Print
Email
“Backyard cottages” are likely to be one of the last land-use legacies of the Nickels regime. Some will question whether these small dwelling units on lots with existing homes are legal, but let's be clear: Allowance of such "mother-in-law" dwellings is not a question of legality, since state law mandates cities to provide for accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in local land use codes. But there are plenty of policy questions and political hot buttons.
Legally, accessory dwelling units (ADU's) have been required in Washington since the early 1990s, and Seattle first allowed attached ADU's in 1994. Where it gets contentious is the provision giving municipal discretion in how to apply the concept.
Some neighborhood advocates such as Crosscut writer Kent Kammerer have suggested that the backyard cottage proposal is a de facto rezoning of single-family neighborhoods, somehow placing the cottages out of sync with underlying land use law. However, this contention ignores the state mandate for ADU’s, and deflects attention from the real issue, which is a policy choice about the circumstances under which accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) should be allowed.
Backyard cottages have been allowed on a limited basis within an area of southeast Seattle since 2006. According to proponents, such cottages are now ready for prime time as a nod to sustainability and enhanced efforts to provide a range of housing types to residents. Backyard cottages citywide would show an evolution of perceived “local circumstances” in Seattle that move "mother-in-law dwellings" across the yard rather than keep them indoors.
Interest in ADU’s grew in the 1980s and 1990s in the wake of changing demographics and concerns about housing availability and affordability. In 1990 and 1991, the state's Growth Management Act (GMA) mandated attention to housing needs and encouraged innovative land use techniques to enhance opportunities for affordable housing. The 1993 Housing Policy Act directed cities planning under GMA to adopt ordinances by the end of 1994 that incorporated accessory dwelling provisions within land use codes, “subject to such regulations, conditions, procedures, and limitations as determined by the local legislative authority.”
ADU ordinances typically govern a range of relevant issues pursuant to “local circumstances,” ranging from size, number of occupants to parking and design criteria. From the beginning, some cities kept ADU’s inside then-existing housing stock rather than new construction detached from the existing home. Others, like Seattle, limited ADU’s to dwelling actually attached to residences, until 2006 when the experimental program with detached accessory dwelling units (or DADUs) began in Southeast Seattle.
Unlike Seattle, many other cities in the Puget Sound region such as Clyde Hill, Issaquah, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Shoreline, Newcastle, Redmond, parts of unincorporated King County, Woodinville, and Yarrow Point have permitted detached ADU’s for some time. Nationally, the concept is familiar, and well received. A recent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development case study touts "by right" attached and detached ADU's in Lexington, Massachusetts, a successful ordinance and development program in Santa Cruz, California, and Portland's relaxed approach which allows DADU's in all development zones.
The backyard cottage issue typically raises issues of visual impact and neighborhood character. Usually, permitting schemes favor larger lots to assure attention to setbacks. The current ordinance proposal in Seattle — and its careful marketing by Department of Planning and Development staffers — shows lots of fine tuning of these impact issues with predictable attention to height, bulk, and setbacks.
From a legal perspective, fine tuning cottages to appropriate lots, settings, and ownership schemes is a defensible reflection of policy choice. Up to a point. The City Council will be more subject to court scrutiny if it ventures over the line into politically-driven, arbitrary limits to the cottage permit pipeline (such as the currently proposed 50 DADUs per year). The same would be true if Seattle emulates some other cities by enacting hoop-jumping ordinance provisions that — permitted in theory but impossible to build in practice.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 10:47 a.m. Inappropriate
OMG, if it's good enough for Yarrow Point and Clyde Hill, it oughta be good enough for me. Those places are so totally not slums.
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 10:49 a.m. Inappropriate
"A special place in the sun" is how a commenter just phrased it on the MacDonald string. And that is exactlythe criteria that should be written into any ADU ordinance so as to protect neighbors who thought they had it. Last time I looked, the protection still was not there. Really not that difficult either.
As for the claim that 50 DADU camel noses into the tent is OK (how come not 25, 75, or 1000?) and the "in practice the theory is different," I heartily agree. The focus should be on being sure ADUS are genuine neighborhood assets in every case, then the bets don't have to be hedged.
