All that, and all I can see is you don't like change, and want to have control over your neighborhood.

The city isn't just yours, or your neighbors'. Other people live here and it would be swell if more people had affordable options. It would also be swell to reduce sprawl and let people live near transit.

This sounds like the huffing and puffing of a nimby grasping at straws.

...augmented by factual problems, despite all the research you might have done. For example, do you really think it's conceivable that a neighborhood would double in population?

Kent - ADU's are not duplexes. You should be more accurate. Duplexes are two separate and independant dwellings ADU or DADU require a propety owner to live in one of the dwellings at least 6 months out of the year. ADU or DAU also have very specific size limits, something that duplexes do not.

Kent: This is an interesting development. It is happening elsewhere.
My oldest son has an architecture firm in Raleigh, NC and has been a member for a number of years of various city advisory bodies dealing with just such issues. He generally favors higher density in a city given to sprawl. But he and others are counseling caution at the moment about a proposed city policy comparable to that being discussed here. A big step.

Pookie - given DPD's record, I think one would have to be incredibly naive to believe that the owner-occupied requirement will be enforceable (let alone enforced) over the long term. Do you really think DPD will require structures to be demolished or rescind occupancy permits two, five, ten, or twenty years down the line? And an 800 sf DADU is going to seem plenty like a full-sized structure on a lot of the lots this would be permitted on.

Mhays - your sense of entitlement to dictate what happens to other people's property is remarkable. Newsflash - the people who actually live in these neighborhoods and bought their houses under the existing zoning ought to have more say over what goes on there than you or I (or the development community, architects, and armchair urban planners)

bubbleator: Your accusation only makes sense in reverse! I'm talking about less restriction over other people's property.

Yes neighbors should have a say. But no, when the chips are down, this city isn't just for existing land owners. We figured that out as a country centuries ago.

This is the next recall campaign in the offing. Nick Licata's and Richard Conlin's dream of altering Seattle's wonderful neighborhoods will turn into their nightmare. It is because the city belongs to the people, that they will reject becoming residents of one anthill next to another anthill.

sam sperry

It seems that detached cottages are a contentious issue here in Seattle. For a supposed liberal city, there seems to be an awful lot of people of the anti-change and let me dictate what my neighbor does mindset. The article starts off with the premise of waking up to construction noise. You would wake up to construction noise if your neighbor decided to remodel or add an addition to their house. As long as they meet the building codes, have the proper permits, and meet noise ordinances, they can. It's called living in a city.

As far quality of life issues, such as light, trees, views, and privacy, you cannot guarantee those if you choose to live in a city with other people surrounding you. The way the most standard Seattle lot sizes are and houses that were built within 10 feet of each other, you probably currently see your neighbors house and they probably yours. If you want a guarantee of all of the above maybe moving to a gated community with covenants and strict design codes or perhaps an isolated patch of land away from people might be an option.

With all the arguments of the 'character' and the 'quality of life' of a neighborhood, I doubt that 50 backyard cottages per year in the entire city is going to change much about any neighborhood. What are you going to dictate next, the kind of people that can move here? Oh, I forgot that's already been determined by a factor called economics. If it sounds like a NIMBY, acts like a NIMBY, maybe it is a NIMBY or a NIYBKE, not in your backyard either.

I had a letter to the editor on this issue in The Seattle Times on-line edition a few weeks ago: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2009429691_backyard_cottages_is_seattle_g.html. And one in the old P-I three years ago: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/280976_ltrs14.html

Time to increase the stock of affordable housing, and backyard cottages is a way to do it. But why stop at 50? Why not open the entire city to as many as the market will hold? Then watch a corresponding decline in homelessness since either the new units themselves or pre-existing low-income housing units become vacant because their occupants move into the new units.

Too much time is spent by too many people micro-managing what someone does with their own property. We always hear why an owners rights need to be restricted because it's an inconvenience to the neighbors or other some such, but we never hear a defense of the owner or the level of inconvenience it causes him.

