Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
What are the benefits of a regulatory framework that promotes sustainable and equitable development?
| Developers interested in building at a higher density near transit and other location-efficient areas often face a number of regulatory obstacles, including restrictions on density or the ability to mix retail and residential development and unrealistic and unnecessary parking requirements. Local governments can waive requirements on a case-by-case basis -- for example, a zoning appeals board may grant a special permit to reduce the number of required parking spots for senior housing or a transitional housing development or issue a zoning variance to allow higher-density or mixed-use development on an appropriate lot. These property-level adjustments can play an important role in promoting sustainable and equitable development. However, case-by-case adjustments are expensive for the locality and reduce predictability for developers, dampening the potential for the larger-scale changes that can help transform a neighborhood. |  Photo Credit Fred Wilson, Courtesy of Multnomah County Library |
Ideally, standards and requirements for new development and redevelopment would be regulated on a larger scale -- at the community or, in the case of transit-oriented development, the corridor or regional level. Even modest adjustments to the underlying regulatory framework can help to make individual projects more feasible, and these changes can make the difference in whether an affordable housing project pencils out. Establishing a regulatory framework that aligns with location-efficient, sustainable development priorities may require the adoption of new programs or amendments to existing policies and ordinances. These changes may initially be more challenging to implement than adjustments for individual parcels, but over the long term, adoption of a comprehensive community-wide approach creates a clear vision for the direction of future development and provides greater predictability for developers, facilitating the changes the community desires.
What problems does regulatory reform solve?
The introduction of a new transit station can radically transform a neighborhood, as can reinvestment that promotes better access to existing transit hubs or other local amenities. In many metropolitan areas, private developers will eagerly respond to market opportunities created by this new investment. The tools described in this section help to remove obstacles to the successful creation of location-efficient neighborhoods, as well as to the creation or preservation of homes in these neighborhoods that are affordable to families at all income levels. For example, updated rehab codes that enable property owners to redevelop vacant and deteriorating properties at a reasonable cost (a) promote re-investment in existing neighborhoods by removing barriers for developers who might otherwise pursue greenfield projects in outlying areas, and (b) increase the likelihood mission-driven or non-profit developers can pursue these rehab opportunities to create or preserve affordable homes.
Where are regulatory changes most applicable?
Some of the reforms described in this section can be applied across an entire metro area, while others work best when limited to specific areas close to public transit stations. A reform like lowering the number of off-street parking spots required to be provided by new developments in order to reduce the costs of producing new housing may make sense only in areas with robust bus or train service where families make more of their trips using public transit. On the other hand, vacant and abandoned properties can be found in all neighborhoods, and streamlining processes for the redevelopment of these homes can help to stabilize residential neighborhoods throughout the metro area as well as revitalize neighborhoods near transit and in village and town centers.
 Learn more about creating a supportive regulatory framework Go back to learn about other ways to promote sustainable and equitable development |
On its own, no single policy or program will address all of the challenges associated with creating a healthy, walkable neighborhood with a mix of uses and housing opportunities for families at all income levels. Other sections in this guide cover strategies to set the stage for sustainable and equitable development through land use policies and value capture mechanisms. This section describes a series of regulatory reforms that help to remove obstacles to the development of location-efficient affordable homes.
| Click on the links below to learn more about tools to: Allow mixed-use development as-of-right "As-of-right" development may proceed without the need to gain additional approvals or zoning variances, helping to streamline processes for developers.  Reduce parking requirements An over-generous supply of parking can make it more difficult to build on infill sites, provide on-site amenities, and deliver affordable homes. Revise impact fee structures for infill development Impact fees help to cover the cost of infrastructure required to serve new residents. Existing neighborhoods may already have adequate sewers, roadways, and public facilities to meet the projected demand. Facilitate development with expedited permitting and review processes The time and "soft costs" associated with permitting and reviewing processes can make it difficult for nonprofit and mission-drive developers to deliver affordable homes. Some communities expedite these processes for projects that meet certain criteria. An additional regulatory reform -- increasing residential density in appropriate places and appropriate ways -- is covered in a separate section. |
| Revise Rehab Codes to Ease the Redevelopment Process In addition to the strategies discussed in this section, local communities may wish to revisit the portion of the building code that addresses rehabilitation of older buildings. The requirements in the code may call for additional renovations that do not contribute substantially to resident safety but significantly increase costs, creating a disincentive to the restoration of modernization of existing structures. In some cases, restrictive rehab codes may result in the loss of existing affordable homes, as older properties are left to deteriorate and eventually become uninhabitable. With a balanced rehab code in place, however, local jurisdictions will be better-positioned to promote redevelopment in existing urban areas, including neighborhoods adjacent to public transit. Learn more about rehab codes. |
Goal: Promote Sustainable and Equitable Development
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Allow Mixed-Use Development As-of-Right
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Allow Mixed-Use Development As-of-Right
Historically, zoning codes were created to separate in different parts of the metropolitan area "incompatible" uses, such as stockyards and housing or factories and shops. While production techniques have changed and the U.S. economy has evolved, this system -- known as Euclidean zoning -- has remained in place in many communities, meaning that residents need to travel farther to access stores, schools, and other amenities that could easily sit next to residential development without compromising the health and safety of workers or residents. No longer undesirable, today the inclusion of residential uses in commercial districts (or vice versa) may appeal to residents in both high-end neighborhoods, who want the convenience of amenities at their doorstep, and in revitalizing areas, where mixed-use development can improve vitality and street-level activity and create a walkable neighborhood that attracts new residents.