As for the suburban cities you list, my guess is the original minimum lot size pretty much tells the story. I imagine you know that accessory housing and a lot of other stuff came into being as an end run around exclusionary greenfield zoning--whereas inner city Seattle lots for the most part preceded that nonsense. Therefore while already doing their part these are the neighborhoods that could suffer the most damage if this is not properly hashed out.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue that Kent started. Here's my contribution:
Andres Duany, as usual, spares no one except himself, but for sure leaves no uncertain terms.
Go here:http://fortworthology.com/2008/04/08/andres-duany-lecture-from-youtube/
The ADU part is at the start of video 5 (probably need to go to end of 4 too), then lets talk some more.
Duany is often criticized for the popularity (high prices) of his own work. Economics not being his strongest suit, here he makes the common mistake of assuming that the ADU helps pay the mortgage Not for the second buyer, who's mortgage is higher because of the existence of the ADU. it also takes a lot of savvy to get one built and actually stay ahead of the game. Possible though in normal times. At present, the local rental market is well on its way to becoming a renters' market, big time.
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 1:38 p.m. Inappropriate
afreeman has a good point. Lexington, Ma has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, while Mercer Island's is 8,400 square feet. In contrast, Seattle would allow ADU's on as small as 4,000 square feet. I have two main problems with the proposal, and both are related to the negative impacts on livability that the city's proposal creates. The first is that by allowing ADUs on such small lots, many mature trees will need to be cut down, and there will be less urban tree canopy to filter air pollution, temper urban noise, and mitigate greenhouse gases. Not to mention less pervious surface to soak up stormwater runoff. We lose our Emerald City, our birds, and our clean water and air. The city needs to address loss of urban forest cover and increasing stormwater pollution at the same time they address increasing densities. The second issue is that analysis is needed of the impacts on existing affordable housing stock. I live in a modest 970 square foot house, and the bulk of my tax bill is for the land. If my neighbors build ADUs, won't the value of the land will go even higher, possibly pricing me out of the neighborhood? Bottom line for me, as a land use planner with over 20 years experience, is that the city needs to take their time and be extremely careful to not let other environmental priorities suffer in the interest of increasing density. A more holistic approach to the density issue, considering green infrastructure and affordability of existing housing stock into the equation, will save the city money and time in the long run.
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 4:51 p.m. Inappropriate
ADU's =Parking Nightmare
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 6:15 p.m. Inappropriate
"The state directs such small accessory units, to increase housing in cities"
It seems mildly perverse to mandate separate structures on residential lots while militantly battling honest (or even concealed) duplexes. Well, OK, the battle is less than militant but the intent is definitely there.
Which would you rather have for a neighbor, two houses on one lot or a larger single house on one lot? I think I would take option two if I had any choice. The backyard houses harken back to the "cottage" ideal but they hardly seem so socially useful that they deserve a state directive. DPD has floated a study that shows the backyard houses are so meek that some neighbors don't even know they exist (well, maybe they thought they were garages and, by the way, can you eliminate your garage and make it into a dwelling?). I would guess that an illegal duplex stuffed into a nominally single-family house might also escape casual notice.
I think Kent had it right. It's a less than forthright plan to screw up the regressive but popular single family zoning. The planners hate it (they all live in apartments you know, wouldn't touch a single family house).
Posted Fri, Aug 28, 9:01 p.m. Inappropriate
this week of barack and teddy reminded me of my old homes on the other end of I-90 until 1989, when I was 29 and moved out here.
I left my decaying industrial hometown pit of Holyoke in 1978 to go to Boston College. Given my family's welfare background, thanks to student loans and financial aid, which I used to go to culinary school instead of finishing my 4 yr. degree.
It was fun living in Boston, and cooking at fine dining places, and moving up in my career, and making a few more bucks in the 80's, as the economy started roaring in the RayGun bubble founded on military industrial complex waste, itself founded upon debt, debt and debt. I spent the summer of '85 cooking at a few different places in vineyard haven and edgartown, and mvoed back to Boston to cook in hotels (Four Seasons on the edge of the Public Garden, for a spell.)
