-
Title
-
Eng
Accesory Dwelling Units and Accessory Structures in Olympia, Wa
-
Date
-
2011
-
Creator
-
Eng
Skinner, Travis
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN OLYMPIA, WA
by
Travis Skinner
A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2011
©2011 by Travis Skinner. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Travis Skinner
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
{Primary Reader's Name}
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ii
ABSTRACT
Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory
Structures in Olympia, WA
Travis Skinner
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.
Table of Contents:
Introduction………………………………………………………………...1
Literature Review……………………………………………………….....4
Methodology……………………………………………………………...15
Results………………………………………………………………….…20
Conclusion/Recommendations………………………………………....30
Bibliography………………………………………………………………37
List of Figures
Estimated Valuation of City of Olympia permitted ADUs (graph)………………...24
iv
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Olympia Sample Secondary Dwelling Unit Data……………………….21
Table 4.2 Thurston County Sample Secondary Dwelling Data……………….21-22
v
Chapter 1: Introduction
This project is a multi-disciplinary evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and Accessory Structures, in Olympia, Washington. There are two clear
sides to the research. The first evaluates the effectiveness of ADU code and
protocol, and investigates ways that other cities have increased the permitting
efficiency for ADUs. The other side focuses on Accessory Structure dwelling
units, the accepted city protocol, and the necessity for clear standards in the
Accessory Structure zoning code.
Why does this matter?
ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings are a form of micro-infill
development and offer increased housing options for a changing population
demographic, within single-family zoned neighborhoods. ADUs are recently
being accepted as infill development in planning literature (Wegman, 2011).
ADU zoning code is a style of housing that works in conjunction with the largest
resource in the United States, single-family neighborhoods. Zoning standards
vary considerably based on local regulation, so focusing on the idiosyncrasies of
a single case study location is necessary. The in-depth evaluation of a medium
sized city will provide good case study research for other similar sized cities.
“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” (Woodruff, 1954). This curt and
powerful statement reinforces the notion that municipalities should seek to find a
balance between getting codes in touch with what citizens are doing and citizens
1
in touch with what codes are promoting. This research acts as an information
outlet between these two entities. Comparing the intentions of a law and the
reality of the results is a necessary evaluation mechanism for successful policy.
What is the setting?
The City of Olympia, Washington has a population of about 50,000
citizens, located as the base of the Puget Sound in central, western Washington.
Based on data from City of Olympia Comprehensive plan, 72% of the acreage
inside of city limits is zoned for single family residential housing (City of Olympia,
2006). Olympia has a progressive Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance
from 1995 that was inspired by the Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) from 1990. Based on the low number of ADU permits issued, less than 2
per year on average, Olympia is ripe for an evaluation of the zoning code for
ADUs.
What were the methods?
Three methods were utilized to prepare this evaluation. The first was a
literature review of planning literature, ADU case studies, and government
documents about additional dwelling expansion in single-family neighborhoods.
The second method was an analysis of the Northwest Multiple Listing Service
(NWMLS) Real Estate database to locate “Functional ADUs” and then cross
check properties with city records for permitted ADUs and Accessory Structures.
The third method involved interviews with City of Olympia employees to better
understand the environment and city protocol for small structure and conversion
2
apartment dwelling units, and an interview with a micro-developer from Portland,
Oregon.
What are the conclusions and recommendations?
The zoning code for Accessory Structures needs a standard Accessory
Structure dwelling zoning classification. This is an easy step the city can take to
clarify the zoning code to increase citizen understanding. Secondly, the city
should take advantage of the upcoming review of the Olympia Comprehensive
plan, in 2013, to make headway on a revised ADU code, streamlined protocol,
and incentives program. “People are building ADUs to meet pent up demand and
provide for a family need regardless of the legislation in place,” (Hickey, 2010).
Olympia has significant potential to replicate a successful development model
and benefit from the synergy of community engagement and strategic incentives.
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Early Planning Literature Review:
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s increased academic interest in
“Accessory Apartments” began to appear. Numerous articles were published in
planning journals and various experts emerged in support of expanding the
capacity of single-family homes (Gellen, 1986, Hare, 1982, Moudon, 1982).
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 identified enormous
potential for conversion apartment development within the single-family
neighborhood (Moudon, 1982). A conversion apartment refers to using unutilized space in a single family house to build an additional apartment. Two
prominent researchers, Patrick Hare and Martin Gellen, published numerous
articles and books about the potential for conversion apartments to expand the
housing stock without adding new structures (Gellen, 1986). Low density,
single-family neighborhoods are still “...the most adaptable physical form of
housing in America” (Hickey, 2010).
