Well after all those months I finally completed the research.
Here is the ABSTRACT:
Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory
Structures in Olympia, WA
This research project is a multi-disciplinary evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Accessory Structures in Olympia, WA. A thorough literature review and the use of a new research method developed by Martin John Brown in Portland, OR, aim to monitor the “secondary dwelling” market and compare the results of permitted and non-permitted dwellings in the City of Olympia, WA. The methodology revealed 7 sample properties displaying three ADU characteristics, an additional dwelling containing a separate entrance, a bathroom and a kitchen. 71% or 5 of the 7 dwellings were non-permitted. Finally investigative interviews with City of Olympia officials and a Portland micro-developer were utilized to find out particulars on the permitting process and recommendations. The literature review and interviews identified clear steps to help streamline City of Olympia ADU and Accessory Structure permitting protocol in hopes of increasing the number of permitted ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings in the future.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Interview with Tom HIll
Yesterday morning I sat down and talked with Tom Hill, Olympia's Building Official. I learned a great deal about how Accessory Structure coding is used in practice. Tom works with code enforcement officers who respond to calls from citizens. He had a funny saying, "Olympia is a city of 50,000 code enforcement officers." Tom made it clear that his goal as a Building Official is to "ensure it is safe, it is sanitary and there is no reason to be concerned about fire."
I learned the building code requirements from the International Residential Code (IRC). Located on pages 58-63, including:
- Every dwelling unit must be 120 sq. ft (190 with bathroom).
- 8% of wall space must allow for light and ventilation (windows).
- Ceiling height is 7 ft.
- Every dwelling unit must have a water closet for shower or kitchen sink. (this is not entirely clear to me yet, but once I get a copy of the code I will clarify).
As long as the unit is under 200 square feet and "no kitchen", you can get away with only a permit for electrical and plumbing. If it is less than 800 square feet it can be permitted as an Accessory Structure. This grey-area is where my research is pinpointing a potential source of contention due to the necessary application of discretionary power. In Tom's own words, "at the end we're faced with evaluating the use."
I asked him if clarifying the difference between an ADU and an Accessory Structure was difficult? Tom said that it is a battle between him and Todd Stamm about what classifies a kitchen. A person can suffice with a microwave and a toaster oven, and this does not conflict with building or zoning code. I asked Tom, in his opinion, would be be beneficial to clarify the standards for an Accessory Structure dwelling? He admitted, "guidelines would be better."
As a young citizen, I immediately think, what happens when they hire someone else? Tom is a really great guy, he lives in the community he works and his main concern is safety, not evaluating the lifestyles of Olympia's citizens. Replicable standards for classification of a "permitted Accessory Structure Dwelling" exist in other cities and it may behoove Olympia's goals for their comprehensive plan to evaluate some options from other cities.
I learned the building code requirements from the International Residential Code (IRC). Located on pages 58-63, including:
- Every dwelling unit must be 120 sq. ft (190 with bathroom).
- 8% of wall space must allow for light and ventilation (windows).
- Ceiling height is 7 ft.
- Every dwelling unit must have a water closet for shower or kitchen sink. (this is not entirely clear to me yet, but once I get a copy of the code I will clarify).
As long as the unit is under 200 square feet and "no kitchen", you can get away with only a permit for electrical and plumbing. If it is less than 800 square feet it can be permitted as an Accessory Structure. This grey-area is where my research is pinpointing a potential source of contention due to the necessary application of discretionary power. In Tom's own words, "at the end we're faced with evaluating the use."
I asked him if clarifying the difference between an ADU and an Accessory Structure was difficult? Tom said that it is a battle between him and Todd Stamm about what classifies a kitchen. A person can suffice with a microwave and a toaster oven, and this does not conflict with building or zoning code. I asked Tom, in his opinion, would be be beneficial to clarify the standards for an Accessory Structure dwelling? He admitted, "guidelines would be better."
