Twin Homes and "IZ-free" Zones

Last night during the plan commission meeting we considered the ordinance that would address Twin Homes and "IZ-free" Zones. During the meeting I attempted a re-write of the ordinance based on the discussion at the plan commission and with the understanding that we would eliminate the point system. What follows is the memo I wrote the plan commission and staff last night/this morning.

As I noted last night at the plan commission, during the meeting I attempted a version of what the ordinance might look like based on some of our discussion at the meeting in case I wanted to make a motion to change the language. Here’s what I came up with on the fly:

i. Reservation of up to 20% of the total floor area within an attached-unit development for non-inclusionary dwelling unit designation. Any floor area reserved shall be for contiguous dwelling units and may include dwelling units on more than one floor. (This provision is intended to provide for a 20% “IZ-free” zone for attached housing. It allows the “IZ-free” zone to be on multiple floors.)

j. Reservation of up to 20% of the developable residential area within a development of single-family homes for non-inclusionary dwelling unit designation. (This provision is intended to provide for a 20% “IZ-free” zone for projects than have only detached/single-family housing. At this point, I have not included language about the units having to be contiguous or if all 20% has to be in one area.)

k. In single family detached housing developments, up to 50% of the inclusionary zoning units may be attached housing but no more than x% of the developable residential area may be designated to be a non-inclusionary dwelling unit area. If attached units are provided in buildings with 5 - 8 units, no more than half of the units in any one building may be designated to be inclusionary dwelling units. If the attached units are provided in building with more than 8 units, no more than 25% of the units in any one building may be designated to be inclusionary dwelling units. (This provision is intended to allow that in detached/single-family projects, up to half of the required IZ units can be in attached housing instead of single family homes. I have put language in to limit how large the “IZ-free” zones will be, but need further information to provide a recommendation for the specific percentage. This provision does not indicate how many units the buildings with the IZ units may have, except that it limits larger buildings from being 100% IZ projects.)

Note: Need to change (g)3. as follows:

Notwithstanding incentives provided through 28.04(25)(d)4.k. T the proportion of attached and detached units shall be similar for inclusionary and market rate dwelling units and shall be consistent with the Inclusionary Dwelling Unit Plan. (This provision allows for an exception to the requirement in the ordinance that says that detached and attached housing must be proportional. This exception is only for single family projects that choose to have attached housing under the new language allowing them to provide up to 50% units in attached housing instead of single family homes.)

To address concerns about what the attached units look like, remember that the provision in (g)2. remains and requires that:

The exterior appearance of the inclusionary dwelling units shall be similar in general style to the market rate dwelling units, consistent with the Inclusionary Dwelling Unit Plan.

In other words, the attached housing is going to have to look like single family homes.

A final note, how we will calculate an “IZ-free” zone area needs further discussion.