Conversion apartments and small structure dwellings are now commonly
recognized in various cities’ zoning code as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
ADU regulations have been making incremental steps toward convergence
between citizen practices and municipalities policy for the last several decades.
Presently there is a small body of literature available focusing on Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs). The 70’s and 80’s planning literature was much more
4
general, today the literature focuses on the idiosyncrasies of a particular locale.
The experiences of various cities acted as the guiding principles of the research.
Context: Cities of Interest
Portland, Oregon:
Portland has a long history with Accessory Structures and Accessory
Dwelling Units. The City of Portland has remained an innovator of progressive
ADU policy and has seen significant results with unique and creative dwelling
units. The structures utilize a variety of “...recycled and renewable materials and
encourage green building techniques. And [Portland's Policy] shows how
increased density can be achieved with only low-rise building, another
overlooked or misunderstood reality” (Gratz, 2004). Portland's Bureau of
Planning and Sustainability website provided information for comparing Olympia
and Portland’s zoning regulations.
A study from 2003 published by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning,
“Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Monitoring Project Report 1998-1999,” was
conducted to research the repeal of the ADU Owner Occupancy Requirement
from 1998 (City of Portland Bureau of Planning, 2003). This project used a
variety of data sources to closely monitor the ADU program. These data sources
include: aerial photos, permit application, land use review applications, site visits
and interviews with neighborhoods, designers and owners. The Portland
Planning staff was able to monitor, track and record the decisions made based
on the context of the scenario. No evidence was found for the raised public
concern of an explosion of ADU development. The concern involved with tracking
5
and recording all the ADU application cases allowed for a transparent, effective
protocol.
Martin John Brown wrote a self-published article entitled, “People in
Portland want and build ADU’s---with or without permits”. Brown is a resident of
Portland, Oregon and an owner/builder of a permitted ADU. He was interested in
studying the market value for houses with ADUs, but he quickly realized that
there were very few permitted ADUs on record. In order to gain a different
perspective on the market for ADUs he decided to research sales data of
properties with ADU-like characteristics and find out how many possessed
building permits.
With the help of a benevolent real estate agent, Brown searched the Real
Estate Multiple Listing Services (RMLS) database from September 2006 to
September 2009 for “single family detached” properties. Then he sifted through
the property descriptions and viewed the available images to decipher if three
characteristics were present: separate bath, kitchen and entrance. The
properties found with these characteristics were then labeled “functional ADUs”
Finally, Brown cross referenced these properties with the permitted ADUs and
deciphered a ratio of permitted to non permitted dwellings from his sample
population. Of the 42 “functional ADUs” discovered, 38% or 16 structures were
permitted and 62% or 26 structures were not.
Based on three years of real
estate listings, Brown suggests the “total number of functional ADU’s in Portland
could be 2 or even 3 times the number of permitted ADU’s” (2).
6
Brown’s study is the cornerstone research of this project. Developing a
method to monitor the number of non-permitted dwelling units in comparison to
the number of permitted ADUs is a way to check the efficiency of the regulation.
Continuing to advance the regulation toward higher rates of compliance is the
main motivation of this research.
San Francisco, California:
The Double Unit Opportunity (DUO) program of the San Francisco
Development Fund from 1985-1988 provided experience that has been very
influential in developing this research project. DUO offered a realistic approach
to encouraging and monitoring increased density through expansion of dwelling
units in unused space in single-family neighborhoods. DUO supported
construction of new units and helped homeowners get building permits for illegal
structures. This project worked with clients in 28 jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
Their experience with navigating zoning code among 28 different jurisdictions
revealed unnecessary regulatory barriers and important recommendations.
The study suggests that more illegal units will mostly likely occur where
zoning standards and building regulations are the most restrictive. This report
did not gather statistics on estimations of illegal units, but commonly references
information about experiences with them. DUO worked with homeowners for
three years to market, recruit, finance, design, build, and monitor citizens
interested in building additional dwelling space in their homes. The overriding
conclusion is “where ordinances are relatively flexible and the process is simple,
more legal second units will be built” (San Francisco Development Fund, 1988).
7
Seattle, Washington:
The City of Seattle has produced a great deal of planning literature
dedicated to ADUs and the new development of Backyard Cottages (BYCs).
BYC is the new Seattle jargon for a detached ADU. Nathaniel Taylor Hickey’s
2010 thesis “Urban Consolidation: An Analysis of Accessory Dwelling Units and
Backyard Cottages in Seattle” for the University of Washington Master of Urban
Planning program offered a comprehensive overview of the history and present
state of ADUs and BYCs in Seattle. Various government documents, most
notably Director’s Reports from the City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Community Development were also beneficial (City of Seattle, 2004, City of
Seattle, 2009, City of Seattle, 2010). Seattle has had similar experiences and
comparable protocol for ADUs as Olympia.