Learn more about planned unit developments and overlay zones, two tools that may be used to create mixed-use districts, or click here to learn more about mixed-use development in general.
| Transit-oriented development typologies In a 2006 report, Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs, the organization Good Jobs First identifies three major types of transit-oriented development, each of which may work best depending on the community context. | |
Courtesy of Urban Land Institute Development Case Studies |
|
| While the third category makes sense in characterizing public investments in transit-oriented developments, it is important to note that affordable housing is an important component of all three types of transit-oriented development. Without public involvement and support, transit-oriented development will frequently cater exclusively to higher-income families. | |
| You are currently reading: Allow mixed-use development as-of-right "As-of-right" development may proceed without the need to gain additional approvals or zoning variances, helping to streamline processes for developers. Other pages in this section: Reduce parking requirements An over-generous supply of parking can make it more difficult to build on infill sites, provide on-site amenities, and deliver affordable homes. Revise impact fee structures for infill development Impact fees help to cover the cost of infrastructure required to serve new residents. Existing neighborhoods may already have adequate sewers, roadways, and public facilities to meet the projected demand. Facilitate development with expedited permitting and review processes The time and "soft costs" associated with permitting and reviewing processes can make it difficult for nonprofit and mission-drive developers to deliver affordable homes. Some communities expedite these processes for projects that meet certain criteria. |
Goal: Promote Sustainable and Equitable Development
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Reduce Parking Requirements
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Reduce Parking Requirements
Local parking requirements for residential developments and other uses tend to be determined by activity type or land use -- for example, Sacramento's zoning code requires that beauty shops provide one space per 250 gross square feet; banks, one space per 400 gross square feet; bowling alleys, six spaces per lane. A 2008 report by Robert Cervero and colleagues, however, provides evidence that transit-oriented development generates less traffic, and requires fewer parking spaces, than conventional development. [1]
In areas well-served by transit, parking requirements established strictly on a functional basis may overstate demand and overestimate residents' rates of car ownership. Parking requirements that have been set too high create several problems. Providing the excess spaces: (a) increases the cost of development, making it difficult to deliver affordable homes; (b) takes up space that could be used for other on-site amenities, such as childcare facilities or medical clinics; (c) reduces the feasibility of infill development on small parcels where parking requirements cannot be satisfied; and (d) undermines a neighborhood's walkability. In extreme cases, excessive parking requirements may result in sprawling development patterns, wherein individual buildings are separated by large parking lots that are not pedestrian-friendly. Fortunately, localities have several options for designing a more equitable and responsive parking policy.