As a young citizen, I immediately think, what happens when they hire someone else? Tom is a really great guy, he lives in the community he works and his main concern is safety, not evaluating the lifestyles of Olympia's citizens. Replicable standards for classification of a "permitted Accessory Structure Dwelling" exist in other cities and it may behoove Olympia's goals for their comprehensive plan to evaluate some options from other cities.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Interview with Todd Stamm
Today I interviewed Todd Stamm, a Planning Manager for the Olympia Community and Planning Development Department. I learned a great deal about the zoning regulations required for Accessory Structures, in distinction from Accessory Dwelling Units. As it stand the Accessory Structure coding is very vague. You can read it yourself below, or click on this link, for the full ADU and Accessory Structure zoning code.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
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.
This code sparsely mentions dwelling units. The only specification is "Garages exceeding eight hundred (800) square feet per dwelling unit may be permitted as conditional uses..." However, according to Todd Stamm, if an external dwelling unit is 800 square feet or smaller, there is some grey area, and an accessory structure permit can suffice. This grey area is therefore at the digression of the city employees evaluating the permit application. I realize now, in order to complete all of my research I need to cross reference how many of the functional ADUs discovered contain an Accessory Structure building permit as well as an ADU permit. This is an additional step that must be added to the methodology and results chapters. The Accessory Structure zoning regulation existed prior to the ADU regulation that was put in place due to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in the mid 1990's. An ADU is technically a sub-category under the Accessory Structure umbrella regulation.
Another interesting find was that if the accessory structure is 200 square feet or smaller it requires no permit at all, even if it is a dwelling unit. I have never had a city employee explicitly say this, as it is an area that seems to be very context dependent, but Todd Stamm affirmed these permitting practices today in the interview.
The Accessory Structure loop hole was first described to me by Eli Spevak when I asked questions about the Portland, Oregon zoning regulations for detached bedrooms or Detached Accessory Structures (DAS). The Portland Code for Accessory Structures is very similar to Olympia's. Eli reported in an interview that Portland's planning department directs people who are interested in building ADUs to simplify the permitting process with a permitted accessory structure instead of following the strict design standards for an ADU. This makes sense for practicality, however the result is very few dwellings that are actually permitted as ADUs and lots of dwellings are permitted as Accessory Structures, even though the code for Accessory Structures sparsely mentions dwellings. Clarification in the code would be extremely helpful for Portland and Olympia citizens who are navigating this permitting process.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Working on Results Draft
I have been busy typing away. I finished collecting all of my data and I just wrote the statistical methods draft. It is listed in the tab @ the top of the page, check it out to find out exactly how I am monitoring "functional" ADUs in Olympia, WA. From now on all chapters will have a tab and you can read what I am writing and submitting to my thesis advisor. It can be up to $80 per copy to print the thesis. This project will be available free thanks to this website and you can contact me and talk about the project or tiny structures whenever you feel like it.
It's March 19th today, thus begins the countdown to May 1st, when I hope to have the majority of the writing completed. I hope to finish the results section this weekend and start writing a chapter about zoning code from Portland, Oregon. I have an interview with a planning manager from the City of Olympia Todd Stamm, this week and another scheduled with Cameron Hostetter, an Evergreen student ADU advocate. Check out Cameron's Blog.
I devised a technique to manage the ample important journal articles I have been sorting through. Wall storage keeps them visible and available, but saves floor space.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Literature Review Draft
I finally got some stuff written and HERE IT IS. Let me know what you think! It is constantly changing, so keep checking.
The technique of converting unused space into rent-able habitation has been used in America by European settlers as early as when they arrived in the colonies. During the early 20th century there were several important state and federal court cases that upheld and further established the zoning laws that have shaped development practices for the following century. These cases procured a precedent for protecting the single family neighborhood atmosphere, but a supreme court ruling supporting exclusive single-family zoning was never achieved. In particular, the 1926 United States Supreme Court Case Village of Euclid, Ohio vs Ambler Realty Co. declared zoning as an extension of police power and more importantly instituted zoning by building type. “Although the Euclid Decision affirmed that municipalities had the authority under their zoning powers to establish density standards and to exclude apartment houses from low density zones, it did not uphold the authority to exclude two family houses...” (Gellen, 117). Two family houses were not excluded in the 1926 decision because single family houses could only be found in the minority of districts where the very wealthy resided (Flint). The justification for excluding apartment buildings and residences where more than three families reside was to protect and foster a healthy lifestyle for American families (Bettman).
