Urbanists, Architects Say Backyard Cottages Are a Must in Affordable Housing Push

[M II A II R II K]

Urbanists, Architects Say Backyard Cottages Are a Must in Affordable Housing Push


OCTOBER 30, 2017

BY JOSH COHEN

Read More: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/urb...rdable-housing

Seattle City Council Member Mike O’Brien wants to make it easier for homeowners to build backyard cottages and basement apartments. In the midst of a housing affordability crisis spurred on, in part, by a greater demand for housing than available supply, using excess basement and yard space to create new homes makes sense. One of the priority recommendations from the city’s 2015 Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda was reduction of regulatory barriers for building attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs and DADUs).

- In early October, as part of the EIS process, the city started soliciting public input on two paths forward. The first: Leave regulations as is. Single-family homeowners who live onsite will be able to build either an ADU or a DADU if they have at least a 4,000-foot lot and an off-street parking space, among other requirements. The second option: Incorporate all the proposed changes from O’Brien’s legislation with the added changes of allowing 12 unrelated people to live on the property (up from the current eight), and allowing ADUs and DADUs on properties that are not owner-occupied.

- A new group of urbanists, architects and pro-cottage homeowners is lobbying the city to be even bolder than what’s in that second approach. --- Calling themselves More Options for Accessory Residences (MOAR), the group has put out a list of 10 additional changes the city should make to boost accessory unit production. --- “All the changes [in alternative two] are, in their own way, going to increase the number of dwelling units that we have,” says Matt Hutchins​, a MOAR member and an architect. “I think we could go much further. Every little thing we can do in terms of improving the zoning code helps. It has become a high-stakes game.”

- Regulations clearly play some role in the meager number of ADUs and DADUs being built. Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Canada, both recently reduced regulations for accessory unit construction and have seen massive increases in the number of units being built. Vancouver removed requirements for off-street parking and owner occupancy, and relaxed rules about DADU height, width and placement in the yard. Portland made similar changes. Vancouver saw about 1,000 ADU/DADUs go up in 2016. Portland permitted 615 new ADU/DADUs last year.

- MOAR has drawn inspiration from Seattle’s neighbors to the north and south. Their policy recommendations range from practical to philosophical. Hutchins says one top priority is that the city waives permit fees for ADU/DADU construction for five years. “Waiving permit fees for five years has no environmental impact,” he says. “The cost of that is $5,000 to $10,000. That’s a big chunk of change coming out of someone’s pocket.” --- Other practical suggestions include allowing dual ownership of a property (essentially making it easier to subdivide a single-family lot so someone could own the backyard cottage separately), allowing separate utility metering, and creating a path for would-be DADU builders to qualify for small loans from the Office of Housing.

- On the philosophical side, MOAR wants the city to change the name of single-family zoning to residential zoning. They write: “Our current ‘Single Family’ has a long history of duplexes, triplexes, corner stores and apartments, prior to downzoning, and renaming the zone removes a mental roadblock about what residential areas are for: people.” --- Given the legal fight that ensued a year ago when O’Brien proposed easing regulations, I asked Hutchins what chance there is for the changes the city has proposed, let alone the additional ideas MOAR has. He says he’s “very optimistic.” “I think back to the fight to get these cottages off the ground a decade ago,” he says. “That to me was a much more uncertain fight than these incremental changes.”

.....

[LMich]

This was one of the biggest loss opportunities of my city's recent zoning code overhaul. Apparently, they decided against allowing accessory dwelling units, though it was discussed. The new code still bands residential uses of accessory units in residential neighborhoods.

Aside from affordability, my thought is that with an aging population, it'd allow for aging relatives to live within feet of the homeowner, but also give both parties just enough privacy. Next door in East Lansing they have an overlay in two certain districts that allows "Granny flats," though to keep these areas from becoming student ghettos there is a limit of two unrelated persons per accessory dwelling unit.

