Chapter 4: Results
Section 1: Analyzing the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) Database
The search for “additional dwelling on property” field in the NWMLS database resulted in several hundred cases of potential functional ADUs. The database contains information from 2005 to present, but for this sample evaluation the results were narrowed to properties listed on the NWMLS database from 2008 through 2010 in order to follow the same protocol as the Brown study. These three years of data rendered 7 property listings within Olympia city limits and 33 properties located in Olympia (Thurston County), but outside of city limits. These results show property listings describing or displaying photos of secondary dwelling units. Based on city records, two properties out of the seven samples contained an ADU permit, or 28.6% of the samples were permitted as ADUs and five out of 7 (71.4%) were non-permitted. None of the 33 listings discovered in Thurston County contained an ADU building permit. Table 4.1 and 4.2 display the information collected on the secondary dwelling unit samples.
The descriptions of the property listings were one of the most revealing aspects of the NWMLS database along with the pictures, however no pictures, addresses or information revealing the location of the structures will be displayed in this article to protect the homeowners involved in the research. Many descriptions clearly list a dwelling, “$800/mo rental. 2 BR/1Ba, 720 SF,” then with use of pictures provided one could check for a separate bathroom, kitchen, and entrance. The use of the ADU description in the listings show they are desirable and marketable housing option in the Olympia and Thurston county real estate market.
TABLE 4.1: Olympia Sample Secondary Dwelling Unit Data:
| Address | ADU Permit | Accessory Structure Permit | Listed Property Value ($) | # of Beds | # of Baths | Detached/ Attached | Year listed on Database |
| P-1 | None | None | 189000 | N/L | N/L | Detached | 2008 |
| P-2 | None | None | 310000 | 2 | 1 | Detached | 2008 |
| P-3 | None | N/A | 424700 | 1 | 1 | Attached | 2010 |
| P-4 | None | N/A | 289000 | 1 | .75 | Attached | 2010 |
| P-5 | None | None | 265000 | N/L | N/L | Detached | 2010 |
| P-6 | Permit | N/A | 325000 | N/L | N/L | Detached | 2008 |
| P-7 | Permit | N/A | 297500 | 1 | 1 | Attached | 2008 |
TABLE 4.2: Thurston County Sample Secondary Dwelling Data:
| Address | ADU Permit | Accessory Structure Permit | Listed Property Value ($) | # of Beds | # of Baths | Detached/ Attached | Year listed on Database |
| P-1 | None | None | 495000 | 1 | .5 | Detached | 2009 |
| P-2 | None | Yes | 499000 | 1 | 1 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-3 | Yes | None | 865000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2008 |
| P-4 | None | Yes | 539000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2008 |
| P-5 | None | None | 449950 | 2 | 1 | Detached | 2008 |
| P-6 | None | N/A | 499000 | n/l | n/l | Attached | 2008 |
| P-7 | None | None | 699000 | 2 | 1 | Detached | 2009 |
| P-8 | None | Yes | 467900 | 2 | 1 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-9 | None | None | 489900 | 1 | n/l | Detached | 2009 |
| P-10 | None | Guest House | 329900 | 1 | .75 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-11 | None | None | 499900 | 2 | 1 | Detached | 2009 |
| P-12 | None | Yes | 625000 | 1 | 1 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-13 | None | None | 640000 | 2 | 1.5 | Detached | 2009 |
| P-14 | None | N/A | 499900 | n/l | n/l | Attached | 2010 |
| P-15 | None | N/A | 1299997 | 3 | 2 | Attached | 2010 |
| P-16 | None | N/A | 275000 | 1 | 1 | Attached | 2010 |
| P-17 | None | N/A | 349900 | n/l | n/l | Attached | 2008 |
| P-18 | None | Yes | 489500 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2009 |
| P-19 | None | Yes | 591000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2008 |
| P-20 | None | Yes | 209990 | 2 | n/l | Detached | 2008 |
| P-21 | None | None | 379900 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2010 |
| P-22 | None | None | 394950 | 4 | 2 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-23 | None | Guest House | 399500 | 1 | 1 | Detached | 2008 |