How about less NIMBY and less Buttinski and more housing.

The Piper

If you are waking up to construction 5 feet from your bedroom window, you are already living in a backyard cottage/house. Otherwise you would have a rear setback on your own lot to buffer you from your neighbor's lot. If you have had the opportunity to build this bedroom on your lot, why shouldn't your neighbor have the same opportunity?

I am in favor of allowing duplexes or even triplexes on all single family lots. However, I believe the height limits, setbacks, lot coverage restrictions, parking requirements, etc. should comply with the current single family zoning code. You would be able to house more people in the same amount of buildable area, but the impact on privacy, light, and view blockage would be no more than what is allowed by building a single McMansion.

This city says it will require that one owner own both the main house and the backyard cottage and live in at least one of the buildings 6 months each year. How can such a requirement be enforced? What is to prevent an owner from renting both a house and the backyard cottage and living elsewhere? Is the city really going to go around every six months checking who is living in the house and who is living in the backyard cottage? Either the city is going to need to be very intrusive or this ordinance cannot be effectively enforced.

@Jeffery and others who wonder how the owner-occupied aspect of this ordinance will be enforced: It will be enforced the same way other zoning or building code violations are enforced, by complaint. If someone sees their neighbor is renting out their cottage AND house, and cares about it, they will call the anonymous complaint line at DPD.

DPD does not have to have an army of code enforcers roaming the streets looking for people renting out their backyard cottage and house in violation of the ordinance. Everyone who is unwilling to accept the growth of Seattle into a cosmopolitan, vibrant, walkable city will, I'm sure, do it for them.

robgharrisonAIA. So the owner-occupancy requirement won't be enforced unless someone complains? I actually agree with that analysis, but I think that it is a non-response that actually vitiates the larger argument and points out just how dishonest DPD are in pushing this initiative.

And please, this measure has very little indeed to do with making Seattle a "cosmopolitan, vibrant, walkable city."

To be frank, as someone who was involved in the Neighborhood Planning process in which Seattle residents did buy off on increasing the density in much of the City based on a number of promises (fe - that the City wouldn't undermine SF zoning, and that it would enforce parking, open space, and setback requirements on new development in Urban Villages to mitigate the effects of adding density, and would preserve existing affordable housing), I think the cavalier dismissal of many citizens who are participated in close to 10 years of City-funded planning and labeling all of them as NIMBY's is mean-spirited and profoundly ignorant.

BTW - on that note - Mhays was quick to leap to the conclusion that Kammerer outright opposed this proposal because he raised legitimate questions and didn't accept the draft legislation completely and unquestioningly. Go back and read the piece Mr. Hays - Kammerer also says a lot of good things about DADU's, and largely raises thoughtful questions about the details of the proposal at hand.

But when advocates of the proposal on one hand tell us that it will be enforced, really, but on the other say we should duplex or triplex exsting SF zoned lots, and that anyone who asks those kind of questions about new development is a NIMBY, you are little better than the Bush Administration when it poisoned public debate with their particular "you're with us or you're against us" frame.

...and Mr. Sperry, I'm somewhat shocked that you would try and lump Councilmember Licata in with Conlin and the majority of the Council that have been helping Mayor Nickels give the keys to our City away to the development community.

Kent, you raise a lot of important issues, most of which the city is already facing without this proposal. For example, our neighbors recently expanded their 1920s home and we lived with the backhoe out our dining room window and sounds of saws for months. I understand, though, they are nice people and the addition is really beautiful. I'm sure it puts a little more pressure on utilities, too, though, as does the new three-story house that replaced a Boeing box in Wedgewood that we go by on the way to a friend's place. No easy answer to that one, unless you want to require neighborhood approval for every project. I'm guessing most homeowners want the option of cashing in their property without asking their neighbors, though.

