 |
| Our "Real World" example of R4 zoning under the new code |
Last week, the City's code team issued a new document with updated information on their modeled scenarios (download it here). As with their previous efforts, these fall well short of representing a realistic view of what the code will actually deliver, so we're back at it- modeling a Real World example of what will likely happen with the proposed R4 Transition Zone.
Here's the City's version:
 |
| COA R4 illustration 2/25/20 |
At the bottom of this post, We'll break down where this scenario misses the mark.
What would a real developer do with the incredible increase in entitlements being handed out with this code? Here's a better example, using the same "median" lot size as the City example:
 |
| "Real World" example of R4 development |
One thing to keep in mind when thinking about this code is that developers get to choose their sites to get the highest possible return on their investment. With R4 zoning, corner lots are the easisest to exploit because parking is so much easier to arrange without having to build long driveways and parking lots that were common under the old code.
We were able to design 4 highly desirable detached* condo units with private yards that would command top dollar in the market (they'd be more than $750k each on our street). We were able to leverage all of the new code's entitlement giveaways to create large luxury housing units that will replace small, more affordable existing homes that exist on the lots in our neighborhoods today, which is precisely what this code was designed to do.
 |
| Street Level view of our R4 model |
Note that as with all of our examples to date, this scenario doesn't reflect the additional height (10 more feet in this case) or other allowances that would be afforded to a developer that pays into the City's Affordable Housing fund.
For the hard-core code enthusiast, here's our breakdown of the shortcomings in the City's R4 model scenario:
Like most of the City's illustrations of the code, this one leaves a lot of money on the table that no developer or investor would be able to walk away from. Here are some of the issues:
- Parking configuration uses up too much impervious cover, which limits the building footprint
- Nearly all of the City's models show gable-roofed 2.5 story buildings, when 3-4 stories are easily achieved using flat roofs.
- In what world would a developer use only 30' of a 35' (plus exemptions) allowable height? [The 30' height noted for this City example is actually lower than most buildings built under the current code, which uses different measurement standards. We're not likely to see many gable roofs after this code is adopted.]
- In this example and in most of the others in the City's packet, there's an obvious overall effort to make the buildings look as small as possible. Gable roofs, low ceilings and what would appear to be stick-framed floors (rather than floor trusses) all work together to create the illusion of smaller scale development than what we all know will actually get built. We all know that developers/investors build to the absolute limits of their entitlements in nearly every case- why wouldn't the City's code team illustrate more realistic examples that reflect that fact?
- The units they illustrate are attached, which makes them far less desirable in the market. Condo buyers want acoustical privacy and their own yard whenever possible. The City's examples don't try to deliver what the market wants.
- They continue to mis-state the unit sizes on all of these illustrations, though they've added an asterisk note to make it more confusing. Bottom line- where they say they get 4 units that are just 1,200 sf each, the reality is the units would be over 1,800 sf and NOT affordable in way.
*(regarding our detached units) The units would be perceived by buyers to be detached, but would have a tiny connecting "roof" element that would satisfy the City's Multifamily definition. Since staff has told us in the past that our rooftop party lights were illegal "structures" so, we put our tongues in cheek and used them as the connecting element for this illustration.