Santa Cruz, California:
The City of Santa Cruz served as a well-documented case study in the
ADU research. In 2003, the City of Santa Cruz implemented an ADU Ordinance
and an ADU Program. In the first year the program saw 35 new ADU permits
and in 2004, 36 new ADU permits. There was over a 300% increase in permits
issued after the program was implemented (Andrews, 2005). The program relied
upon community outreach and advertisement in order to gain acceptance, and
received a 3 year, $350,000 Sustainable Communities Grant funded by the
California Pollution Control Financing Authority (Tyre, 2008).
Several strategic
protocol changes and incentives were implemented to make the ADU program
successful.
8
The three strategies helped make Santa Cruz’s experience unique were:
first, the city relaxed parking requirements in order to encourage ADU
development. This is a monumental move in the history of ADU development,
because parking requirements are almost always the notion of contention that
opposition brings to the table. The second important step was a low interest
ADU loan program provided by the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union and
backed by the city during the years of the grant. The loans were available to
homeowners who agreed to rent their ADU at low-income prices, and the stability
of the loans has allowed for the credit union to offer a loan without government
backing today. This technique proved to be a way a city can encourage
development of low income housing with comparatively low monetary
investment. Patrick Hare, an early planning advocate, published an article in
2004 identifying the “funding roulette” as the largest obstacle to establishing
more ADUs. Santa Cruz’s experience has demonstrated that backing low
interest loans for ADUs is a great way to institutionalize loan options for ADUs
because it reduces the risk the bank assumes with a new loan program for a new
housing type, and at the same time it establishes a bank protocol for ADU loans.
The final step was development of a streamlined ADU program and preapproved architectural plan-set. The City of Santa Cruz published two books that
were pivotal in the development of a streamlined ADU model. The first book is
an ADU Manual that explains the step-by-step process of how to permit an ADU.
This manual covers how to start, financing resources, design standards, how to
be your own project manager, and appendix of helpful resources. The other
9
book is a plan-set of 7 pre-approved architectural designs for ADUs. Citizens of
Santa Cruz can choose a design from the plan-set and avoid the expense of an
architect and engineer signing off. This incentive significantly reduces the cost of
construction for homeowners and encourages an aesthetic that is congruent with
the existing architecture. Patricia Tyre’s 2008 Masters Thesis from the University
of Florida school of Urban and Regional Planning provided ample information
about Santa Cruz’s methods for implementing their ADU protocol (Tyre, 2008).
Olympia: ADU History
Washington State has had a developing atmosphere for ADUs thanks to
the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990. The GMA 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, 1990). The City of Olympia
adopted the present Comprehensive Plan in 1994 as part of the GMA
requirements. The comprehensive plan discusses design standards, goals and
policies for Olympia to shift toward more “...desirable, livable neighborhoods that
provide a variety of housing opportunities, accommodate different lifestyles and
income levels, and provide a sense of community” (City of Olympia, 1994). The
comprehensive plan will be re-drafted in 2013 and an opportunity to continue to
streamline the ADU zoning code and protocol is available.
10
ADUs have not taken off to the extent that GMA advocates hoped for, at
least not if we look at the Olympia permitting records. Only 53 (attached and
detached) ADUs have been permitted since the ordinance was passed in 1995
(City of Olympia). The zoning laws have started to accommodate for changing
demands of a new demographic with the introduction of an ADU ordinance to
zoning code in 1995. Based on a report prepared by the Municipal Research
and Services Center of Washington, the average household size in Washington
State has decreased from 3.09 in 1960 to 2.53 in 1990. The average size of
families is shrinking, so who dominates the population? “American family
composition has become more diverse and smaller; young singles and older
persons living alone have become a dominant group” (Hickey). There is a
growing proportion of people, young and old, living alone. Small habitations offer
many opportunities for the growing demographic of people living alone and in
smaller families.
Problems with ADUs in Literature:
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 onstreet 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” (Carlson, 2003). Parking requirements are
11
continually referenced in the literature as the largest obstacle for further density
expansion in single-family neighborhoods. This is the “parking paradox,” i.e.
parking requirements restrict density development, and the density is needed to
sustain public transit and reduce automotive dependence. The lower densities
create more dependence upon automobiles and consequently parking. Parking
remains a problem that needs to be further researched and addressed, but it is
not an insurmountable obstacle to increasing density and small-scale infill
development.