The foundation and court justification for zoning principles is important to investigate when discussing non-permitted accessory structures because it helps clarify the contextual intent of the zoning laws. Vague rulings and lack of cohesion in the early court decisions helps to illuminate the complexity of zoning related issues. Zoning laws were intended to limit people from living packed together in slums, the results of industrial revolution human rights violations. The health and moral development of the future generations was commonly referenced in courts as the justification for the exclusion of houses with three or more families (Gellen). Ironically, now we lack a method to monitor and control inefficient use of resources due to the increasing number of families, but continuously decreasing family size. The concept of placing limitations on density is almost counter-intuitive to the growth management decisions of municipalities facing a lack of housing infrastructure for a decreasing family size and changing demographic (Hinshaw).
During the 1920’s a common justification for exclusive single family neighborhoods was to protect investors and lenders in the housing market. “...Residential zoning was in fact a crucial pre-condition for the introduction of the long-term, fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgages introduced by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)” (Gellen, 115). FHA appraisers justified excluding loans to multi family houses to protect against faulty investments. They believed that the economy would crash in a cyclical pattern, which meant they were at higher risk loaning to more than one person on a single investment (Gellen). During the 1940’s zoning laws and low interest loans created the right incentives for the explosion of American home ownership and stimulation of the economy (Grebler et al, Leinberger, Cochran, Jackson).
In the1950s, planning literature began to cover the topic of “conversions” (Woodruff, Glick). Even in the earliest literature “Nonpermit Conversions” (Woodruff, 17) were a topic of consideration and study. Woodruff’s simple wisdom sums up the reality of non-permitted accessory structures all across America today. “Regardless of what the law says on paper, maintenance of housing standards depends on active enforcement. A “poor” law well observed produces better results than a “good” law poorly enforced” (17). This curt, yet powerful statement should be considered when discussing zoning regulations because it reinforces the notion that municipalities should seek to find a balance between getting codes in touch with what citizens are doing and citizens in touch with what codes are promoting. Woodruff also noted that there were very poor records for conversions “...either from lack of suitable ordinances, lack of popular support, lack of enforcement, or lack of all three” (18). The analysis of conversions in 1954, is an alarmingly accurate depiction of the reality of non-permitted structures today. There is very little monitoring of apartment conversions and significant barriers toward encouraging willing citizens in the direction of a permitted ADU.
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s a burgeoning academic interest in “Accessory Apartments” began to develop. Numerous articles were published in planning journals and various experts emerged in support of expanding the capacity of single family houses, including: Patrick Hare and Martin Gellen. Planners emphasized the wasteful use of collective resources including: land, transportation infrastructure, housing infrastructure, utilities, and energy use in low density, single family neighborhoods. Many planners recognized the enormous potential for further development options that lie within the single family neighborhood (Moudon, 55). University of Washington social scientists, Anne Vernez-Moudon and Chester Sprague, advocate for ‘Urban Consolidation’ a phrase that embodies the idea of utilizing the existing housing stock in a more efficient manner (Hickey, 6).
Why has urban consolidation failed to take-off to the proportions that were once imagined during the 1970’s and 1980’s planning literature boom? In Washington State, it has not been constrained by policy. The Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 requires that municipalities of 20,000 and larger take action and prepare for prospected growth. The actions required by this act are to focus urban growth in urban areas. The development of High Density Corridors (HDCs) was established to locate and intensify development to reduce sprawl, provide efficient transportation, encourage affordable housing and foster sustainable economic development (Washington State Legislature). The City of Olympia adopted the present comprehensive plan in 1994 as part of the GMA requirements. This comprehensive plan directly addresses ADUs in the first (Land Use and Urban Design) chapter. In Goal LU8 and Goal LU4 ADUs are discussed in terms of design standards and as an affordable housing option (City of Olympia).
