Park City, UtahLAND MANAGEMENT CODE CHANGES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Alex Joyce | Cascadia Partners

Affordable Housing Master Planned DevelopmentWhy Audit?

Middle Income, Attainable & Affordable Housing

Housing Transportation

Energy

Driven by Complete Community Values

Park City’s commitment to 800 City & private obligation units by 2026.

Inclusive & Healthy Community.

Help Achieve Critical Council Priorities

Social Equity

Project Kick-off Site Visit / Interviews Site Plans / Proforma / Sensitivity Testing

April May June - August

Recommendations & Final Report

Sept - Oct.

Where are We? Where are we Going?

Today’s Meeting

Affordable Housing Master Planned Development (AMPD) Zoning Audit

HR1 – Historic Residential

GC – General Commercial

RC – Recreational Commercial

• Test MPD vs. Draft AMPD standards• Test standards as written, assume no

exceptions except multifamily use • 3 Sites - 3 Zones - 3 Sizes• Residential development programs• Understand influence of underlying zone standards• Quantify impact to form and finance (and affordability)• Detailed pro forma and site plan evaluation

Historic (HR1): One-Half Acre Site

Prospector (GC):2-Acre Site

Resort Adjacent (RC): 1.5-Acre Site

Study Sites

The three study sites represent different development patterns in different parts of town.

Park CityHR1 Parcel Analysis

HR1 – Historic Residential

85% of HR1 zone is 4,834sf or less

Study site is 21,875sf:16 parcels of this size or larger

2,804: median sf3,867: average sf

Park CityRC Parcel Analysis

79% of RC zone is 9,831sf or less

Study site is 65,100sf:7 parcels of this size or larger (most of these under 100,000sf)

2,312: median sf9,528: average sf

RC – Recreational Commercial

Park CityGC Parcel Analysis

62% of GC zone is 17,961sf or less(of these, 86% are less than 10,000sf)

Study site is 87,000sf:18 parcels of this size or larger

5,862: median sf23,966: average sf

GC – General Commercial

Park CityContextual: Large Format vs Small-Scale

Austin, TX Bunn Creek Apartments11.62 acres- Disconnected- Driveable

Park City, UT Retreat at The Park0.5 acres- Fits into surrounding fabric

WHO• Out of town developer• REIT

WHO• Public Entity• Local CDC• Public-Private-Partnership

=/=

AMPD Basics

• AMPD Low Bonus:• 50-60% affordable units• At 150% AMI

100% UNIT BONUS (Double the amount)

• AMPD High Bonus:• 86-100% affordable units• At <59% AMI

200% UNIT BONUS (Triple the Amount)

Cascadia Partners Test

Key Findings

• Fixed dimensional standards make shrinking unit sizes only option for achieving affordability

• AMPD projects currently incentivized to go entirely micro-unit• Parking makes achieving density bonus challenging at workforce,

impossible at deeper affordability• MPD has far lower affordability requirement – AMPD density bonus does

not appear to “bridge the gap” and be enticing for private builder • In most cases, MPD is better aligned with market in terms of allowable unit

sizing – although dimensional standards still result in very expensive units

AMPDBonus & Standards

STORIES SETBACKS BUFFER OPEN SPACE LOT COVERAGE

PARKINGPER UNIT

Unable to Change Building Footprint as Unit Count Grows

Consider allowing more building footprint in AMPD

10 units844sf Single-Family Footprint1519sf Duplex Footprint

20 units844sf Duplex Footprint1519sf Fourplex Footprint

HR1 - MPD HR1 - AMPD

Density Bonus + No Change in Building Size = Unit Sizes Cut in Half- Results in Micro-unit Projects

• With max building footprint standard still applying in AMPD, the only way to fit additional affordable units is to shrink unit square footage or include fewer units.

• Shrinking units results in all micro-units suitable only for 1 person households.

AMPD - Observations

High Open Space Requirement- Land is Expensive, Raising Housing Costs

• Unit prices must absorb entire amount of site not in building footprint, sometimes upwards of 73%.