The other concern when discussing ADUs is the social or cultural conflict.
“The accessory apartment represents a deviation from the traditional image of
housing, family, and neighborhood. It symbolizes a change in the way the single
family house is used, a change that clashes with the traditional meanings
attached to the categories of residential zoning” (Gellen, 1985). The population
demographics research reveals that ADUs are needed for the change in
population dynamics in the near future, so why would the cultural identity of
America resist ADU development? Home-ownership has stimulated American
economy. The “American Dream” of a single family detached house (de
Neufville and Barton, 1987) acts as a dominant cultural driver.
In Constance Perin’s classic work, “Everything in it’s place: Social Order
and Land Use in America,” she dissects the foundation of zoning laws through
observation of cultural patterns. The goal of a home and family is glorified as the
top rung on the symbolic ladder of achievement (Perin, 1977). The cultural
identity of America will not waver with the advent of further utilization of the
12
single-family residential neighborhoods. “The American system of zoning is
based on an implicit value judgment about the ordering of land development
where single-family neighborhoods reign over apartments and all other housing
types” (Hickey, 2010). The acceptance of ADU ordinances across the country
shows incremental steps toward public acceptance of a new housing option. The
worries of ADU opponents will be softed with the documentation of increased
property values instead of the preconceived fear of neighborhood blight.
While the ADU can be perceived as a direct assault on the single-family
neighborhood, the ADU represents a symbiotic relationship with single-family
housing to create new dwelling options. Increasing density is a set goal for the
City of Olympia and while the ADU does represent a change in the classic image
of a single-family neighborhood, it works in conjunction with the existing
infrastructure to diversify options.
How is this Research Contributing to the Literature?
According to a comprehensive literature review published by the UC
Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development, by Jake Wegmann and
Alison Nemirow, ADUs and permitted Accessory Structure dwellings are being
recognized in the literature as “new” forms of suburban/urban infill development
(Wegman, 2011). Infill development is usually associated with purchasing larger
tracts of land and re-developing all of it to take advantage of economies of scale.
It is expensive to buy land within a city, demolish it, perform environmental
analysis, remediate and build again. Piecemeal infill development in the form of
attached and detached dwelling units utilizes private investment to fund this form
13
of micro infill development (Wegman, 2011). ADUs do not expand the footprint
of the built environment, but concentrate use. The concentration of use may well
increase the impervious surfaces and use of land within city limits, which will
have environmental effects. However, increasing density remains a goal for
Olympia, for a variety of reasons, and this style of housing has a low impact
comparatively with other forms of development.
“Urban infill has steadily increased in prominence in recent decades as an
area for research and praxis, but those studying this topic have had little or
nothing to say about its manifestation at the smallest spatial scale, and with
possibly the potential for greatest ubiquity, namely the secondary unit.”
(Wegman, 2011). This literature review revealed a lack of proper monitoring of
secondary dwellings and the common problem of non-permitted dwelling units.
There was little research on non-permitted structure estimation and the research
found was mostly focused in major metropolitan areas, New York and San
Francisco (San Francisco Development Fund, Chhaya Community Development
Corporation). No scholarly assessment of Accessory Structure dwellings was
identified in the literature and the phenomenon of Accessory Structure dwellings
remains poorly research and documented.
Now to discuss the research methodology. In light of the lack of monitoring
of ADUs, Martin John Brown’s model is replicated to characterize the ratio of
permitted and non-permitted ADUs in Olympia, Washington.
14
Chapter 3: Methodology
In order to predict the ratio of permitted to non-permitted ADUs in
Olympia, I used Martin John Brown’s method for monitoring non-permitted
dwelling units was utilized. With the aid of a local real estate agent, I was able to
perform a general search of all properties listing “additional dwelling on property”
in the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) real estate database. This
search returned several hundred properties in the Olympia, Tumwater, and
Lacey districts. The property descriptions were evaluated and online photos of
the property were used to decipher, following Brown’s method, if the dwelling had
a separate bathroom, kitchen and entrance. There were numerous property
listings that did not offer revealing photos of the dwelling and this made it more
difficult to establish if the property fit the criteria. I was conservative in finding
samples and was careful to make sure the listing exhibited all three
characteristics before labeling them “functional” ADUs. A functional ADU can be
defined as “an independent living area within, or on the grounds of, a single
family house,” (Brown, 2) and will be synonymous with secondary dwelling for the
purposes of this paper. A functional ADU or secondary dwelling can therefore be
with or without a building permit, which allows for a larger catchment of results
and a more accurate depiction of the atmosphere for conversion apartments and
accessory structures in Olympia, WA.