Housing prices were ridiculous in Boston for us working stiffs. I completely and totally lucked out with cheap rent NOT next to criminals AND crime, and was able to stay in town & build my resume. Rent on the vineyard for us working stiffs ... ha ha ha. When I moved out here in
'89 the rents were a joke compared to Boston, BUT, the job market, in particular the pay, was also a joke.
Fast forward, I have a math degree and a level of pay and benefits that is better than ... 80? 95% of the cooks out there? I am STILL priced out of living without a huge debt burden / driving expense.
Funny thing is, I'm still hearing the same arguements and fights and EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES about this sovlable problem can't get solved cuz ... whatever. I do NOT know the solution, I DO know that this ain't like inventing travel at light speed.
Any of you out there aware that about 186,000,000 americans in 2006 had money income under 75 grand a year, and about 22 million were above 75 grand a year?
How many of these policy people making EXCUSES are living on 50 grand a year or less, like about 160,000,000 americans? (check out table 680, money income, statistical abstract of the u.s.)
Here is my solution, for housing, transportation, health ...
IF you manage 3 or more people below you, AND
you've been doing it for more than 2 years, AND
you've been in your business for over 5 years, AND
you make over 50 grand a year, AND
you don't have plans in a drawer / on a flashdrive that can be implemented in 3 months,
YOUR FIRED!
Go work at goldman or aig and just be a legitimate thieving, stealing selfish pig wrecking the community, instead of public incompetent wrecking the economy.
24 years ago me and a buddy shared a 1 bedroom nothing in oak bluffs, then moved back to boston's housing insanity at the end of the season (or, as islanders called it, we moved 'off island'). It took me all summer to save enough money to SHARE an apartment in Boston - a summer of no health, car, kid ... problems - and the money was gone in ONE CHECK.
Try reading some history people - we're like EVERY rotting empire, where the ruling powers of the private sector are using the public sector to enrich themselves, a lot of the public sector is flat out incompetent, and we the peeee-ons are working harder for less security in housing, less security in retirement, less security in employment & the inevitable retraining & re-imployment, less security in health ...
but the parasites at the top are doing great making powerpoint excuses and powerpoint phantasies.
r. murphy
Posted Sat, Aug 29, 12:53 p.m. Inappropriate
"24 years ago me and a buddy shared a 1 bedroom nothing in oak bluffs, then moved back to boston's housing insanity...the money was gone in ONE CHECK...Fast forward, I have a math degree and...am STILL priced out of living without a huge debt burden / driving expense."
A quarter century, a viable BS degree in a tech city, no house. How many variations have I heard? Living the life, riding the buses with a dog eared paperback for a decade or so, before retreating back into the parent's basement to save up for a down payment.
I might suggest something other than the Boston/NYC/NE/Seattle/Portland/SF corridors. These are highly regulated housing markets...rent controls and/or heavy regulation (land management, etc). Just look how much pushback there is to applying what appears to be reasonable ADU regs -- already on the books. All this resistance leads to high PITI (principal/interest/taxes/insurance) to income ratios.
So if after all this time you're still not used to that, look to the South or the Middle. Truck drivers, even mathematicians, there own real houses, fret about crab grass.
Of course, if living in Seattle is a lifelong lifestyle consideration -- you just can't live anywhere else -- then accept high housing costs as a sacrifice for living in paradise.
Posted Sun, Aug 30, 12:37 a.m. Inappropriate
As an attorny, Mr. Wolfe might have noticed That Mr. Kammerer's article was not in opposition to DADUs. It made a point that two buildings as large as Seattle proposes on one site is de-facto duplex zoning going under the appealing name of "Cottages". Mr Wolfe would no doubt confirm that the concept of zoning is included in state law to provide a method for a city to make legally clear what can and can not be built. Two living spaces of similar size on the same lot have been called duplexes for as long as zoning has existed. Changing the name to "Cottages" is simply deceptive. Zoning, as a concept, protects those who have already invested in property to insure its value will not be diminished by unintended development.