[Pedestrian]

As is not unusual, way ahead of ya:

SF Could Legalize New In-Law Units Across the Entire City
BY ADAM BRINKLOW
JUN 20, 2016, 8:23AM PDT

The last few years have seen slow, grudging conversion to the gospel of Accessory Dwelling Units (the technical term for the pint-sized units). First, a process was put in place to legalize the scads of clandestine in-laws that people had been building and renting for years. Then, new units were experimentally authorized in a few city districts, yielding about 130 new homes since 2014.

Now there are two different bills that would write off all past reservations and effectively tell homeowners to build whatever they like in the backyard (within reason, of course) . . . .

Under (one) plan, any existing property with 10 or fewer units would be allowed to build an extra ADU, and anyplace with 11 or more would get two. (The other plan), on the other hand, would allow unlimited ADU construction on any property with five or more units, as well as allow new ADUs in unused retail space in large developments.

https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/20/1196...inlaws-housing

^^

In 2016, San Francisco’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Program became available Citywide in zoning districts that permit residential use . . . .

There are two programs for adding ADU(s) to your property:

Waiver ADUs - this program applies to projects in multi-unit buildings and single-family homes that require waivers from the Planning Code to add the ADU, or 207(c)(4)
No Waiver ADUs - this program applies to single-family homes that do not require any waivers from the Planning Code, or 207(c)(6)

http://sf-planning.org/accessory-dwelling-units

[C.]

This is the way to go - the cottage/basement/accessory unit promotes financial stability as the rental income can help towards the mortgage and household finances.

It has social benefits, for example, it can provides housing for extended family members.

Most importantly, it's often very affordable at market-rate. We need these solutions because subsidized housing alone isn't enough to meet demand.

It's how we use to build residential neighborhoods until the formula track builders started with their McMansions. Hopefully one day the general public realizes the benefits and start demanding changes.

[Centropolis]

pretty sure i see new (and of course old) units of these fairly often in st. louis. they could be garage/mother in law rebuild from the ground up, but like older midwestern cities they were already a thing.

i think here people use them more as offices/studios etc, and dont rent out the unit as often like would be the case on the coasts.

[Centropolis]

took me no time at all to find an alley unit: https://goo.gl/maps/HuUbHr2BkeB2

[Steely Dan]

in chicago, these types of rear yard residential structures off of the alley in back are typically referred to as "coach houses".

i don't know what the current zoning rules say regarding the construction of new coach houses, but i can't recall seeing any new build coach houses around town, they all seem to be older construction.

but perhaps the fact that they're off the alley in back means that new construction coach houses are easy to miss?



typical chicago coach houses:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8929...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8938...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9161...7i13312!8i6656




EDIT:

a quick google search informed me that new coach house construction has been banned in chicago since 1957, so all of our extant examples are grandfathered in.

[Centropolis]

i only usually hear them called coach houses here if they are associated with a mansion, and over a garage (especially a big garage) that may have even had a horse stall and carriage in it. same as a carriage house i guess. usually just hear “alley house.”

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i only usually hear them called coach houses here if they are associated with a mansion, and over a garage (especially a big garage) that may have even had a horse stall and carriage in it. same as a carriage house i guess. usually just hear “alley house.”

in chicago, any rear lot residential structure separate from the main building on the lot (house, 2-flat, 3-flat, whatever) is simply called a "coach house", regardless of any other features. some chicago coach houses are built over garages, others aren't.

[Centropolis]

here's some of the victorian alleyhouses, that don't have a garage in st. louis:

https://goo.gl/maps/Yw88pN6vYJG2

https://goo.gl/maps/eVebW3DxC6T2

and there is an extra-special kind of alley house that is called a "flounder":

https://goo.gl/maps/ti9LdYEp5zw

the story goes that houses were taxed by the number of roof angles (not sure if that is real). flounders are a funny kind of angled sloped roof. the back sections of a lot of houses in st. louis (and in new orleans) are like this too.

[JManc]

It's where we keep our servants.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

and there is an extra-special kind of alley house that is called a "flounder":

https://goo.gl/maps/ti9LdYEp5zw

the story goes that houses were taxed by the number of roof angles (not sure if that is real). flounders are a funny kind of angled sloped roof. the back sections of a lot of houses in st. louis (and in new orleans) are like this too.

cool.

posts like that are why i visit SSP.

i never stop learning about cool weird quirky funky odd-ball shit in other cities that i'd really have no other realistic way of learning about.