It was difficult to classify the properties into categories, but there were
important similarities among listings. There were many manufactured homes,
but they were not included in the sample selection. Manufactured housing has
15
separate federal, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department, code.
For the purposes of this research, manufactured homes have the characteristics
of a secondary dwelling, but differ in zoning and building code and therefore will
not be included.
Once I located properties that fit the description of a functional ADU, I was
able to record the following information about each property listing:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Address,
Year main house was constructed,
Price of property,
Zoning classification,
Number of bedrooms,
Number of bathrooms,
Square footage of ADU,
Detached or attached,
Description of additional dwelling,
The year property was listed on the NWMLS database,
Permitted as an ADU?
Permitted as an Accessory Structure?
No identifiable information will be released in this report and no pictures of
structures will be displayed to protect the identity of the homeowners involved in
the analysis. Therefore, the addresses of all functional ADUs discovered will
remain confidential. Understanding how citizens interact and respond to
permitting requirements and finding ways to increase the efficiency of permitting
infill development is important to understand in order to protect and support
Olympia home owners who wish to increase the density, capacity, and
community of their homes.
After recording this information I used a public records request document
from the City of Olympia Planning Department and Clerk’s Office to cross check
16
for permitted ADU and Accessory Structure documentation. The Clerk’s office
sent me a list of all 53 permitted (attached or detached) ADUs in Olympia, as of
March 11, 2011. There were 29 attached and 24 detached ADUs permitted
since the ADU ordinance was passed into zoning regulation in 1995.
The City of Olympia has set density goals for the coming years and infill
development offers a way to chip away at these goals at very little cost to the
city. If a majority of dwellings are non-permitted, the City of Olympia should
consider policy from progressive cities (Portland, OR, Seattle, WA and Santa
Cruz, CA) that have dealt with similar permitting avoidance issues. Increasing
the efficiency of permitting is an attainable and beneficial pursuit for a city that
already has a well-developed ADU code. This methodology acts as a test for the
efficiency of permitting in any city.
Limitations and assumptions of the research methodology need to be
discussed. Locating samples is dependant upon accurate descriptions and
photos of properties on the NWMLS database. Relying upon descriptions and
photos skews the results based on the accuracy of the listing. The method
assumes that three years of real estate data is a realistic depiction of the housing
stock of a city (Brown, 1). The accuracy of the data is also an accepted
assumption. The real estate data is a filter to the reality of the secondary
dwellings in Olympia. The estimate of the ratio of non-permitted to permitted
dwellings is expected to be a conservative depiction of the non-permitted
secondary dwelling market.
17
Another issue that should be mentioned is the chance that some of the
functional ADUs located by the research methodology are not currently being
rented. Even if an additional unit is not currently being rented, the owner must
have a building permit to build the additional dwelling space on their property,
regardless. Having the option to house a family member or friend in distress, or
making additional income from renting the unit is enough incentive for many
Olympia homeowners to build, and to build you are required to have a building
permit.
Investigative interviews were also utilized, in addition to the market
research, in order to gain a dynamic understanding of the policy protocol
associated with secondary dwelling units. Interviews with Todd Stamm, Planning
Manager, and Tom Hill, Building Official for the Olympia Department of
Community Planning and Development helped unveil some of the specifics on
procedure and practice. These interviews were critical to understand city
protocol. An Interview with Eli Spevak, a builder in Portland, Oregon was utilized
to learn more about permitted Accessory Structure dwelling units.
Architecture is an essential piece of the cultural identity of a city. In
“Obduracy in Urban “Sociotechnical” Change,” Anique Hommels discusses the
concept of embeddedness. Embeddedness analyzes how society and culture
“co-evolve” with technology; the connection of natural and social sciences.
“…Cities are not purely technical constructs; rather they are a “seamless web” of
material and social elements,” (Hommels, 26). As society progresses with the
technical and material world, laws begin to embody new and different meanings
18
and results. ADUs are a piece of this socio-technical tapestry and have become
accepted into the identity of Olympia. Understanding city protocol and depicting
the ratio of permitted to non-permitted functional ADUs helps gauge the success
of the ADU ordinance and permitting system by comparing it with the reality of
the functional ADU sample selection.
19
Chapter 4: Results
Section 1: Analyzing the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS)
Database
The search for “additional dwelling on property” field in the NWMLS
database resulted in several hundred cases of potential functional ADUs. The
database contains information from 2005 to present, but for this sample
evaluation the results were narrowed to properties listed on the NWMLS
database from 2008 through 2010 in order to follow the same protocol as the
Brown study. These three years of data rendered 7 property listings within
Olympia city limits and 33 properties located in Olympia (Thurston County), but
outside of city limits. These results show property listings describing or
displaying photos of secondary dwelling units. Based on city records, two
properties out of the seven samples contained an ADU permit, or 28.6% of the
samples were permitted as ADUs and five out of 7 (71.4%) were non-permitted.