While Mr. Wolfe accurately references the Growth Management Act as providing for DADUs, the inference leads readers to believe that the State law requires DADUs. It does not. The intent of the state is that cities provide for their possibility with reasonable regulations. Mr. Wolfe makes note of other municipalities that allow them, but none do so on lots as small as 4,000 sq.ft as is proposed in Seattle. In fact, most cities require 10,000 sq. ft lots to build a DADU.
As a land use attorney, I am certain, is familiar with Andre Duany, the God Father of "New Urbanism" and sustainable development. He suggests DADUs of 1 story limited to 400 sq. ft. and dispersed in urban settings. Seattle's new proposal allows the new cottages to be two story and 800 sq.ft. in size, or as large as many of the Seattle style bungalows on lots less than half the size of the other cities he references. This seems unreasonable.
Posted Sun, Aug 30, 12:50 a.m. Inappropriate
Correction of Walker posting- "As a land use attorney, I am certain he is familiar...."
Posted Sun, Aug 30, 11:35 a.m. Inappropriate
"He suggests DADUs of 1 story limited to 400 sq. ft...Seattle's new proposal allows the new cottages to be two story and 800 sq.ft. This seems unreasonable."
Then why not split the difference, or even reduce it to 400 sq ft, if that's the compromise needed to move forward? You risk losing your barristas, actors, waiters, shop clerks, the guy who works graveyard at Beths, all the people that make a city interesting. If the only people that can afford to live there are professionals, where's the fun in that (present company excluded of course, but how good are your omelettes, particularly at 3:00AM)?
My concern would be that the NITBYs (Not In Their Back Yard) will stall this out, via process, into infinity, or at least through the political season, which is itself becoming permanent.
Posted Mon, Aug 31, 1:02 a.m. Inappropriate
Southender,
I have nothing against DADUs; I have 4 within 1 block of me, but if we are going to have them all over the city, I do want to see stronger controls on their size and locations; not to mention the lot size they can be located on.
Your comment about waiters, actors, barristas etc. being the people who make a city interesting is maybe a bit hyperbolic, but I agree that Seattle is overloaded with professionals versus the middle class residents we used to have. This shift has been detrimental to the city in multiple ways, not the least of which is the expensive housing. One compounding problem has been people's insistence on living alone. Used to be unrelated people doubled and tripled up in living quarters to save money. Most don't seem to want to do that now which also drives up housing costs. Have you or others you know considered teaming up with a roommate?
I don't worry about the NITBYs; most are bringing up important considerations that our Planning Dept and City Council seem to overlook. Neither group has a good record on forseeing unintended consequences. And I would place no bets on the DADU rents staying affordable for waiters, barristas etc.. Not so long ago people were paying $800,000 for converted garages in San Francisco ( with similarly astronomical rents). It would be very easy for Seattle to get to the same place. The fact is, not everyone who wants to live in a given city is going to be able to afford doing so. I couldn't afford to live in NY city, so I don't. Same is true of many other places. Others have more money, and I'd be out competed by their available dollars. So it goes. I just make myself happy somewhere else I can afford.
I can and do make a mean 3:00am omelette. I do it at home though because it saves me dollars, and I manage to have fun doing it too.
There are also some other methods for tanking home/rent prices in a city, but I don't think you'd be too happy if they were implemented here. Detroit, for example, is very affordable, but I doubt you'd want to live there. In other words, be careful what you wish for; it might not yield what you exoect.
Posted Mon, Aug 31, 6:54 a.m. Inappropriate
southender - i enjoy how you blame d'gov-mint for this housing fiasco.
do tell - WHAT work is available in the south or the middle? working at some small town wal-mart or chicken farm, which is about the only employer in town, which means you are free to be treated like chicken crap and free to get paid peanuts because there is no other game in town? you see, in economics, when there is a monopoly or oligopoly in something like employment, then the customer (worker) is treated like crap cuz the customer has NO other choices. Welcome to American corporate crony rigged market capitalism, supported by dupes who think it is the 'free market'.