Despite the intentions of the GMA, infill development or urban consolidation has not taken off to the extent that GMA advocates hoped for. According to a research report prepared by Daniel Carlson and Shishir Mathur in 2003 for the Brookings Institute, “A major stumbling block to implementing increased densities or ADU programs is parking. Standard suburban level off-street parking requirements which significantly increase development costs for multifamily housing and neighbors’ fears of loss of on-street parking to ADU residents stand in the way of these smart growth alternatives. Flexible and reduced parking standards can go a long way toward addressing these problems” (10). The major barriers toward ADUs are:
The technique of converting unused space into rent-able habitation has been used in America by European settlers as early as when they arrived in the colonies. During the early 20th century there were several important state and federal court cases that upheld and further established the zoning laws that have shaped development practices for the following century. These cases procured a precedent for protecting the single family neighborhood atmosphere, but a supreme court ruling supporting exclusive single-family zoning was never achieved. In particular, the 1926 United States Supreme Court Case Village of Euclid, Ohio vs Ambler Realty Co. declared zoning as an extension of police power and more importantly instituted zoning by building type. “Although the Euclid Decision affirmed that municipalities had the authority under their zoning powers to establish density standards and to exclude apartment houses from low density zones, it did not uphold the authority to exclude two family houses...” (Gellen, 117). Two family houses were not excluded in the 1926 decision because single family houses could only be found in the minority of districts where the very wealthy resided (Flint). The justification for excluding apartment buildings and residences where more than three families reside was to protect and foster a healthy lifestyle for American families (Bettman).
The foundation and court justification for zoning principles is important to investigate when discussing non-permitted accessory structures because it helps clarify the contextual intent of the zoning laws. Vague rulings and lack of cohesion in the early court decisions helps to illuminate the complexity of zoning related issues. Zoning laws were intended to limit people from living packed together in slums, the results of industrial revolution human rights violations. The health and moral development of the future generations was commonly referenced in courts as the justification for the exclusion of houses with three or more families (Gellen). Ironically, now we lack a method to monitor and control inefficient use of resources due to the increasing number of families, but continuously decreasing family size. The concept of placing limitations on density is almost counter-intuitive to the growth management decisions of municipalities facing a lack of housing infrastructure for a decreasing family size and changing demographic (Hinshaw).
During the 1920’s a common justification for exclusive single family neighborhoods was to protect investors and lenders in the housing market. “...Residential zoning was in fact a crucial pre-condition for the introduction of the long-term, fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgages introduced by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)” (Gellen, 115). FHA appraisers justified excluding loans to multi family houses to protect against faulty investments. They believed that the economy would crash in a cyclical pattern, which meant they were at higher risk loaning to more than one person on a single investment (Gellen). During the 1940’s zoning laws and low interest loans created the right incentives for the explosion of American home ownership and stimulation of the economy (Grebler et al, Leinberger, Cochran, Jackson).
In the1950s, planning literature began to cover the topic of “conversions” (Woodruff, Glick). Even in the earliest literature “Nonpermit Conversions” (Woodruff, 17) were a topic of consideration and study. Woodruff’s simple wisdom sums up the reality of non-permitted accessory structures all across America today. “Regardless of what the law says on paper, maintenance of housing standards depends on active enforcement. A “poor” law well observed produces better results than a “good” law poorly enforced” (17). This curt, yet powerful statement should be considered when discussing zoning regulations because it reinforces the notion that municipalities should seek to find a balance between getting codes in touch with what citizens are doing and citizens in touch with what codes are promoting. Woodruff also noted that there were very poor records for conversions “...either from lack of suitable ordinances, lack of popular support, lack of enforcement, or lack of all three” (18). The analysis of conversions in 1954, is an alarmingly accurate depiction of the reality of non-permitted structures today. There is very little monitoring of apartment conversions and significant barriers toward encouraging willing citizens in the direction of a permitted ADU.