None of the 33 listings discovered in Thurston County contained an ADU
building permit. Table 4.1 and 4.2 display the information collected on the
secondary dwelling unit samples.
The descriptions of the property listings were one of the most revealing
aspects of the NWMLS database along with the pictures, however no pictures,
addresses or information revealing the location of the structures will be displayed
in this article to protect the homeowners involved in the research. Many
descriptions clearly list a dwelling, “$800/mo rental. 2 BR/1Ba, 720 SF,” then
with use of pictures provided one could check for a separate bathroom, kitchen,
and entrance. The use of the ADU description in the listings show they are
20
desirable and marketable housing option in the Olympia and Thurston county
real estate market.
TABLE 4.1: Olympia Sample Secondary Dwelling Unit Data:
Address ADU
Accessory Listed
# of # of
Detached/
Permit Structure Property Beds Baths Attached
Permit
Value ($)
P-1
None None
189000 N/L N/L
Detached
P-2
None None
310000 2
1
Detached
P-3
None N/A
424700 1
1
Attached
P-4
None N/A
289000 1
.75
Attached
P-5
None None
265000 N/L N/L
Detached
P-6
Permit N/A
325000 N/L N/L
Detached
P-7
Permit N/A
297500 1
1
Attached
TABLE 4.2: Thurston County Sample Secondary Dwelling Data:
Address ADU
Accessory Listed
# of # of
Detached/
Permit Structure Property Beds Baths Attached
Permit
Value ($)
P-1
None None
495000 1
.5
Detached
P-2
None Yes
499000 1
1
Detached
P-3
Yes
None
865000 n/l
n/l
Detached
P-4
None Yes
539000 n/l
n/l
Detached
P-5
None None
449950 2
1
Detached
P-6
None N/A
499000 n/l
n/l
Attached
P-7
None None
699000 2
1
Detached
P-8
None Yes
467900 2
1
Detached
P-9
None None
489900 1
n/l
Detached
P-10
None Guest
329900 1
.75
Detached
House
P-11
None None
499900 2
1
Detached
P-12
None Yes
625000 1
1
Detached
P-13
None None
640000 2
1.5
Detached
P-14
None N/A
499900 n/l
n/l
Attached
P-15
None N/A
1299997 3
2
Attached
P-16
None N/A
275000 1
1
Attached
P-17
None N/A
349900 n/l
n/l
Attached
P-18
None Yes
489500 n/l
n/l
Detached
P-19
None Yes
591000 n/l
n/l
Detached
P-20
None Yes
209990 2
n/l
Detached
P-21
None None
379900 n/l
n/l
Detached
P-22
None None
394950 4
2
Detached
P-23
None Guest
399500 1
1
Detached
Year
listed on
Database
2008
2008
2010
2010
2010
2008
2008
Year
listed on
Database
2009
2010
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2008
2009
2008
2008
2010
2010
2008
21
P-24
None
P-25
P-26
P-27
P-28
P-29
P-30
None
None
None
None
Yes
None
House
Guest
House
Yes
None
Yes
Yes
None
Yes
470000
1
1
Detached 2010
570000
725000
1175000
1295000
1595000
375000
n/l
n/l
n/l
n/l
n/l
1
n/l
n/l
n/l
n/l
.75
n/l
Detached
Detached
Detached
Detached
Detached
Detached
2009
2009
2008
2010
2009
2009
The Olympia secondary dwelling analysis rendered a similar ratio of nonpermitted dwellings as the original study conducted in Portland, Oregon (Brown,
2). Brown found that 62% of his 32 sample analysis were non-permitted. The
sample size of the Olympia study was much smaller, 7 compared to 32 cases
collected. The difference in sample size was expected due to the considerably
smaller population of the City of Olympia. The population of Olympia is about
52,000, while Portland has 530,000 people. Proportionately the studies render
similar results. This helps to unveil the scope of the non-permitted dwelling issue,
and make comparisons between the Olympia and Portland markets for
secondary dwelling units.
The methods of analysis portray a snapshot of the Olympia market,
although it is a limited portrayal due to the small sample size. The average value
of a property with a permitted ADU inside of Olympia city limits is $311,250. The
average value of a property with a non-permitted secondary dwelling is
$295,540. The properties with a permitted ADU have a slightly higher average
value, but the methodology does not investigate why.