I'm not concerned with a 15 or 25 minute commute to my job. A 45 or 65 minute commute is ridiculous, it is a waste of time, and time is money.
One of the key reasons I live close to cities is so I have choice in my employment. I CAN find a new job down the street in 2 weeks or 2 months, unlike the millions of Americans ekeing out by their fingernails existance in your mythical garden of the south and middle.
Posted Mon, Aug 31, 8:54 p.m. Inappropriate
The problem is that in Seattle now the median income is not holding up to housing prices. That's why I think it's critical to get some more affordable housing as soon as is reasonable. (You can do a lot with 400 sq ft, as my weekend research confirmed at IKEA.) I contend that there is institutional resistance to doing that. Prove me wrong, please.
When I read that someone with a degree in mathematics cannot afford a house, I have a problem with that. There was a time when that degree could get you on at Boeing as a Tech Aid, and with a promotion or two you'd swing the down payment. There were a wider diversity of jobs in Seattle too, from tech, insurance, banking, and professional services. Our mathematician might have signed on with a downtown actuarial consulting firm, maybe passed an exam or two, and launched a career that way. Where are those employers today?
And what do you mean about work being available only in small towns in the south and the middle? You mean small towns like Chicago, Atlanta, Birmingham, or Austin? The best place for employment right now is in Fargo. Who would have guessed? It's the biggest city that North Dakota has to offer but if you want to call that small, go ahead. It qualifies as the Middle though.
Look, I recall a time when as a teenager, eons ago, some friends of mine and I on a Sunday afternoon decided to walk on Third from downtown to the Seattle Center, and we didn't pass another person. And while I was driving for Metro while in college I laid over at First and Bell (The 18 I think, again, it was decades ago) where I had an interesting conversation with a pimp living a floor up, window open, on a hot afternoon, painting kittens by the numbers. He was decent enough, but the point is that I'm not talking about going back to that Seattle.
I like functional cities too, with good restaurants and wide screen theatres subsidized by the wealthy. But why is it radical now for a working stiff to swing rent, and a seasoned college graduate to afford a house, or at least a condo? Seattle has smart, hardworking people, in abundance. This ought to be a Mecca for businesses with salaries to match.
I just think that Seattle needs to get serious about expanding and diversifying its employment base and housing stock.
Posted Tue, Sep 1, 4:32 p.m. Inappropriate
Building vertically is more sustainable than horizontally. Putting parking under and apartment over helps stash the cars and keep them off the street. Lot coverage is not allowed to go over current limits. Rear yard coverage is not allowed to increase over current limits. Space to plant trees has no net change.
Here's some other math: Build it for $100K Rent it for 10 years and pay it off. Use the rest of the monthly rent to retire sometime...who otherwise would have an extra $750 or so a month to put away for say 20 or 30 years for a nestegg? That's what a little unit over your garage can do for you.
Small houses on lots with single occupant dwellings is consumptive and not at all sustainable. Flex houses and on-site DADUs combined make for superb use of urban land. There is really nothing less sustainable (in all ways - environmentally, economically and socio-culturally) than single occupants on lots under the guise of Single Family housing in sprawling car-centric neighborhoods that call themselves in-city.
This is no more defacto duplexing than working out of your home office is defacto commercial zoning. The guidelines are great, the pilots are working, the limited number allowed per year is disappointing, but it's better than nothing.
Bring em on.
Posted Wed, Jan 20, 2:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Now that the ordinance has past city council, my firm, CAST Architecture, has been seeing a lot of interest in the Backyard cottage ordinance. What is interesting to note is that so far we haven't seen anyone who is interested in building a cottage for the sole purpose of renting it out. Most people are thinking planning to build one to house family or provide a space for guests with the rental option being a fall back position if they fall on hard times.
We've also seen a lot of confusion related to the ordinance itself. To that end we wrote a "quick start guide" intending to help people better understand theallowances and restrictions in the ordinance.
I'm personally excited about the new ordinance and believe that it is a big win for Seattle home owners and renters alike.