Chapter 5: Conclusion/Recommendations
The real estate database search revealed the scope of the non-permitted dwelling unit problem in Olympia, Washington, with proportionately similar results as Martin John Brown’s study in Portland, Oregon. Although 7 cases inside of Olympia city limits does not reveal conclusive evidence, the research methodology was quite conservative, as it only includes properties on the market over a three year period, 2008 to 2010. To gain a larger sample population more years of real estate data could be used, or a larger study area. The only problem with a larger sample size is it stretches into different jurisdictions, which all have different zoning codes. This study specifically focuses on the City of Olympia zoning code, but a more thorough investigation of Thurston County seems important due to the large number of non-permitted secondary dwellings located in the sample population. Although the Olympia sample population was small, 5 out of 7 homes listing descriptions and pictures of an ADU on the North West Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) database are not concerned with permitting. The bold disregard for the permitting process demonstrates the disconnect of regulation from reality.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Revision:
Making codes easy to navigate, and the permitting process clear and simple yields the maximum number of permits issued. Recommendations have arisen from the case study examples in the literature review and the investigative interviews. These recommendations have two facets. One issue lies with ADU permitting efficiency; in what ways could the ADU protocol change to be more streamlined? The other side of the issue lies with the need for an Accessory Structure zoning code classification for dwelling units.
The ADU zoning code could be altered in several ways to increase the number of permits issued. The actual code can be amended, protocol for permitting can change, and incentives programs can encourage development. If the code were to be amended the most significant change, based on the interview with Todd Stamm, Planning Manager for the City of Olympia, is the current necessity of the ADU owner to live on the property. This provision significantly hinders the development of more ADUs. It was added in the 2nd revision of the code from the late 1990’s. Todd reiterated that this is the only place in all of the city code that the specification between owner and renter is made. Repealing this requirement is the most pertinent way to increase the number of structures permitted based on the experience of a Planning Manager.
Eli Spevak supports and agrees that the Owner Occupancy Requirement causes unnecessary barriers to permitting an ADU. A huge increase in ADU development has never been documented in any city. Based on other city’s experiences, there is no reason to expect ADU development will increase at a rate beyond the acceptance of the city ethos.
There are numerous other code changes that would be beneficial, including reducing parking requirements, and more flexible design standards. A re-evaluation of the City of Olympia ADU code requirements would be a great starting point for revising the ADU program. Significant public outreach through Imagine Olympia is already happening. Imagine Olympia is a public forum that focuses on re-writing Olympia’s Comprehensive plan for 2013. This event provides a convenient driver for an evaluation of the current ADU code.
Another necessary change is a streamlined ADU protocol. Having city staff work to streamline their process for ease of the citizens would significantly increase compliance with the code. The use of an ADU manual, replicating Santa Cruz’s ADU model is highly recommended. This manual should cover all aspects of what it takes to design, fund, build and rent an ADU in the City of Olympia. Along with the ADU manual the City of Santa Cruz also offers a pre-approved design booklet. This booklet has pre-approved architectural and engineering plans for ADU designs that fit the aesthetic and cultural influences of the city. The pre-approved plan book significantly reduces the cost of constructing an ADU and ensure positive aesthetic results.
An incentives program encouraging development of ADUs is highly recommended and some key incentives to consider are:
1. A moratorium on impact fees:
The City of Portland recently enacted a three year moratorium on impact fees for ADUs. This technique removes financial restrictions of the permitting process and gets citizens and contractors aware and familiar with the permitting protocol while it is free. The best way to increase the awareness of a streamlined ADU program is to waive impact fees and encourage investors with incentives.
2. Backing an ADU loan program with a local bank:
One identified obstacle to advancing housing options is funding for new housing options. Banks are reluctant to fund new housing options due to lack of proven return on investment, so the City of Olympia can identify funds to support an ADU loan program with a community bank for a short period of time. The City would guarantee all loans for ADUs, to reduce the risk for banks lending money to homeowners constructing ADUs. Santa Cruz backed their loan program for four years and after that four year period the bank was able to maintain the loan through proven protocol success.