By the way, I recently read the article "Two-flat comeback" about how duplexes are providing a way for middle-income people to afford living in Chicago: "A Federal Housing Administration loan (only available to purchasers who plan to live in the building) allows you to put less than 5 percent down and apply the prospective rental income to your own income." Sounds a bit risky to me, but a lot better than a liar loan and it would help bring Seattle back to affordablility to families without two high-income jobs.

Garden houses have existed for decades in countless communities in California. I had friends in the 60s living in these units in Berkeley, and I have also seen them in Oakland and Santa Cruz. It's wierd that the City of Seattle is so skittish about approving these, but has had no problem approving upzones and construction of massive numbers of multi-family residential projects over the past couple of decades. At the present time there are about 3,000 brand new, never-lived in, vacant, grotesquely unaffordable condos in Seattle, and we never hear anyone in Seattle government bemoaning that fact. But if single-family homeowners want to do something to provide affordable housing for family members or renters that becomes grist for endless hypocritical hand-wringing and cries that the sky is falling.

@ Jeffrey Ochsner:
What would stop a owner of single family home without a DADU from renting it out now? Is is against the law? I know of a person who is currently living in Japan for a year. They can, I believe rent their house while they are gone and have done so. A lot of single family homes that have not sold on the market have also been put up for rent too. Is that against the law too? Is someone going to enforce that the owners stay in their houses? What is it to you if the owner lives in a single family home or not? As long as the property is maintained, there is no criminal activity or hazardous conditions to the neighborhood.
What difference would it make if there is a DADU or not? if there are issues such as noise code violations, criminal activity, then report it to the city and the police. The question of enforcing owner occupancy is a silly argument.

From what I have read about the current proposal, the DADU codes would have to still fit within the current zoning codes for single family homes as far number of unrelated people living on a SF property, lot coverage 35% or less and setbacks, parking space requirements for an ADU (attached to a house) etc. In fact, the current proposal seems to have even more zoning requirements as far as height, and square footage. There is really nothing new except that you now may have permission to either you yourself or to allow someone else to legally live in a detached accessory structure on a single family lot. You could not stop your neighbor from building an 800 sq. ft. addition to their house as long as they met all the current SF zoning ordinances. You currently cannot stop your neighbor from parking on the street. What if they have teenage children who all have cars? You cannot stop them from parking in the street. My neighbor has a 1906 house on a single family lot with no parking and can't install a parking space on his lot and he parks in the street. Am I going to report him for possible zoning violations? It's called living in a city.

What is wrong with being a NIMBY? I would be proud to be one if I were trying to stop something that I think would be detrimental to a neighborhood, let's say sex offender housing or a drug halfway house.
As far as being called a NIMBY, nothing wrong with that, if the shoe fits wear it, instead of trying to hide behind arguments hoping to maintain the status quo and that do not have the facts or logic to back them.

It's looks to me that the current proposal will not be changing much in Seattle's single family zones. The current proposal falls within the current zoning ordinances and introduces nothing really new. Parking requirements seem to be addressed and enforcement looks like it would be the way it has always been in SF zones with neighbors calling them in. At only 50 permitted a year, I don't think much will change in Seattle's single family zones or make much of a dent in affordable housing for that matter.

Kent - I appreciate the background, research, and knowledge of this issue. I just fundamentally disagree. (see my blog post about this) where I reference this blog:

http://www.theseattlespecialist.com/seattle-real-estate/backyard-cottages-still-controversial

And thank you for bringing the issue to the forefront. I will be at the August 3rd meeting to voice my strong support for this backyard cottage proposal. If you are there, please introduce yourself and say hi if you see me.

Cheers,

Jim

mchutch:

As far as I am aware, there is no ordinance that seeks to prevent a homeowner from renting his/her property and living elsewhere. The DADU ordinance as proposed, however, has a provision that says the owner of the property must live in either the main house or the DADU for six months a year. One can debate whether or not this is a reasonable part of the ordinance. My question has to do with whether this part of the ordinance can be enforced.