• Non-building area land cost = >$5 million

Plan View

30-40%

30-40%

30-40%

30-40%

MPD - Observations

40%

*Unless using Conditional Use Permit

More Parking Area than Housing Area- Limits Units, Raises Land and Unit Costs

• In some scenarios there was more parking area than building footprint

• 23% parking and circulation• 19% building footprint

• Cost of parking is bundled into sales/rent prices

• Unbundled parking can be more flexible and respond to varied household needs

Image via Tony Jordan: Portlanders for Parking Reform

MPD - Observations

*9’x18’ is Park City standard parking stall dimensions

MPD - ObservationsMax Building Footprint Standards Favor Small Lot Subdivision- More Building Area, but Still Restrictive for Multifamily

• Max building footprint favors small lots and incents subdividing large lots

• Max building footprint on small lots is restrictive

• Favors single family & duplex unit types• Different unit types allowed with conditional use

but no additional footprint

1 Big Lot 5 Small LotsMax Footprint Allowed: 7,764 sf

Max Footprint Allowed: 3,200 sf

*Unless using Conditional Use Permit

MPD Base Case Allowance: 10 units, 10 parking spaces

9’x18’(162 sf)

Fixed Size of Standard Parking Space

MPD10 Homes

AMPD - Observations

AMPD Doubles Allowable Units

9’x18’(162 sf)

Fixed Size of Standard Parking Space

AMPD20 Homes

AMPD - Observations

But Double the Units = Double the Parking Spaces

9’x18’(162 sf)

Fixed Size of Standard Parking Space

AMPD20 Homes

AMPD - Observations

*Assuming Unit Sizes under 1,000sf

Parking Grows as Unit Count Grows

May consider change to parking requirements

78 units78 parking spaces18,000sf of parking

120 micro-units110 parking spaces21,600sf of parking

GC - MPD GC - AMPD

Can’t fit all our bonus units because parking keeps growing

Sensitivity TestingStandards to Evaluate

• Height • Setbacks• Buffer• Open Space Requirement• Lot Coverage (footprint calculation)• Reduced Parking

Turn Dials&

Measure Effects

Sensitivity TestingProposed AMPD Code

STORIES SETBACKS BUFFER OPEN SPACE LOT COVERAGE

ADDITIONALHOMES

FUNDING GAP(% of project cost)

0

100%

200%

5

10

PARKINGPER UNIT

0%0

50%

100% 1:1

1.5:1

0:1

0.5:1

-50%

-100%

0%0

50%

100%

Sensitivity TestingRecommended AMPD

ADDITIONALHOMES

0%

100%

200%

STORIES SETBACKS BUFFER OPEN SPACE LOT COVERAGE

0

5

10

PARKINGPER UNIT

0

50%

100% 1:1

1.5:1

0:1

0.5:1

0’

10’

25’

-50%

-100%

0%0

50%

100%

FUNDING GAP(% of project cost)

Preliminary RecommendationsAMPD Standards

• Height• Consider allowing additional height for bonus

units where appropriate

• Setbacks• Keep consistent within zone• Use consistent setbacks within master planned

area

• Buffer / Increased Setbacks• Eliminate any buffers for MPD or AMPD in all

zones.• Focus on transitions instead

• Open Space Requirement• Reduce to 15% for AMPD projects• Desire for well-defined useable open space

• Lot Coverage (building footprint calculation)

• Allow increased lot coverage for AMPD (50%)• Remove 3500sf footprint limitation in RC zone

• Parking• Continue10 space reduction in AMPD + 0.5

spaces per unit for bonus units.• Allow adjacent on-street to count to allow for

flexibility in conjunction with residential permit parking program.

SummaryAMPD Standards

• Large financial gap with proposed AMPD Standards

• Adjusting the standards made it better

• Still have some way to go, particularly for scenarios with higher numbers and deeper levels of affordability.