| P-24 | None | Guest House | 470000 | 1 | 1 | Detached | 2010 |
| P-25 | None | Yes | 570000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2009 |
| P-26 | None | None | 725000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2009 |
| P-27 | None | Yes | 1175000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2008 |
| P-28 | None | Yes | 1295000 | n/l | n/l | Detached | 2010 |
| P-29 | Yes | None | 1595000 | n/l | .75 | Detached | 2009 |
| P-30 | None | Yes | 375000 | 1 | n/l | Detached | 2009 |
The Olympia secondary dwelling analysis rendered a similar ratio of non-permitted dwellings as the original study conducted in Portland, Oregon (Brown, 2). Brown found that 62% of his 32 sample analysis were non-permitted. The sample size of the Olympia study was much smaller, 7 compared to 32 cases collected. The difference in sample size was expected due to the considerably smaller population of the City of Olympia. The population of Olympia is about 52,000, while Portland has 530,000 people. Proportionately the studies render similar results. This helps to unveil the scope of the non-permitted dwelling issue, and make comparisons between the Olympia and Portland markets for secondary dwelling units.
The methods of analysis portray a snapshot of the Olympia market, although it is a limited portrayal due to the small sample size. The average value of a property with a permitted ADU inside of Olympia city limits is $311,250. The average value of a property with a non-permitted secondary dwelling is $295,540. The properties with a permitted ADU have a slightly higher average value, but the methodology does not investigate why.
The City of Olympia does contain a higher percentage of permitted ADUs than the Thurston County sample, most likely because lot sizes are smaller and houses are closer together. Within city limits it is more likely that a neighbor would report an additional dwelling because of the increased proximity of homes. The rate of non-permitted secondary dwellings inside of Olympia city limits shows that higher density development does create barriers, but does not stop citizens from avoiding permitting costs.
Moving outside of Olympia city limits, the Thurston County secondary dwelling analysis rendered a larger sample size. Of the 30 samples, 2 were permitted as ADUs (7%), 14 had some kind of accessory structure permit (47%) and 14 contained neither an ADU or an Accessory Structure permit (47%). The results of this analysis show a substantially smaller proportion of permitted ADUs than in the City of Olympia analysis and Brown’s Portland studies. There were also a much higher percentage of Accessory Structure permits because Thurston County zoning code has a provision for a Guest House and a Family Member Dwelling Unit.
A similar study on Thurston County zoning regulations for ADUs is necessary for further comparison. This paper’s focus is the City of Olympia permitting process and zoning regulations, but a subsequent research project focusing on Thurston County is highly recommended, due to the proportion of non-permitted ADUs found in the sample data.
Information on permitted ADUs in the City of Olympia records reveals price trends of permitted ADUs. The average valuation of an Olympia ADU, according to city permit records is about $44,000 (detached: $31,965, attached: $53,963). The values of ADUs are quite variable. Below is a graph depicting all permitted ADUs and their listed valuation in Olympia City records (City of Olympia, 2011).
Based on the graph above, ADUs are accessible to wide range of households. They are functional and adaptable solutions that have a market in Olympia and Thurston County, however, based on this research the majority of that market may well be non-permitted dwellings. If this is an accurate depiction of the functional ADU market, the vast majority of expansion of dwelling units goes undetected. The results from this analysis frame the scope of the problem of inefficiency in permitting. The rest of the work involves qualitative research through investigative interviews. Interviews were utilized to ask revealing questions about the permitting process and the clarification between an Accessory Structure and an ADU building permit.