The City of Olympia does contain a higher percentage of permitted ADUs
than the Thurston County sample, most likely because lot sizes are smaller and
22
houses are closer together. Within city limits it is more likely that a neighbor
would report an additional dwelling because of the increased proximity of homes.
The rate of non-permitted secondary dwellings inside of Olympia city limits
shows that higher density development does create barriers, but does not stop
citizens from avoiding permitting costs.
Moving outside of Olympia city limits, the Thurston County
secondary dwelling analysis rendered a larger sample size. Of the 30
samples, 2 were permitted as ADUs (7%), 14 had some kind of accessory
structure permit (47%) and 14 contained neither an ADU or an Accessory
Structure permit (47%). The results of this analysis show a substantially
smaller proportion of permitted ADUs than in the City of Olympia analysis
and Brown’s Portland studies. There were also a much higher percentage
of Accessory Structure permits because Thurston County zoning code has
a provision for a Guest House and a Family Member Dwelling Unit.
A similar study on Thurston County zoning regulations for ADUs is
necessary for further comparison. This paper’s focus is the City of
Olympia permitting process and zoning regulations, but a subsequent
research project focusing on Thurston County is highly recommended,
due to the proportion of non-permitted ADUs found in the sample data.
Information on permitted ADUs in the City of Olympia records reveals
price trends of permitted ADUs. The average valuation of an Olympia ADU,
according to city permit records is about $44,000 (detached: $31,965, attached:
$53,963). The values of ADUs are quite variable. Below is a graph depicting all
23
permitted ADUs and their listed valuation in Olympia City records (City of
Olympia, 2011).
Based on the graph above, ADUs are accessible to wide range of
households. They are functional and adaptable solutions that have a market in
Olympia and Thurston County, however, based on this research the majority of
that market may well be non-permitted dwellings. If this is an accurate depiction
of the functional ADU market, the vast majority of expansion of dwelling units
goes undetected. The results from this analysis frame the scope of the problem
of inefficiency in permitting. The rest of the work involves qualitative research
through investigative interviews. Interviews were utilized to ask revealing
questions about the permitting process and the clarification between an
Accessory Structure and an ADU building permit.
24
Section 2: Interviews
In order to gain a clear understanding of the protocol for ADUs and
Accessory Structure dwellings, two City of Olympia specialists were interviewed.
The first interview was with Todd Stamm, a Planning Manager for the City of
Olympia. Mr. Stamm stated when we began our conversation that in his opinion
there were two main obstacles to a more effective ADU code. The first obstacle
is that most Olympia citizens think they cannot get a permit for what they are
building, so they do not try. This research is supporting a more streamlined and
clear protocol. It would clear up the confusion that has created an unwarranted
paranoia of the permitting process. The direct avoidance of city regulation is
clear, so public outreach and social marketing is absolutely necessary to make
the intentions of the city regulation transparent and persuasive.
The second obstacle is that the owner of a permitted ADU has to live on
the property. According to Mr. Stamm, this is the only place in the entire city
zoning code where a distinction between owner and renter is established. It is a
check against developers building ADUs to expand capacity of their rental units.
While this protective measure is well intentioned, I cannot help but stress the
apparent goals of increased density and expanding housing options as
absolutely necessary for growth management preparation. Developers are
limited to be creative with new designs. The literature review identifies clear
recommendations to keep the codes as simple and streamlined as possible (San
Francisco Development Fund, 1988), and the Conclusion directly addresses
these recommendations from the context of Olympia.
25
In an email I inquired if Mr. Stamm was familiar with Accessory Structure
coding that allowed for a permitted Accessory Structure dwelling unit. This is a
middle ground between an Accessory Structure and an ADU. One major
difference between an Accessory Structure dwelling unit and an ADU is an ADU
has a kitchen. Mr. Stamm replied, “Olympia already does allow detached
bedrooms and similar forms of detached structures that don’t include an
additional kitchen. Generally the principal barrier to these types of spaces has
been Olympia’s limit of 800 square feet and 16 foot height limit for detached
structures” (email, 2011). This was very curious because the Accessory
Structure zoning code is quite short and refrains from mentioning Accessory
Structure dwelling units. The Olympia Accessory Structure zoning coding is
displayed below.
OLYMPIA ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ZONING CODE:
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 singlefamily 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
26
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.
According to Todd Stamm, if an external dwelling unit is 800 square feet
or smaller, there is some grey area, an accessory structure permit can suffice.