Photo courtesy of www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden | Click on the links to learn more about approaches for reducing parking requirements: Adjust parking requirements for specific uses and locations Set maximum parking requirements, rather than minimums Allow joint parking facilities |
| You are currently reading: Reduce parking requirements An over-generous supply of parking can make it more difficult to build on infill sites, provide on-site amenities, and deliver affordable homes. Other pages in this section: Allow mixed-use development as-of-right "As-of-right" development may proceed without the need to gain additional approvals or zoning variances, helping to streamline processes for developers. Revise impact fee structures for infill development Impact fees help to cover the cost of infrastructure required to serve new residents. Existing neighborhoods may already have adequate sewers, roadways, and public facilities to meet the projected demand. Facilitate development with expedited permitting and review processes The time and "soft costs" associated with permitting and reviewing processes can make it difficult for nonprofit and mission-drive developers to deliver affordable homes. Some communities expedite these processes for projects that meet certain criteria. |
Adjust parking requirements for specific uses and locations At a minimum, communities interested in creating a more balanced parking policy can reduce the number of spaces required in areas within walking distance of robust public transit service. The City of Seattle, for example, requires a minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit for multifamily developments; however, this requirement is waived for multifamily buildings located within one-quarter of a mile of a transit stop with frequent service. Similarly, residents of certain types of multifamily properties often have lower car ownership rates and require fewer parking spaces. Tenants in transitional housing developments, for example, or residents of affordable senior housing projects often will not need the same number of parking spaces as similarly-sized market-rate family developments. In addition to adjusting parking requirements for different districts, Seattle also reduces parking requirements for affordable housing, senior housing, and housing intended for people with disabilities. Deed restrictions or other use restrictions attached to the properties, which provide a long-term guarantee that the property will continue to be used for the same purpose, can help to alleviate neighbors' concerns about future uses and potential increases in demand for parking. [2] Back to top | Replacement parking in joint development projects Image courtesy of ULI Development Case Studies "Joint development" projects enable local transit agencies to partner with private entities to develop agency-owned land near transit stations for residential, commercial, or other uses. In many cases, these projects replace old surface parking lots, and some interpretations of Federal Transit Agency (FTA) guidance on joint development require one-for-one replacement of the commuter parking spaces. The cost of developing structured parking to accommodate replacement spaces and accommodate the parking needs of new residents can be prohibitive for many developers; moreover, by providing enhanced transit service at the site, one-for-one replacement of parking spaces is often unnecessary. Some transit agencies have started to work with the FTA to introduce flexibility in joint development requirements. Learn more about joint development |
| Set maximum parking requirements, rather than minimums Most zoning codes establish minimum parking requirements -- a developer must provide at least one parking space for every bedroom in a new apartment building; a medical office must have at least one space per 250 square feet, etc. Rather than establishing minimum requirements, however, some communities have adopted parking maximums, which place a ceiling on the number of parking spaces that may be provided within specified districts; typically, mixed-use neighborhoods well-served by public transit. San Leandro, CA has set maximum parking requirements within its downtown TOD zone, for example, establishing a ceiling of one space per unit of new affordable housing; similar policies have been adopted in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA. [3] View examples of other communities that have adopted parking maximums. Back to top Allow joint parking facilities Joint parking agreements enable commercial, residential, and other types of developments to meet their parking obligations in a shared off-site structure. Parking demand for different activities varies over the course of the day and week -- for example, parking needs at churches may peak on Sunday mornings, while nearby offices may require parking during the workweek only. Similarly, even in mixed-use neighborhoods with access to transit, some residents may use personal vehicles to commute to workplaces in other parts of the metro area, while workers may drive in to the same neighborhoods and need parking during business hours. Through amendments to the zoning code (ideally) or by issuing special permits on a case-by-case basis, communities can allow developers and property owners to jointly fulfill their parking requirements through shared off-site parking. Click here [PDF] to view a proposed amendment to Berkeley, California's Municipal Code allowing joint parking; click here [PDF] to see a sample joint parking agreement from Arlington, Texas. | Unbundling the cost of parking from housing In many developments, one or more parking spaces are included when a new resident rents or purchases a unit, so residents are essentially forced to pay for parking even if they don't use it. The separation or "unbundling" of housing and parking can save residents money, reduce the amount of parking required by creating incentives for residents to use fewer spaces, and indirectly promote the use of public transit. In its Sustainable Transportation toolkit, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council lists several ways that parking may be separated from housing costs, including:
|
Back to top
[1] Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel [PDF] 2008. By Robert Cervero et al. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128.
[2] Tools for Mixed-Income TOD [PDF] 2006. By Douglas Shoemaker. Washington, DC: Center for Transit-Oriented Development, p. 8.
[3] Maintaining Diversity in America's Transit-Rich Neighborhoods [PDF], Chapter 4. Boston, MA: Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, p. 35.
Goal: Promote Sustainable and Equitable Development
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Revise Impact Fee Structures for Infill Development
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Revise Impact Fee Structures for Infill Development
Many communities use impact fees to ensure that new development "pays for itself." Commonly levied on the developers of new homes, impact fees can range from a low of a few hundred dollars to a high of hundreds of thousands of dollars per home. Revenue collected from the fees is used to cover the initial cost of extending water, sewer, roads, and other public services infrastructure to new homes, as well as to build facilities necessitated by the new development, such as fire stations and schools.