3. Public Outreach Program:
One identified obstacle to advancing housing options is funding for new housing options. Banks are reluctant to fund new housing options due to lack of proven return on investment, so the City of Olympia can identify funds to support an ADU loan program with a community bank for a short period of time. The City would guarantee all loans for ADUs, to reduce the risk for banks lending money to homeowners constructing ADUs. Santa Cruz backed their loan program for four years and after that four year period the bank was able to maintain the loan through proven protocol success.
3. Public Outreach Program:
Todd Stamm mentioned one of the biggest problems for permitting ADUs is the paranoia factor. Because citizens do not understand the coding, they imagine that they cannot permit what they are building. This fear feeds from their lack of knowledge of the law. In order to quell the irrational fear of the permitting process a public outreach campaign is necessary. According to Nathaniel Taylor Hickey “simple increases in awareness have a strong effect on overall conversion rates” (55). This has proven successful in various other cities, most notably Santa Cruz, California (see literature review).
Accessory Structure Revision:
Accessory Structure Revision:
The other issue revealed by the research methods was the lack of clarity in the Accessory Structure zoning code, in the case of dwelling units. Accessory Structure building permits are being used to permit detached dwelling units in Olympia, WA. However, Olympia zoning regulation for Accessory Structures does not include defined standards for Accessory Structure dwelling units. City of Olympia Officials are forced to use discretion to classify dwelling units without kitchens and under 800 square feet as permitted Accessory Structure dwellings. The zoning regulation for Accessory Structures needs a classification of standards for Accessory Structure dwelling units, in order to avoid confusing citizens and officials when interpreting the zoning regulations.
According to Tom Hill it is difficult to distinguish a kitchen and it is not his priority to discover. There are no standards for classifying a kitchen. If a citizen were to read the code they would have no way to interpret this. Mr. Hill does not have a vested interest in investigating to see if occupants of a dwelling have a microwave and a toaster oven. Mr. Hill’s ethos is respected and appreciated, but the concern that arises is he will not be the City of Olympia Building Official forever. As the opinions of the individual in the position changes, so shall the interpretation of the law. While there is a consensus for the protocol of Accessory Structure dwelling units, it makes sense for the City to make the necessary steps to establish zoning code.
It remains very difficult for citizens to understand the protocol that the City Officials are following. It is especially difficult to navigate this zoning code as a novice because it refrains from mentioning dwelling units in the code. There is a significant barrier between expert and citizen.The City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan uses language that supports infill, small scale development, however onerous ADU codes have resulted in relatively few permits issued for ADUs since the ordinance was passed in 1995. A revision in the zoning code for Accessory Structures might help increase the number of permitted Accessory Structure dwellings. This would also allow for more accurate documentation of existing dwelling units and better understanding of the actual density capacity of the City of Olympia.
It is important to note that ADUs are different from an Accessory Structure dwelling units and while this zoning regulation articulation would make it easier to track dwellings without kitchens, there would still be a market for non-permitted ADUs. Set standards for defining the kitchen will help with congruency in decisions made by City Officials. Though this strategy does not help resolve non-permitted ADU issues it is a step in the right direction for getting buildings to code and properly accounted for in city records.
It is necessary for the zoning code to reflect the public interests that are affected by the code. If those public interests cannot navigate the code without the aid of City of Olympia Officials, then confusion results and available options for interested parties becomes undecipherable. In order to make the city protocol navigable by diverse perspectives, it is necessary to amend the Accessory Structure zoning code with clarification of standards for a dwelling unit.
Last Words:
Last Words:
The simple conclusion is that in the short term the Olympia Planning Commission should work with the City of Olympia Department of Planning and Development to develop a standard Accessory Structure dwelling zoning classification. In the not so long term, the Olympia Comprehensive plan will have to be re-drafted in 2013 and there is opportunity to make headway on a revised ADU code, streamlined protocol, and incentives program. In the long term, “People are building ADUs to meet pent up demand and provide for a family need regardless of the legislation in place,” (Hickey, 2011). Olympia has significant potential to replicate Santa Cruz’s development model and benefit from the synergy of community engagement and strategic incentives.