Section 2: Interviews
In order to gain a clear understanding of the protocol for ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings, two City of Olympia specialists were interviewed. The first interview was with Todd Stamm, a Planning Manager for the City of Olympia. Mr. Stamm stated when we began our conversation that in his opinion there were two main obstacles to a more effective ADU code. The first obstacle is that most Olympia citizens think they cannot get a permit for what they are building, so they do not try. This research is supporting a more streamlined and clear protocol. It would clear up the confusion that has created an unwarranted paranoia of the permitting process. The direct avoidance of city regulation is clear, so public outreach and social marketing is absolutely necessary to make the intentions of the city regulation transparent and persuasive.
The second obstacle is that the owner of a permitted ADU has to live on the property. According to Mr. Stamm, this is the only place in the entire city zoning code where a distinction between owner and renter is established. It is a check against developers building ADUs to expand capacity of their rental units. While this protective measure is well intentioned, I cannot help but stress the apparent goals of increased density and expanding housing options as absolutely necessary for growth management preparation. Developers are limited to be creative with new designs. The literature review identifies clear recommendations to keep the codes as simple and streamlined as possible (San Francisco Development Fund, 1988), and the Conclusion directly addresses these recommendations from the context of Olympia.
Section 2: Interviews
In order to gain a clear understanding of the protocol for ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings, two City of Olympia specialists were interviewed. The first interview was with Todd Stamm, a Planning Manager for the City of Olympia. Mr. Stamm stated when we began our conversation that in his opinion there were two main obstacles to a more effective ADU code. The first obstacle is that most Olympia citizens think they cannot get a permit for what they are building, so they do not try. This research is supporting a more streamlined and clear protocol. It would clear up the confusion that has created an unwarranted paranoia of the permitting process. The direct avoidance of city regulation is clear, so public outreach and social marketing is absolutely necessary to make the intentions of the city regulation transparent and persuasive.
The second obstacle is that the owner of a permitted ADU has to live on the property. According to Mr. Stamm, this is the only place in the entire city zoning code where a distinction between owner and renter is established. It is a check against developers building ADUs to expand capacity of their rental units. While this protective measure is well intentioned, I cannot help but stress the apparent goals of increased density and expanding housing options as absolutely necessary for growth management preparation. Developers are limited to be creative with new designs. The literature review identifies clear recommendations to keep the codes as simple and streamlined as possible (San Francisco Development Fund, 1988), and the Conclusion directly addresses these recommendations from the context of Olympia.
In an email I inquired if Mr. Stamm was familiar with Accessory Structure coding that allowed for a permitted Accessory Structure dwelling unit. This is a middle ground between an Accessory Structure and an ADU. One major difference between an Accessory Structure dwelling unit and an ADU is an ADU has a kitchen. Mr. Stamm replied, “Olympia already does allow detached bedrooms and similar forms of detached structures that don’t include an additional kitchen. Generally the principal barrier to these types of spaces has been Olympia’s limit of 800 square feet and 16 foot height limit for detached structures” (email, 2011). This was very curious because the Accessory Structure zoning code is quite short and refrains from mentioning Accessory Structure dwelling units. The Olympia Accessory Structure zoning coding is displayed below.
OLYMPIA ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ZONING CODE:
Accessory structures are permitted in all residential districts subject to the following requirements:
1. Time of Establishment. Accessory structures shall not be built prior to commencing construction of the main building on the lot. However, lots may be created which contain an accessory structure (without an associated primary use) constructed prior to submission of the subdivision application.
2. Subordinance to Primary Use. Accessory structures shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to the use of the lot (e.g., structures used for storage of personal property or the pursuit of hobbies) or used for agricultural purposes. In single-family and two-family residential districts each accessory structure shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet in size, except for structures accessory to an agricultural use which are located on a parcel one (1) acre or larger in size.
3. Garages. Private garages shall meet the following standards:
a. Garages shall not exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor space per dwelling unit.
b. Garages exceeding eight hundred (800) square feet per dwelling unit may be permitted as conditional uses in the districts specified in Table 4.01 provided that they will not be adverse to the public interest and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Hearing Examiner shall establish a maximum size for garages receiving conditional use approval. See Section 18.04.080.