Local communities typically engage in an extensive planning and analysis process to
| determine which facilities impact fees should be adopted for, the amounts at which fees should be set, and to ensure the new fees are legally defensible. In many cases, this process results in the adoption of impact fee schedules that are uniformly applied to neighborhoods across the entire jurisdiction. Provided that impact fees meet legal criteria, however, localities have some degree of flexibility in structuring fee schedules, and can use this authority to help encourage new development activity in targeted areas that includes affordable homes. Uniform impact fee policies, while relatively simple to administer, can often be refined to more accurately reflect the actual cost of development. New construction in outlying areas, for example, often requires the extension of new roads and sewer lines, construction of fire or police stations to serve new demand, and other public services as determined by the community. In contrast, infill development and redevelopment in already-urbanized areas may only require capital improvements to existing facilities (rather than the more expensive construction of new facilities) or, in areas with excess service capacity, may not require any new infrastructure investments at all. By definition, infill development areas will be located in neighborhoods that already have basic infrastructure in place; redevelopment projects may be in areas that have excess public service capacity -- in both cases, requirements for new infrastructure investments will be lower than in Greenfield development. To recognize this differential impact, and encourage investment in already-developed areas, some communities establish special infill or redevelopment service areas where impact fees are reduced or waived. | Additional resources on impact fees include:
|
By varying impact fees, communities not only promote location-efficient development, but also help to enable the creation of new affordable homes in redeveloping areas. Mission-driven and non-profit developers often operate on very narrow cost margins, and the reduction in impact fee levels can have a substantial impact on a project’s feasibility. Cost reductions can be dramatic; in the Town of Bridgeville, Delaware, for example, the minimum charge for residential sewer service in infill areas is $1,080 per dwelling unit, compared with $7,500 for non-infill residential areas; the minimum residential charge for water service in infill areas is $750 compared with $2,500 in non-infill areas. (Infill lots are defined as existing, undeveloped lots within the limits of the Town as of October 2002.)
In many areas, eligibility for reduced impact fees may not be sufficient incentive all by itself to drive new development to infill and redevelopment areas. Paired with other changes to the regulatory framework outlined in this section, however, equitable impact fees based on available infrastructure and services can be an important part of a regulatory framework that supports sustainable, location-efficient development. Learn more about how impact fees can be structured to support development of affordable homes.
| You are reading: Revise impact fee structures for infill development Impact fees help to cover the cost of infrastructure required to serve new residents. Existing neighborhoods may already have adequate sewers, roadways, and public facilities to meet the projected demand. Other pages in this section: Allow mixed-use development as-of-right "As-of-right" development may proceed without the need to gain additional approvals or zoning variances, helping to streamline processes for developers. Reduce parking requirements An over-generous supply of parking can make it more difficult to build on infill sites, provide on-site amenities, and deliver affordable homes. Facilitate development with expedited permitting and review processes The time and "soft costs" associated with permitting and reviewing processes can make it difficult for nonprofit and mission-drive developers to deliver affordable homes. Some communities expedite these processes for projects that meet certain criteria. |
Goal: Promote Sustainable and Equitable Development
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Facilitate Development with Expedited Permitting and Review Processes
Policy: Create a Supportive Regulatory Framework
Facilitate Development with Expedited Permitting and Review Processes
Even when development proceeds "as of right," complicated and lengthy review and approvals processes can extend the development timeline, tying up developers' capital, pushing up soft costs, and making affordable homes more difficult deliver. These processes can be compounded for transit-oriented or infill development, which often necessitates a farther-reaching approvals process -- especially if the proposed development is sited on a lot previously used for industrial purposes.
To prevent the approvals and review processes from posing an obstacle to location-efficient development, some communities fast-track qualifying developments, including affordable, transit-oriented homes. According to a report from Reconnecting America, for example, proposed developments that conform to provisions laid out in the Transit District Development Plan for the area around Maryland's West Hyattsville Metrorail station qualify for an expedited review process. Other communities work to remove duplicative requirements, so that an environmental review completed for one agency will satisfy requirements for all relevant departments.
Learn more about how expedited permitting and review processes can be used to facilitate delivery of affordable homes.
| You are currently reading: Facilitate development with expedited permitting and review processes The time and "soft costs" associated with permitting and reviewing processes can make it difficult for nonprofit and mission-drive developers to deliver affordable homes. Some communities expedite these processes for projects that meet certain criteria. Other pages in this section: Allow mixed-use development as-of-right "As-of-right" development may proceed without the need to gain additional approvals or zoning variances, helping to streamline processes for developers. Reduce parking requirements An over-generous supply of parking can make it more difficult to build on infill sites, provide on-site amenities, and deliver affordable homes. Revise impact fee structures for infill development Impact fees help to cover the cost of infrastructure required to serve new residents. Existing neighborhoods may already have adequate sewers, roadways, and public facilities to meet the projected demand. |