Just saw a survey by Zillow about how people of all ages and backgrounds have generally positive feelings about missing middle housing, even in predominantly single-family neighborhoods and among older homeowners. Here’s a couple of interesting quotes from the survey report:
There is broad support to allow accessory dwelling units, duplexes and triplexes in residential neighborhoods, according to a new Zillow survey covering 26 U.S. metro areas, many of which are struggling with housing affordability. A clear majority of homeowners surveyed (73%) voiced support for at least one of these “modest densification” options, and support was higher among renters (84%).
Across the 26 metro areas Zillow surveyed, residents were more likely to support allowing accessory dwelling units (69% supported versus 23% opposed) and duplexes and triplexes (61% supported versus 31% opposed) in every single metro.
When asked about the impact that duplexes, triplexes and small/medium apartment buildings would have on the availability of affordable housing options, about two-thirds of respondents said that duplexes/triplexes (67%) and small/medium apartment buildings (68%) would have a positive impact…, (but) homeowners revealed a much larger, 15-point gap: 63% said allowing small/medium apartment buildings would have a positive impact on affordability, while only 48% agreed they would support apartment construction in their neighborhood.
All this reminded me of a recent rezoning attempt in a single-family neighborhood in Kaysville, where I serve on the Planning Commission. I think it is maybe indicative of some of the evolving attitudes of residents, particularly homeowners, about “gentle” increases in density and housing styles. This is a single anecdote so it may be a stretch to say this is a trend, but if the Zillow survey is any indication, maybe not.
The property proposed for rezone was a half acre located on the corner of the intersection of a subdivision street with the busy Main Street (a UDOT collector road, with Davis High School right across the street). The property had been used for some time as a community garden, allowed by the prior property owners, but a new owner purchased the property and sought a rezone to allow for the construction of 6-8 townhomes. The existing residential zoning would allow for three homes on the property. At the Planning Commission hearing on the proposed rezone, the expected usual concerns and opposition were expressed by the residents of the adjacent single-family neighborhood.
After the public comments, during discussion by the PC members, it was pointed out that a rezone from single-family to R-2 zoning would allow for the construction of three duplexes on the property, which would be about the same number of units as those sought by the applicant, but more of a single-family home character than the townhouses would be (it was later pointed out that a similar result could be achieved through approval of a conditional use for twin homes under the existing zoning). Either way, there could be more units provided, and the character of the neighborhood essentially maintained. Several residents came up during the public comment portion of the meeting later and expressed their willingness to support such an outcome rather than having townhomes built. The matter was tabled to allow for further discussion with the applicant by staff, and for the applicant to have some discussions with neighborhood residents. Ultimately, the applicant chose to pursue the original rezoning request. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request along with a development agreement that would have design and parking requirements beyond what would normally be required under just a straight rezone.
When the matter went before the city council, the residents were there again in force to opposed the rezone as proposed. A couple of council members mentioned that they had heard about the previous discussions about duplexes or twin homes and wondered why that had not moved forward. In the end, the council denied the rezone request.
Given what was just pointed out in the Zillow survey, this ultimate outcome was probably not a surprise. But it seems that the door may be open for more “missing middle” type development, even in single-family neighborhoods, as seemed to have been the case in this rezone story. Something worth considering. This may be a way to increase the number of badly needed housing units in our communities, at least to some degree. Which is better than nothing!