Editor’s Note: This editorial reflects the opinion of Fayette County Property Valuation Administrator David O’Neill and does not reflect an endorsement from this publication of O’Neill or his opinions.
With the Urban County Council recently voting to forego expansion of the urban service boundary, city planners are now forced to look at what an infill strategy actually looks like. Photo furnished
Home prices and values are on the rise in Lexington and not likely to flatten anytime soon.
A number of influences contribute to the current housing market status, but at the forefront it’s simple economics: supply and demand. We’re not building enough houses and other housing types, and the trend worsens as you move down the income scale.
The number of new houses built each year (supply) is not keeping pace with the number we need (demand) based on a consistent 1.2 percent annual population growth. Lexington has a population of about 325,000 and an average household size of 2.2 people, approximately 60 percent of whom live in single-family detached houses. That translates to a need of almost 1,000 new houses per year – almost double the current rate of production.
The biggest factors in residential development costs and challenges – the “three Ls”: labor, lending and land – are all working against us. Area unemployment rates are low, and lending in many cases is tighter than it was before the recession – particularly with millennials who are carrying more student loan debt than previous generations. And land sells at a premium and is in limited supply partly due to our urban service boundary. The boundary has served us well in limiting sprawl since 1958, when we became the first city in the United States to import the practice from Europe.
Urban County Council recently decided to forego expansion of the boundary for now, focusing instead on an infill and redevelopment growth strategy. Simultaneously, city planners are exploring options for developing a new process to drive discussion on when and how to expand it through yet-to-be defined metrics and triggers, rather than the emotional and less efficient pattern of reigniting the process every five years with the state-mandated Comprehensive Plan update.
So, what does an infill strategy actually look like? It means an increasingly denser urban area - more humans per square foot of real estate than exists today. Infill tends to sound great in theory but can be difficult to implement because of a very real concept with a cynical sounding name: NIMBY, or “not in my back yard.” Planners and developers often cite NIMBY-ism as the biggest hurdle redevelopment projects face. In short, infill usually sounds like a better idea in somebody else’s neighborhood.
Not all organized objections are bad, and they often lead to better design in terms of green space, noise barriers, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. Ideally, neighborhood objections would prevent dramatic and rapid transformations as seen recently in Columbia Heights and the Elizabeth Street area. Both are examples of capitalism effectively and efficiently responding to the university’s past decisions to not address student housing and government doing what governments do - responding too slowly. Columbia Heights and Elizabeth Street will be neighborhood battle cries for years to come.
Another little-discussed influencer on housing supply is the fact that Americans are living longer and advances in healthcare are making it possible for seniors to remain in their homes longer. One proposed concept spearheaded by the city’s social services commission to specifically address aging-in-place – and one that seems very well suited to this new urban, shared economy – is to allow homeowners to erect a separate and independent housing unit on the same parcel of property as their primary residence, whether the second unit is for a caregiver, family member or a renter for an additional revenue stream for those on fixed incomes. There appears to be a lot of upside if implementation is done well. And fortunately, the city has a great team in place to do just that with the help of community input.
Known by many names – granny flats, mother-in-law suites, secondary suites – accessory dwelling units or “ADUs” are increasingly looked to as one contribution toward solving housing shortage issues in communities across the country. Los Angeles, for example, just OK’d ADUs after the state legislature passed enabling legislation, which took effect in 2017.
Current local regulations do not allow for a true “mother-in-law suite” because you cannot have two kitchens – defined as a sink, refrigerator and stove/oven – on the same single-family residential parcel. Those that do exist – in carriage houses, converted garages, apartments over garages, informally duplexed houses – have either found some way around the red tape or exist on the “down low,” so to speak, but they typically are not approved as part of standard building permitting and inspection processes.
Of the 80,000 single-family detached houses in Lexington, many are not well suited for an ADU. Some are too small or poorly situated on the lot. Some neighborhoods may have limitations in the form of historic or ND-1 overlays; other neighborhoods will be limited by covenants or deed restrictions. And it’s likely a flurry of new neighborhood-level restrictions will be proposed in response to ADU legislation. But the prospect of allowing for ADUs in Lexington still allows for tens of thousands of potential opportunities. Assuming reasonable regulations with respect to size, scale, design and ownership, and that the ADU will conform to existing building codes, this would be a step in the right direction with limited downsides.
To borrow a friend’s recent analogy, what homeowner would want or allow rowdy college kids to live in their back yard, leaving red Solo cups and lawn chairs on the roof every night? Let’s hope none. By requiring one of the two units – either the ADU or the principal residence – to be occupied by the property owner is probably essential to the implementation of this concept. But a variety of other restrictions and limitations are in place across the country, including height restrictions relative to the main house, minimum lot sizes, maximum coverage area on the lot, maximum square footage of the ADU, area of the ADU relative to the main house, direction the entrance faces relative to the street, etc. We can make this program as noninvasive of an introduction as we feel necessary. I encourage you to learn more about ADUs and other housing solutions, to be involved in the public input process and to join the conversation starting with a visit to www.lexingtonky.gov/imaginelexington.
1 of 2
Changing local regulations to allow for true “mother-in-law” suites in Lexington, such as the ones featured in these photos, could be a step in the right direction toward providing a solution to the current supply/demand disparity in the local housing market. Photo furnished
2 of 2
Changing local regulations to allow for true “mother-in-law” suites in Lexington, such as the ones featured in these photos, could be a step in the right direction toward providing a solution to the current supply/demand disparity in the local housing market. Photo furnished