[IrishIllini]

That coach house in St. Louis is awesome. Looks a bit like Chicago. It makes me sad whenever I see prewar pictures of St. Louis or Detroit. Even downtown Milwaukee was a great urban experience from what I've seen in pictures. St. Louis has great bones. Maybe it'll be the Austin of the 21st century!?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

cool.

posts like that are why i visit SSP.

i never stop learning about cool weird quirky funky odd-ball shit in other cities that i'd really have no other realistic way of learning about.

here's a page on the city website discussing these a little more:

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...use-survey.cfm

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

That coach house in St. Louis is awesome. Looks a bit like Chicago. It makes me sad whenever I see prewar pictures of St. Louis or Detroit. Even downtown Milwaukee was a great urban experience from what I've seen in pictures. St. Louis has great bones. Maybe it'll be the Austin of the 21st century!?

i'd be happy just to get a little more ahead of the decay, and keep the southside intact with more investment into the northside.

[plinko]

In January of this year, California adopted 2 statewide laws to make it easier to build ADU's on most dwelling lots (they were already generally allowed and regulated, but this attempts to thwart the NIMBY backlash):

https://civicaweb.santabarbaraca.gov...?BlobID=185136

That being said, most jurisdictions are working through finding ways to make it still more difficult and more expensive, in some cases blatantly violating the statute by trying to require separate water and sewer connections. One local jurisdiction is trying to make it impossible to build an ADU unless you have a 5 acre lot. They were soundly rejected, but the fight seems to be persisting.

One way that jurisdictions are also fighting this is by charging astronomical permit fees (under the guise of 'special review') to make up for the other fees that cannot be collected. I know someone working to convert their garage and the City was charging over $10,000 for the permit. I recently permitted a remodel in my own house in the same city with a larger floor area and it only cost around $2,000 to permit.

[SLO]

^^^Yep this has been going on especially in coastal California for years. I have mixed feelings on it, only because its not ideal, it creates a bit of a two tier society. The property owner and the renter in the back yard, but its a way to get 'affordable' housing.

Santa Barbara county may be the toughest to get these done, there are enough people who don't want them to make a subversive push to limit them.

[mhays]

I'd say it's WAY more egalitarian than requiring most people below a certain income level to live in subsidized housing, or crappy housing.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by SLO

^^^Yep this has been going on especially in coastal California for years. I have mixed feelings on it, only because its not ideal, it creates a bit of a two tier society. The property owner and the renter in the back yard, but its a way to get 'affordable' housing.

Santa Barbara county may be the toughest to get these done, there are enough people who don't want them to make a subversive push to limit them.

it's no different than the owner occupied 2 and 3 flats in the midwest. when i was a renter, i always vastly preferred a flat like this with an owner-occupant. they also a way for middle class people to build wealth, without having to invest huge sums of money into distant, large apartment buildings.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

here's some of the victorian alleyhouses, that don't have a garage in st. louis:

https://goo.gl/maps/Yw88pN6vYJG2

https://goo.gl/maps/eVebW3DxC6T2

and there is an extra-special kind of alley house that is called a "flounder":

https://goo.gl/maps/ti9LdYEp5zw

the story goes that houses were taxed by the number of roof angles (not sure if that is real). flounders are a funny kind of angled sloped roof. the back sections of a lot of houses in st. louis (and in new orleans) are like this too.

So I got interested and went and looked up St. Louis' zoning code on this (https://library.municode.com/mo/st._...26.20ASIMIDWDI). While I don't see anything explicitly banning the creation of accessory dwelling units in backyards, the single-family home districts at least seem to imply that new accessory buildings can't be dwelling units, as the use for accessory buildings has to be "incidental" (secondary) to the primary use of the property, which almost always means a use as a garage or something.

I assume then that if there are still any in the city it's much like what happened in Chicago or Detroit where they've been grandfathered in. Maybe I'm assuming too much, though, and they do allow them.

[M II A II R II K]

And this doesn't have to be limited to single family neighbourhoods.