Height limitations and affordability

I can't imagine anything more tedious than a debate over how to measure building height.  And does it really matter?

Apparently, it might matter a lot, according to the City's own office of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development.

The land use code's building height restrictions have to date been measured from "finished grade," or the bottom of the first floor.  A McMansion-related amendment to the code -- preliminarily approved by the City Council on August 31 -- requires that building height be measured from the lower of "natural grade" or finished grade.  Some developers have been building on top of jutting "pedestals,"  according to neighborhood activists, who wanted that loophole closed.

But, according to the office of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development, this change does more than close a loophole.  It means that some mid-rises will have to be a full story shorter, resulting in a "negative" impact on housing affordability.  In its own words (but emphasis mine):

The proposed change goes beyond closing the loophole and establishes the measuring point not at the first floor, but instead at the floor level of the basement adjacent to the lowest natural grade.  This means that some multi-family or mixed-use building now considered less than 60 feet in height and 5 stories tall would be considered more than 60 feet in height and 6 stories tall and thus not allowed under proposed height definitions.

This impacts affordability by reducing the number of units allowed.  For example, in the 50-65 foot zone of the University Neighborhood Overlay, NHCD preliminary review shows that this new definition would reduce the height for 8 buildings expected to yield 830 total units and 83 affordable units.  If the height is reduced by 1 story, then the number of units would be expected to decrease by 1/6 or 17%.  Given that a developer must meet revenue (rents/sales) projections to cover costs, the loss of overall units will reduce the number of affordable units.

This scenario would also apply in a Vertical Mixed Use development in commercial corridors, as the ordinance is currently envisioned.  Stakeholder support for an on-site affordability requirement in Vertical Mixed-Use is based on the current method for defining "height" in the Zoning Code and Building Code.   If the new definition of "height" were adopted, VMU builders would no longer be able to build four-story residential apartments or condominiums above a one-story concrete and steel first story and a one-story basement.

In summary, the proposed change in definition in "height" could reduce housing affordability in multi-family and mixed-use development.

(You can Download McMansion_height_limitations.pdf (1473.4K), which also has other backup materials, including letters from a couple of developers.)

Observations:

1. The recently enacted design guidelines represented a deal between neighborhood representatives and deveopers:  the developers got to build five story buildings in VMU overlay districts in exchange for affordable housing set asides.  The McMansion amendment might sabotage that deal.
2. I think affordable housing set asides are a bad idea for the reasons stated in earlier posts.  But if you think they're a good idea you should be troubled by this. 
3. Even apparently trivial zoning regulations can have an insidious impact on housing availability.

Councilmembers instructed the neighborhood reps and developers to work on a "creative" solution to this issue.  It'll be interesting to see whether the neighborhood reps are willing to compromise.

Comments

[M1EK]

The reference to basement elevation is interesting. One of the big selling points of the McMansion rule to skeptical folks was the FAR exemption for basements. If basements can impact height calculations, however, this turns from a real effort at intelligent design into just another in a long series of disingenuous ploys by those folks.

[DSK]

"Even apparently trivial zoning regulations can have an insidious impact on housing availability."

Add on to that "when the regulations are written by unqualified amateurs in direct contradiction to the advice of planning & zoning professionals"