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