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s a burgeoning academic interest in “Accessory Apartments” began to develop. Numerous articles were published in planning journals and various experts emerged in support of expanding the capacity of single family houses, including: Patrick Hare and Martin Gellen. Planners emphasized the wasteful use of collective resources including: land, transportation infrastructure, housing infrastructure, utilities, and energy use in low density, single family neighborhoods. Many planners recognized the enormous potential for further development options that lie within the single family neighborhood (Moudon, 55). University of Washington social scientists, Anne Vernez-Moudon and Chester Sprague, advocate for ‘Urban Consolidation’ a phrase that embodies the idea of utilizing the existing housing stock in a more efficient manner (Hickey, 6).
Why has urban consolidation failed to take-off to the proportions that were once imagined during the 1970’s and 1980’s planning literature boom? In Washington State, it has not been constrained by policy. The Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 requires that municipalities of 20,000 and larger take action and prepare for prospected growth. The actions required by this act are to focus urban growth in urban areas. The development of High Density Corridors (HDCs) was established to locate and intensify development to reduce sprawl, provide efficient transportation, encourage affordable housing and foster sustainable economic development (Washington State Legislature). The City of Olympia adopted the present comprehensive plan in 1994 as part of the GMA requirements. This comprehensive plan directly addresses ADUs in the first (Land Use and Urban Design) chapter. In Goal LU8 and Goal LU4 ADUs are discussed in terms of design standards and as an affordable housing option (City of Olympia).
Despite the intentions of the GMA, infill development or urban consolidation has not taken off to the extent that GMA advocates hoped for. According to a research report prepared by Daniel Carlson and Shishir Mathur in 2003 for the Brookings Institute, “A major stumbling block to implementing increased densities or ADU programs is parking. Standard suburban level off-street parking requirements which significantly increase development costs for multifamily housing and neighbors’ fears of loss of on-street parking to ADU residents stand in the way of these smart growth alternatives. Flexible and reduced parking standards can go a long way toward addressing these problems” (10). The major barriers toward ADUs are:
Thursday, February 17, 2011
History of Non-Permitted Conversions and Structures
I have been reading a good deal about ADUs and my research has taken an evolutionary step. I have decided to focus on Non-Permitted Dwelling Units in Olympia, WA. I hypothesize that non-permitted structures make up the majority of conversion housing and small structure dwellings in Olympia. There is little research on illegal small structures and conversions, but the phenomenon of non-permitted dwelling units is constantly referenced in ADU literature. A study focused on illegal structures will be beneficial to the academic community concerned with housing for changing American demographics. The literature review itself has become a synthesis of references to illegal dwelling units in the literature.
I recently found an article (Thanks to Martin Gellen's Book) from Housing Research published in 1954 by A. M. Woodruff. It is titled "Conversion of One-Family Houses to Multifamily Use." This places illegal conversion of single-family houses to multifamily use in a historical perspective. It is revealing to learn that many of the problems we face with zoning regulations and permitting was common place 60 years ago as well. According to Woodruff, "Regardless of what the law says on paper, maintenance of housing standards depends on active enforcement. A "poor" law well observed produces better results than a "good" law poorly enforced," (17). Much of the literature I am finding places ADUs and Accessory Apartments history during the 1980's when professionals such as Martin Gellen and Patrick Hare emerged, however, conversions (legal or not) have been in the planning literature as far back as Woodruff's 1954 article, and I argue have been in existence, in the European context of America, since colonialism.
On a side note, I realize that my own artistic endeavors sometimes become convoluted with the purposes of this blog, so I have created a new blog pairoducks.blogspot.com. For more info on the pedal powered forge click the link.
aduresearch.blogspot.com will remain loyal to ADUs and non-permitted structures and conversions from this day forward. I deleted previous unrelated postings.
