation of units which are rented or sold within the standards of affordability set by Tompkins County. The actual zone should be "floating", that is selected from applicants by the appropriate lead agency. This would guard against the unnecessary designation of zones, and allow the City to make decisions regarding the appropriateness of specific proposals. The minimum size of the zone should be relatively small, in order to meet size restrictions, and minimize capital investment requirements. The designation of a site as an Affordable Housing Zone should include incentives. A package of limited density bonuses and temporary freeze on property tax appreciation or future property tax reductions should be considered. Such projects should be given special consideration and aid by all agencies involved from the outset to insure viability. The City should also make an effort to promote such a zone and insure its use by setting a goal of unit creation over five year spans through this mechanism. The City should also consider a variety of less traditional measures in order to preserve and create affordable housing. One such measure would be the creation of a fund from which affordable housing landlords could draw upon at low interest in order to bring units up to code. Creating a readily available capital pool would allow owners to improve units immediately in emergency conditions, and even perhaps perform more preventive maintenance, thus keeping units on the market for longer periods of time. The use of the funds should be tied to the provision that the units be rented or sold at and affordable price. In the case of rental units, they should remain affordable for at least a period of time that DRAFT � 5 DRAFT insures that the funds are not used move units out of the affordable bracket and constitute unfair gain by owners. The City should also consider the creation of a local land trust. A land trust would create a pool of permanently affordable houses to be utilized by local families. A land trust would consist of the City purchasing property and selling houses to families in need of affordable housing at an affordable price. The City would retain the ownership of the land, therefore when the current occupants decided to move the house could be sold by the occupants who would receive market compensation for any improvements made. The City's ownership of the property, however, would negate any appreciation of the unit that do not reflect true value. The house would then be resold, to an eligible buyer, as an affordable unit. The original subsidy created by the City's purchase of the land is then retained throughout the life of the unit (and beyond). The appeal of the program is that it would serve families of low-moderate means that have made a long-term commitment to the City. The City would be able to garner property taxes for the value of the house from these households. The ownership of units would give an incentive for improvement to inhabitants that does not exist in many housing subsidy programs. The subsides in many programs are often lost as the house appreciates and is sold as a none affordable unit, in effect the subsidy is lost as a gain to program participants on the market, and thus must be meet through another expenditure (often greater than the original) by the City. Federal programs for the creation of affordable rental housing units are now plagued by the loss of such units as the time periods for which they were to remain affordable have begun to expire--the subsidies have in effect been lost. Current programs which create affordable housing through the successful I.N.H.S. efforts also suffer form this dilemma. The success of the "Time of Jubilee" land trust in Syracuse should be noted. The trust has created some 50 permanently affordable units in only three years of existence. This could well serve as a very accessible model for policy makers in Ithaca to formulate a local equivalent. DRAFT DRAFT Section II: Regulatory Process Changes Changes in the regulatory should be made to ease the process of affordable housing creation. These changes, however, are of a second order nature in that they will effect all development, not only that relating to affordable housing. The changes would have a limited effect on creating affordable housing, but would create a more efficient regulatory system. The current monthly meeting schedule of the Planning board is insufficient to allow for the demands placed on the Board members. Technical issues are at times addressed during the limited few hours he Board meets before the public. These issues could be better raised and addressed in a forum with only members of the Planning Department Staff and Planning Board present. This type of meeting would allow Board members to be well versed in all aspects of a site proposal, review modifications to site proposals that have occurred in the interim of meetings, and reflect upon the proposals before them. The presence of a Planning Department member would allow quick response to technical and comprehensive queries in a less politicized environment. This meeting could occur on a monthly basis, as the public form--in effect making the Planning Board's meetings bi-monthly. The increased sacrifice such a change would entail of members should not be taken lightly, but the benefits would be substantial to the community. The nature of issues dealt with by the Planning Board precludes intimate relations with developers. This presents a quandary when developer's desire to address the Board regarding modification to proposals or clarification on decisions between monthly meetings. Communication between developer's directly with a designated contact person within the Planning Department would allow a consistent report between the Board and Developer via a less political conduit. The bi-weekly meeting format presented above would create, with