Chapter 3: Methodology
In order to predict the ratio of permitted to non-permitted ADUs in Olympia, I used Martin John Brown’s method for monitoring non-permitted dwelling units was utilized. With the aid of a local real estate agent, I was able to perform a general search of all properties listing “additional dwelling on property” in the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) real estate database. This search returned several hundred properties in the Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey districts. The property descriptions were evaluated and online photos of the property were used to decipher, following Brown’s method, if the dwelling had a separate bathroom, kitchen and entrance. There were numerous property listings that did not offer revealing photos of the dwelling and this made it more difficult to establish if the property fit the criteria. I was conservative in finding samples and was careful to make sure the listing exhibited all three characteristics before labeling them “functional” ADUs. A functional ADU can be defined as “an independent living area within, or on the grounds of, a single family house,” (Brown, 2) and will be synonymous with secondary dwelling for the purposes of this paper. A functional ADU or secondary dwelling can therefore be with or without a building permit, which allows for a larger catchment of results and a more accurate depiction of the atmosphere for conversion apartments and accessory structures in Olympia, WA.
It was difficult to classify the properties into categories, but there were important similarities among listings. There were many manufactured homes, but they were not included in the sample selection. Manufactured housing has separate federal, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department, code. For the purposes of this research, manufactured homes have the characteristics of a secondary dwelling, but differ in zoning and building code and therefore will not be included.
Once I located properties that fit the description of a functional ADU, I was able to record the following information about each property listing:
- Address,
- Year main house was constructed,
- Price of property,
- Zoning classification,
- Number of bedrooms,
- Number of bathrooms,
- Square footage of ADU,
- Detached or attached,
- Description of additional dwelling,
- The year property was listed on the NWMLS database,
- Permitted as an ADU?
- Permitted as an Accessory Structure?
No identifiable information will be released in this report and no pictures of structures will be displayed to protect the identity of the homeowners involved in the analysis. Therefore, the addresses of all functional ADUs discovered will remain confidential. Understanding how citizens interact and respond to permitting requirements and finding ways to increase the efficiency of permitting infill development is important to understand in order to protect and support Olympia home owners who wish to increase the density, capacity, and community of their homes.
After recording this information I used a public records request document from the City of Olympia Planning Department and Clerk’s Office to cross check for permitted ADU and Accessory Structure documentation. The Clerk’s office sent me a list of all 53 permitted (attached or detached) ADUs in Olympia, as of March 11, 2011. There were 29 attached and 24 detached ADUs permitted since the ADU ordinance was passed into zoning regulation in 1995.
The City of Olympia has set density goals for the coming years and infill development offers a way to chip away at these goals at very little cost to the city. If a majority of dwellings are non-permitted, the City of Olympia should consider policy from progressive cities (Portland, OR, Seattle, WA and Santa Cruz, CA) that have dealt with similar permitting avoidance issues. Increasing the efficiency of permitting is an attainable and beneficial pursuit for a city that already has a well-developed ADU code. This methodology acts as a test for the efficiency of permitting in any city.
Limitations and assumptions of the research methodology need to be discussed. Locating samples is dependant upon accurate descriptions and photos of properties on the NWMLS database. Relying upon descriptions and photos skews the results based on the accuracy of the listing. The method assumes that three years of real estate data is a realistic depiction of the housing stock of a city (Brown, 1). The accuracy of the data is also an accepted assumption. The real estate data is a filter to the reality of the secondary dwellings in Olympia. The estimate of the ratio of non-permitted to permitted dwellings is expected to be a conservative depiction of the non-permitted secondary dwelling market.
Another issue that should be mentioned is the chance that some of the functional ADUs located by the research methodology are not currently being rented. Even if an additional unit is not currently being rented, the owner must have a building permit to build the additional dwelling space on their property, regardless. Having the option to house a family member or friend in distress, or making additional income from renting the unit is enough incentive for many Olympia homeowners to build, and to build you are required to have a building permit.
Investigative interviews were also utilized, in addition to the market research, in order to gain a dynamic understanding of the policy protocol associated with secondary dwelling units. Interviews with Todd Stamm, Planning Manager, and Tom Hill, Building Official for the Olympia Department of Community Planning and Development helped unveil some of the specifics on procedure and practice. These interviews were critical to understand city protocol. An Interview with Eli Spevak, a builder in Portland, Oregon was utilized to learn more about permitted Accessory Structure dwelling units.
Architecture is an essential piece of the cultural identity of a city. In “Obduracy in Urban “Sociotechnical” Change,” Anique Hommels discusses the concept of embeddedness. Embeddedness analyzes how society and culture “co-evolve” with technology; the connection of natural and social sciences. “…Cities are not purely technical constructs; rather they are a “seamless web” of material and social elements,” (Hommels, 26). As society progresses with the technical and material world, laws begin to embody new and different meanings and results. ADUs are a piece of this socio-technical tapestry and have become accepted into the identity of Olympia. Understanding city protocol and depicting the ratio of permitted to non-permitted functional ADUs helps gauge the success of the ADU ordinance and permitting system by comparing it with the reality of the functional ADU sample selection.