4. See Section 18.04.060(P)(4) regarding accessory structures in mobile home/manufactured home parks.
According to Todd Stamm, if an external dwelling unit is 800 square feet or smaller, there is some grey area, an accessory structure permit can suffice. There is nothing about dwelling units mentioned in the Accessory Structure zoning code. The enforcement of policy is therefore conditional based on the discretion of the employee. In other words, the City of Olympia employees are following a protocol that is not defined in the zoning code, so it is conditional based upon their interpretation of the accepted protocol. Mr. Stamm recommended discussing the Accessory Structure/ADU code differentiation with Tom Hill, City Building Official as well. Mr. Hill is in charge of enforcing the code infractions and issuing building permits. He has the most pragmatic sense of how the code is understood and enforced.
Mr. Hill discussed the “dilemma of the kitchen.” The distinguishing factor for an ADU or an Accessory Structure dwelling unit is the existence of a kitchen. Mr. Hill made it clear that as the Building Official his main goal is to “ensure it is safe, ensure it is sanitary, and there is no reason to be concerned about fire” (Interview, 2011). Distinguishing if someone has a toaster oven or a range is not Mr. Hill’s top priority. However, when asked if guidelines for establishing the difference between Accessory Structure dwelling unit and ADU would be beneficial, he replied, “guidelines would be better”(Interview, 2011).
Both City of Olympia officials were in agreement that a city protocol for an Accessory Structure dwelling would be beneficial to clarify the code. In order to gain a new perspective on the issue I decided to interview a developer of small structures in Portland, Oregon, Eli Spevak. Mr. Spevak has a vested interest in understanding the building and zoning code of Portland. He has a practical understanding of the code from the perspective of someone who has to follow it. Mr. Spevak works for Orange Splott, LLC, a housing development company and general contractor dedicated to using less land per structure and arranging more units per lot. Mr. Spevak first introduced me to Martin John Brown’s research and first summarized the difference between an Accessory Structure dwelling and an ADU. Mr. Spevak was an important stakeholder to interview because he has to navigate the codes all the time. While the majority of the research has focused on advocates and opponents of ADUs, few stake holders have a practical understanding of the code the way that a builder does.
In Portland, the Accessory Structure is only legally habitable if it is permitted as such. One big difference that Eli mentioned was, in Portland, the code is specific, and city planners make people aware that it is easier, and cheaper to permit a dwelling unit as a permitted Accessory Structure dwelling than it is as an ADU. The big differentiation between these two classification is the existence of a kitchen, which is clearly defined in the code. This is not the case in Olympia, and navigating the protocol for ADUs and Accessory Structure dwelling units is a matter of discussing your project with a building official. Until a homeowner has that conversation they are unable to understand that an Accessory Structure dwelling unit is a possibility and if the official fails to mention the Accessory Structure dwelling unit option, the homeowner would never know it exists.
Mr. Spevak spoke a bit about the Owner Occupancy Requirement. He mentioned that Portland had a similar requirement and the city performed an investigation and decided to repeal the requirement in 1998. There is a comprehensive study (City of Portland Bureau of Planning, 2003) that assess the results of relaxing the ADU code requirements. In the study the Owner Occupancy Requirement is recognized as being a significant barrier to further development of legitimate ADUs. Portland has not experienced a spike in the number of ADU rental unit expansion and the number of permitted ADUs has remained modest. Mr. Spevak remains confident there will not be a huge increase in the number of ADUs in Portland, regardless of the reduction of prohibitive ADU code requirements.
ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings are slowly growing in numbers and are becoming accepted in the social and cultural identity of the City of Portland. Portland has accelerated the development of ADUs with strategic monitoring and creative incentives. Olympia has a similar market for ADUs and significant potential to use case study examples discussed in the literature review, specifically Santa Cruz, CA, to replicate a more fecund environment for ADU micro-infill development.