I recently found an article (Thanks to Martin Gellen's Book) from Housing Research published in 1954 by A. M. Woodruff. It is titled "Conversion of One-Family Houses to Multifamily Use." This places illegal conversion of single-family houses to multifamily use in a historical perspective. It is revealing to learn that many of the problems we face with zoning regulations and permitting was common place 60 years ago as well. According to Woodruff, "Regardless of what the law says on paper, maintenance of housing standards depends on active enforcement. A "poor" law well observed produces better results than a "good" law poorly enforced," (17). Much of the literature I am finding places ADUs and Accessory Apartments history during the 1980's when professionals such as Martin Gellen and Patrick Hare emerged, however, conversions (legal or not) have been in the planning literature as far back as Woodruff's 1954 article, and I argue have been in existence, in the European context of America, since colonialism.
On a side note, I realize that my own artistic endeavors sometimes become convoluted with the purposes of this blog, so I have created a new blog pairoducks.blogspot.com. For more info on the pedal powered forge click the link.
aduresearch.blogspot.com will remain loyal to ADUs and non-permitted structures and conversions from this day forward. I deleted previous unrelated postings.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Reading...
Well I've been digesting a fair amount of literature on accessory apartments and structures. Right now I'm reading Martin Gellen's book "Accessory Apartments in Single-Family Housing" from 1986. I've been collecting and reading as much as I can to complete my literature review chapter. Much of the literature about accessory apartments and structures has been focused on the aging population, however, most studies that I have read conclude that the majority of people utilizing accessory apartments and structures are not necessarily senior citizens (Nancy Chapman and Deborah Howe. "Accessory Apartments: Are They A Realistic Alternative for Aging in Place?" ). It appears that financial benefit is the reason most ADU owners give for converting unused space into an additional dwelling unit. With the changing demographics of American families and the increasing size of the single family house, there is significant potential to use space more efficiently, by increasing housing options without increasing the number of structures to the housing stock (Gellen).
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Olympia Planning Commission
Although I set out the goal to write a blog entry each week, I have now come to the consensus that I will write as often as I see fit. (3 weeks later...) I have a meeting with the Olympia Planning Commission, tomorrow: Monday January 24th!! Click here for the agenda.
The meeting will be held @ CITY HALL 900 Plum St SE. I am scheduled to give a 5 minute presentation @ 6:50 PM to the Olympia Planning Commission about my research on Accessory Dwelling Units and why it may be of interest to the planning commission. I've been compiling a reading list and document for the Commissioners as well as structuring my 5 minutes as ninja like as possible. What do I want to say you may ask??
Well folks the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted by the state legislature in 1990. It requires that local and state government take action and prepare for prospected growth. According to this state document, the GMA is supposed to:
Side Note: The comprehensive planning process is always going on and feel free to drop by Wednesday @ 6:30 at the Urban Onion Ballroom to continue conversations about the future of Olympia in the Imagine Olympia Process.
The meat of the issue: Olympia has a great ADU code, and they worked hard to establish this code. I put in a Public Records request to gain access to all permitted detached and attached ADUs since 1995, the year the ADU ordinance was passed. You can view the document here. There have been 25 permitted Detached ADUs and 30 permitted Attached ADUs since 1995. I am curious what the ratio of permitted to non permitted ADUs is and I believe that we can better balance this ratio with a streamlined ADU incentives program!
What kind of ADU Program? Basically we would like to use Santa Cruz's ADU program as a model.
The meeting will be held @ CITY HALL 900 Plum St SE. I am scheduled to give a 5 minute presentation @ 6:50 PM to the Olympia Planning Commission about my research on Accessory Dwelling Units and why it may be of interest to the planning commission. I've been compiling a reading list and document for the Commissioners as well as structuring my 5 minutes as ninja like as possible. What do I want to say you may ask??
Well folks the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted by the state legislature in 1990. It requires that local and state government take action and prepare for prospected growth. According to this state document, the GMA is supposed to:
- Focus urban growth in urban areas.
- Reduce sprawl.
- Provide efficient transportation.
- Encourage affordable housing.
- Encourage sustainable economic development.