the designation of a contact person, a framework for communication that will allow for a more efficient, intelligible, and productive review process. DRAFT h: DRAFT Section III: Systemic Changes The City currently employs a "Euclidean" system of zoning code. In effect the code states what uses/densities/lot sizes ect. are allowed within each zone. It is a descendent of the original concept of zoning in that it attempts to separate uses that are incompatible. This method of zoning has been very effective for a number of years in Ithaca, as it has dictated the pattern of growth within the City. The basic pattern of the City's fabric has been established, and residential uses have been safely protected from noxious ones. As the City has grown and the availability of buildable space has decreased, building techniques, development patterns, and needs have changed, so have the demands on the zoning code. The current "Euclidean" nature of Ithaca's zoning may not be appropriate to the current needs of the City. The City has chosen within the last decade to create a site plan review process in order to better meet the new demands not meet by the zoning code. The site plan process is used to address issues that concern the City which fall beyond the scope of the current zoning. These issues include neighborhood character (defined beyond the outlining limits of allowable building characteristics in the code), sunlight, traffic, and visual appearance. These issues are important to the community as a whole, and cannot be addressed in through a Euclidean style zoning code. The Planning Board is then charged to "improve the design, function, aesthetics and safety of projects and site plans" which are otherwise in accordance with the code. This task is an extremely broad and subjective one, and the City of Ithaca is relatively inexperienced with it. The difficulty of the task faced by the Planning Board is made nearly impossible by the lack of standards used as a benchmark for the Boards decisions. As the Planning Advisory Service notes: Communities that choose to enact regulations that require discretionary review but that lack standards for decision making De'tkr-T 7R DRAFT may make ad hoc and arbitrary decisions. Their actions become exclusively reactions to development proposals without any prior testing of desirability against policies and standards. And secondary and tertiary problems arise that were not considered in the rezoning process but that might have been if the proposals had been evaluated against a plan or planning process--p.8 The Administration of Flexible Zoning Techniques. Meshenberg The creation of a set of standards with which development proposals would be forced to met would mitigate these troubles. Such a standard would also allow developers to understand the demands of the City, addressing the complaint most common in the survey, and avoid the appearance of a politicized process. The Planning Board is legally entitled to request certain changes of developers, but under the current code it is not able to grant concessions in return for site improvements. This has created a negative environment for developers and the community. A developer may be better of bringing a substandard project for review, and conceding changes that would have otherwise been included in the original proposal attempt to placate the Board. Developers are certainly given no incentive to create innovative or exceptional projects, as they have no legal ability of beyond the specification of the legal code and must attempt to avoid costly modification due to the Board's reviews. Thus projects are either not attempted or reduced to a lower common denominator. Both of these issues could be dealt with the implementation of a new zoning code, one of flexible zoning. Flexible zoning creates a set of standards that must be met (as in Euclidean zoning) but allows for a schedule of trade-offs between the Planning Board and developers. Flexible zoning also is also able to address directly issues that the Planning Board currently addresses, though in a more systematic manner. Current changes in development patterns such as integrated developments (PUD's) are anticipated by flexible measures. Perhaps the most appealing aspect of flexible techniques is that they allow the City to state what is desired in the City. This demand is then met with DP DR A r T • different proposals on various sites, and the City is able to select the best proposal. This allows developers to be more creative with each particular site and proposal, and less encumbered by zoning codes that may be inappropriate for the nature of the specific proposal. For example, the City could create three floating zones for an apartment houses. While the best of these proposals may not be destructive to a neighborhood due to exemplary design, current zoning in the Euclidean sense might preclude it. flexible zoning would give the Planning Board the option of granting the zone for the project. Even if the floating zone was not needed, proposal may not be deemed acceptable to the City. Rather than today's system in which the Planning board would request modifications that may make the plan financially unfeasible, flexibility would allow for a trade-off benefiting all. The move to a flexible system of zoning would constitute a considerable change for the Planning Department, and development in the City as a whole. Such a move will not be considered lightly, but it should be understood that the existence of the Site Plan Review law demonstrates a need for more flexibility. The Planning board is, in effect, the regulatory mechanism for flexible zoning. The City has therefore chosen to create the regulatory outlet in order to relieve such pressure. Perhaps the City should also consider creating the a zoning code that will clarify and complement the role of the Planning Board. DR AFT ' n