Housing units going in near First and Fort Lowell in Tucson, July 2018.
A new report commissioned by the Tucson City Council warns that zoning changes alone won’t be enough for the city to meet the goals of a new state housing law aimed at encouraging denser, more affordable development.
Last May, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed Arizona House Bill 2721, which requires cities with more than 75,000 residents to allow "middle housing"—such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes—within one mile of their downtowns. Cities that don’t comply by January 2026 will have to allow such housing citywide.
According to the National League of Cities, middle housing like townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalows are in a critical shortage because zoning codes have prioritized single-family homes since the 1940s.
The new law, and short timeline, raise two questions; what changes, and where will they happen?
A study by the University of Arizona’s Drachman Institute explores two options; the first is a “minimum compliance” strategy, which would allow for up to four units on a lot, but keep the existing development regulations for single-family homes.
According to the report, the first option makes it hard to add more homes without tearing down what's already there, limits space for yards or outdoor areas, and makes building two-story units difficult.
The second option would also allow for up to four units on a lot, but with shifts in the code that attempt to make developing three- and four-unit complexes easier.
According to study leaders Bill Mackey and Greg Veitch, duplexes face a relatively easy approval process, but under Tucson’s current regulations, developments with three or more units are treated more like commercial projects.
“When you have three units on a lot, commercial standards kick in, which means you need all sorts of development standards that are different, including landscape, trash access, and more restrictive setbacks, you need a development package, et cetera,” said Veitch.
A setback is the distance between a wall of a house and the property line.
Measurements are currently calculated at two-thirds the height of the building, usually at a minimum of six feet or more.
“So if you have a 12 foot high wall, you have to be eight feet away from the property line, so it’s just a ratio. We said, get rid of that, and just make it five feet,” said Mackey.
With smaller setback requirements, neighborhoods in the defined area would be able to build multi-unit buildings in what is currently the footprint for a single family home.
By essentially changing the definition of a commercial lot to five units or more, the code adjustment also has the potential to shorten the approval process for three and four unit developments.
Mackey said the current wait times are turning developers off of building middle housing beyond duplexes.
“The development team says, ‘Well, you know, actually it's probably going to be somewhere between six months to a year to get the permit, and the investors are like, ‘I'm sorry, I'm not that interested,’” he said.
The study also recommends decreasing parking requirements and allowing for street parking in triplexes and fourplexes.
In a simulated Tucson neighborhood, the option that changed the parking and setback requirements for single family residences allowed for more units in the same amount of space, and other environmental benefits.
“Also higher quality outdoor spaces, so that creates more ability for shaded covered parking, it creates better outdoor space for passive water harvesting, for shade trees. It creates greater potential for privacy for residents, depending on where you put the windows,” Veitch said.
However, zoning codes are not the only obstacle in the way of more diverse housing.
Crucially, the report warns that with the current costs of property, construction, taxes, and operating costs, small scale developments do not provide return on investment.
“A developer will lose somewhere between $4,000 to $24,000 annually. It just doesn’t pay,” the report reads. “The relationship with construction cost, operating cost, and income needs to change radically for any zoning modification to have an impact in the city.”
The report also warns of pushback from people who already live in the proposed locations, which host many of Tucson’s historic neighborhoods.
Historic Preservation Zones and Neighborhood Preservation Zones already have lengthy approval processes in place to ensure any new developments match the neighborhood’s character, and according to the report, already deter development.
“The neighborhood organizations and the historic preservation communities I think would definitely have a hard time really removing single family zoning,” Mackey said.
The crucial question of where the city will draw the boundaries will remain unanswered, in part because the House Bill does not define “central business district,” and the city council voted unanimously at the April 23 meeting to bring the entire report to the public for feedback before discussing it further.
There are currently three scheduled public meetings to discuss the Drachman Institute report starting May 22nd.
By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.