Side Note: The comprehensive planning process is always going on and feel free to drop by Wednesday @ 6:30 at the Urban Onion Ballroom to continue conversations about the future of Olympia in the Imagine Olympia Process.
The meat of the issue: Olympia has a great ADU code, and they worked hard to establish this code. I put in a Public Records request to gain access to all permitted detached and attached ADUs since 1995, the year the ADU ordinance was passed. You can view the document here. There have been 25 permitted Detached ADUs and 30 permitted Attached ADUs since 1995. I am curious what the ratio of permitted to non permitted ADUs is and I believe that we can better balance this ratio with a streamlined ADU incentives program!
What kind of ADU Program? Basically we would like to use Santa Cruz's ADU program as a model.
- First of all we need a Technical Assistance Program (PROMOTION AND AWARENESS) with a very clear and well developed method for achieving a permit, this includes:
-ADU guidebook for homeowners to visualize what it takes to rent out un-used space and create outside income flow.
-Pre-approved design book to reduce engineering and architectural fees, but still achieve the desired design standards that are required by the city. - Creating an ADU incentives program:
-Alternative financing mechanisms (low interest loans)
-Waiving permit fees for low income rentals
-Temporary Moratorium on Permitting Fees
-Providing time with a non-profit architecture firm - Pro-rating sewer connection fees based on based on number of people
- Creating a classification in the Accessory Structure Zoning Code that allows for detached bedrooms: Portland Example (Detached Accessory Structure, DAS).
-According to Portland, Oregon's zoning regulations for Accessory Structures, Accessory Structures may be permitted as a dwelling. The clarification between the DAS and the ADU is that an ADU is a completely isolated and operating dwelling. It has it's own entrance, bathroom, kitchen and means to sustain oneself apart from the main unit. A DAS is different because it has no kitchen and it separate from the main dwelling or common area, but not isolated. It is my hypothesis that the majority of illegal units fit more under this zoning classification and if the city were interested in increasing the rates of permitted structures this would help to connect the law with what exists and is happening.
- Revenue for the city from permitting and increased property taxes.
- Addressing growth management projections and changing American demographics.
-The Single Family Unit is no longer the icon of the American ideal. Now more single parent families, young people who are single, and retirees make up the majority of our country. "When the average household size size falls and household composition becomes more diverse, the effort to maintain the historic standards forces many households to be underutilized" according to Nathaniel Taylor Hickey in his 2010 Thesis on ADUs in Seattle from the University of Washington School of Regional and Urban Planning. We need diverse housing options for efficiency and practicality. - ADUs stimulate Washington jobs in:
-Construction
-Real Estate
-Pre-fabricated housing factories
-Etc... - ADUs create revenue streams for young homeowners who are struggling to afford their mortgage payments.
- Retiring baby boomers are seeking to downsize because they no longer have a large family and they do not need the extra work maintaining a single family house. They seek access to transit and walkable communities.
- ADUs create alternatives so families can enjoy inter-generational housing and avoid continued care facilities.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
I'm Back
Well the East Coast was cold and filled with Winter-time hibernation, however after restocking on Momma's love and meals, I'm back here in old Olympia plugging away on my Thesis.
I am using this blog to plot progress and open a transparent communication network for others to see how phronetic research happens. What is Phronesis? Well my young friends, it is how I believe research should happen. Thanks Bent Flyvbjerg and Ted Whitesell, for introducing me to a new way of viewing social science inquiry. You (the reader) may not be as interested in the somewhat dry and particular articulation of Aristotle's concept of practical wisdom, prudence, or phronesis, but I strongly believe it is a pathway for social science to once again become useful. When I read what people get paid to research these days, it makes my stomach turn. I have no place in my heart for pompous intellectuals and their gate keeper attitudes. I believe to live is to educate one's self and all human creation is art.
Art is the most important concept in my life and it is everywhere (EartH). I will not become stuck in an academic hierarchy, but will pass through the layers of paradigmatic schools of thought like a magic carpet through the atmosphere. I think Carl Jung depicted it perfectly in the Red Book (pictured above).