Rob Harrison suggests that the ordinance will be enforced by citizens who will need to make determinations of owners and renters of properties in their neighborhoods. This may work in some neighborhoods, but may be considered unfriendly or intrusive in others.

Taking the time to get it right involves making sure that solutions are not part of the problem.

There are a number of reasons that an existing house on a SF zoned Seattle lot has become less and less attainable.. The "math" is complex, even paradoxical.
1. In-city living is now Cinderella at the ball, the more morally compelling the less financially within reach.
2. In-city living is really handy
3. Seattle continues to be most enjoyable in every possible way
4. Seattle has been very successful at selling Seattle and the metropolis became rich with jobs, and more jobs.
5. Seattle's center-city neighborhoods are the most handy, most characterful,very livable, and they are finite.
6. Most SF lots are zoned for much more bulk than the house presently on them.
7. Seattle is a city of gardeners well served by current SF restrictions, esp. the height limits of accessory buildings.
8. Shoppers for mega-house sites, mega-remodelers, landlords, and flippers compete with and outbid those of more modest means shopping for an "as-is" house.
9. Builders, landlords, and flippers compete withand outbid those of even more modest means who were able to buy MF zoned houses and, because of the lower price, afford a modest updating.

There are currently only a few factors in the other direction:
A. The income one can make from owning or renting a Seattle SF house and accessory unit (legal or bootlegged) limits the exchange value faced by the prospective buyer.
B. SF zoning is not limited to Seattle--there are a lot of fish in this sea.
C. The great recession's moderation of prices and curtailment of flipping

In both lists, we can directly impact the total situation through changes in SF zoned uses and development standards # 6, 7, & A.

#6 and A, are parts of a whole and need more than superficial evaluation to make sure that we actually are making housing more attainable, as opposed to less. The major difference here mayl be between little impact (when not many undertaken) and "success," the latter significantly raising exchange values first, then assessments, taxes,profits, and again exchanges values (prices). Surely, we are aiming for success, not just to keep planners' employed and NIMBYs at bay.

#7 needs fuller consideration in the area that urban designers currently call "form-based zoning" and land use economists/attorneys call "investment security." Large lots may readily adapt to a small cottage in the garden and there are ways on smaller lots for skilled professionals to juggle everyones' sun, light, air and privacy. However, zoning codes were written first and most legitimately endure today so that mature areas can be modified by anyone, including the less skilled, in a manner that conserves what already works. I am not sure we are there yet on Seattle's many small lots with pre-zoning housing. In outlying areas with large lots post-zoning housing we could also be overly "exclusionary."

Jeffrey rightly calls the nonsense of "you can go to the beach, but don't go in the water." Let's be upfront and make sense at least when it is relatively easy. On that score, LU junkies, NPers, ALL electeds, and candidates please google: "A Better Way to Zone. The online pages at Google books include "mature areas" The whole masterpiece is at Amazon for $15--you won't be sorry.

ADUs and DADUs exist in my SF neighborhood, and so far they have been fine. Nonetheless, I think Mr Kammerer's cautions and concerns are well worth paying attention to. Instead of a 50 unit per year maximum, Seattle should institute a maximum per neighborhood due to traffic, noise, and parking issues.
Some of you also need to do some reading on the old neighborhood busting tactics that were so prevalent in the 50's and 60's. Neighborhoods have tipping points, and inattention to issues with density can lead to mass migrations to outlying areas ( in fact, the latest survey issued Saturday by the Pugest Sound Business Journal shows that exactly that migration is occurring. Our cities are still growing more slowly than the suburban and rural areas.
For a rational and reasoned paper from a Harvard Professor of Urban Studies on density issues, see Edward Glaeser on the consumer city. And I will take a freeman's advice and read the book on a better way to zone. Some commenters here are confusing the making of money by an individual with livability in a city neighborhood-they are not the same. There is also an excellent, but very long, article on the changes in property rights over the last 100 years that some people might do well to review. It is available on Rachel's Democracy and Health News.