Well enough of my hoity toity academic philosophy. Now I will use this blog as a forum to communicate with my thesis advisors and with you.
About two weeks ago I met with two very interesting stake holders in the world of small structures, Debora Shapiro from Greenworks Realty and Vincent Schwent (jack of all trades). I have gained access to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service and am researching properties in Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey, WA.
I will be writing one blog entry a week highlighting the work done on my thesis during that week and my ambitions for the following week. I think this is very good to monitor the progress of my work and to help others understand how the research happens. I believe that people learn a lot more from research when they can see the thought processes and evaluate what is going on during the actual research process, instead of a small summary at the end. This does inspire a less cultivated and organized technique than the traditional research paper, but I truly believe that the research will manifest in a more organic and chaotic manner, and the reader will have a better understanding of why and how it developed this way. This throws a very big boomerang in the traditional sense of academia, but I've always been a courier of the chaos.
I am using this blog to plot progress and open a transparent communication network for others to see how phronetic research happens. What is Phronesis? Well my young friends, it is how I believe research should happen. Thanks Bent Flyvbjerg and Ted Whitesell, for introducing me to a new way of viewing social science inquiry. You (the reader) may not be as interested in the somewhat dry and particular articulation of Aristotle's concept of practical wisdom, prudence, or phronesis, but I strongly believe it is a pathway for social science to once again become useful. When I read what people get paid to research these days, it makes my stomach turn. I have no place in my heart for pompous intellectuals and their gate keeper attitudes. I believe to live is to educate one's self and all human creation is art.
Art is the most important concept in my life and it is everywhere (EartH). I will not become stuck in an academic hierarchy, but will pass through the layers of paradigmatic schools of thought like a magic carpet through the atmosphere. I think Carl Jung depicted it perfectly in the Red Book (pictured above).
Well enough of my hoity toity academic philosophy. Now I will use this blog as a forum to communicate with my thesis advisors and with you.
About two weeks ago I met with two very interesting stake holders in the world of small structures, Debora Shapiro from Greenworks Realty and Vincent Schwent (jack of all trades). I have gained access to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service and am researching properties in Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey, WA.
I will be writing one blog entry a week highlighting the work done on my thesis during that week and my ambitions for the following week. I think this is very good to monitor the progress of my work and to help others understand how the research happens. I believe that people learn a lot more from research when they can see the thought processes and evaluate what is going on during the actual research process, instead of a small summary at the end. This does inspire a less cultivated and organized technique than the traditional research paper, but I truly believe that the research will manifest in a more organic and chaotic manner, and the reader will have a better understanding of why and how it developed this way. This throws a very big boomerang in the traditional sense of academia, but I've always been a courier of the chaos.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thesis Prospectus
As the weeks wage on during fall quarter, time begins to press a specific research question for my thesis prospectus. There is only a small amount of scholarly literature available on the land use planning effects of micro architecture, but there are plenty of government documents. I was able to find a very interesting article by Martin John Brown. Martin is a Portland citizen who decided to do a market study of ADU's with and without permits (I mentioned the article in a previous post). I am going to use the same methodology that Martin exercised to create a similar market study of Olympia. My research question is: What is the ratio of permitted to un-permitted ADU like structures in Olympia? I am hoping to gain access to RMLS data and research how many houses list ADU like descriptions and then do a random sample of (say 30) structures with ADU like descriptions and see how many of these structures are permitted with the City of Olympia. This will allow me to characterize if people are getting around the permitting process in order to build ADU structures. Based on my findings I will perform case study research on Portland, Seattle, and Santa Cruz (cities with progressive building/zoning codes) to create recommendations for the City of Olympia to increase the permits issued for people building ADUs. My theory is that people want and are building ADUs, but are avoiding permitting due to restrictive code and upfront costs of impact fees. The research will verify if this is the case, and interviews with community members will help us to better understand the results. That's all she wrote for now. Let me know if you have any ideas about the project!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)