There is nothing about dwelling units mentioned in the Accessory Structure
zoning code. The enforcement of policy is therefore conditional based on the
discretion of the employee. In other words, the City of Olympia employees are
following a protocol that is not defined in the zoning code, so it is conditional
based upon their interpretation of the accepted protocol. Mr. Stamm
recommended discussing the Accessory Structure/ADU code differentiation with
Tom Hill, City Building Official as well. Mr. Hill is in charge of enforcing the code
infractions and issuing building permits. He has the most pragmatic sense of how
the code is understood and enforced.
Mr. Hill discussed the “dilemma of the kitchen.” The distinguishing factor
for an ADU or an Accessory Structure dwelling unit is the existence of a kitchen.
Mr. Hill made it clear that as the Building Official his main goal is to “ensure it is
safe, ensure it is sanitary, and there is no reason to be concerned about fire”
(Interview, 2011). Distinguishing if someone has a toaster oven or a range is not
Mr. Hill’s top priority. However, when asked if guidelines for establishing the
difference between Accessory Structure dwelling unit and ADU would be
beneficial, he replied, “guidelines would be better”(Interview, 2011).
Both City of Olympia officials were in agreement that a city protocol for an
Accessory Structure dwelling would be beneficial to clarify the code. In order to
27
gain a new perspective on the issue I decided to interview a developer of small
structures in Portland, Oregon, Eli Spevak. Mr. Spevak has a vested interest in
understanding the building and zoning code of Portland. He has a practical
understanding of the code from the perspective of someone who has to follow it.
Mr. Spevak works for Orange Splott, LLC, a housing development company and
general contractor dedicated to using less land per structure and arranging more
units per lot. Mr. Spevak first introduced me to Martin John Brown’s research
and first summarized the difference between an Accessory Structure dwelling
and an ADU. Mr. Spevak was an important stakeholder to interview because he
has to navigate the codes all the time. While the majority of the research has
focused on advocates and opponents of ADUs, few stake holders have a
practical understanding of the code the way that a builder does.
In Portland, the Accessory Structure is only legally habitable if it is
permitted as such. One big difference that Eli mentioned was, in Portland, the
code is specific, and city planners make people aware that it is easier, and
cheaper to permit a dwelling unit as a permitted Accessory Structure dwelling
than it is as an ADU. The big differentiation between these two classification is
the existence of a kitchen, which is clearly defined in the code. This is not the
case in Olympia, and navigating the protocol for ADUs and Accessory Structure
dwelling units is a matter of discussing your project with a building official. Until a
homeowner has that conversation they are unable to understand that an
Accessory Structure dwelling unit is a possibility and if the official fails to mention
28
the Accessory Structure dwelling unit option, the homeowner would never know it
exists.
Mr. Spevak spoke a bit about the Owner Occupancy Requirement. He
mentioned that Portland had a similar requirement and the city performed an
investigation and decided to repeal the requirement in 1998. There is a
comprehensive study (City of Portland Bureau of Planning, 2003) that assess the
results of relaxing the ADU code requirements. In the study the Owner
Occupancy Requirement is recognized as being a significant barrier to further
development of legitimate ADUs. Portland has not experienced a spike in the
number of ADU rental unit expansion and the number of permitted ADUs has
remained modest. Mr. Spevak remains confident there will not be a huge
increase in the number of ADUs in Portland, regardless of the reduction of
prohibitive ADU code requirements.
ADUs and Accessory Structure dwellings are slowly growing in numbers
and are becoming accepted in the social and cultural identity of the City of
Portland. Portland has accelerated the development of ADUs with strategic
monitoring and creative incentives. Olympia has a similar market for ADUs and
significant potential to use case study examples discussed in the literature
review, specifically Santa Cruz, CA, to replicate a more fecund environment for
ADU micro-infill development.
29
Chapter 5: Conclusion/Recommendations
The real estate database search revealed the scope of the non-permitted
dwelling unit problem in Olympia, Washington, with proportionately similar results
as Martin John Brown’s study in Portland, Oregon. Although 7 cases inside of
Olympia city limits does not reveal conclusive evidence, the research
methodology was quite conservative, as it only includes properties on the market
over a three year period, 2008 to 2010. To gain a larger sample population more
years of real estate data could be used, or a larger study area. The only problem
with a larger sample size is it stretches into different jurisdictions, which all have
different zoning codes. This study specifically focuses on the City of Olympia
zoning code, but a more thorough investigation of Thurston County seems
important due to the large number of non-permitted secondary dwellings located
in the sample population. Although the Olympia sample population was small, 5
out of 7 homes listing descriptions and pictures of an ADU on the North West
Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) database are not concerned with permitting.
The bold disregard for the permitting process demonstrates the disconnect of
regulation from reality.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Revision:
Making codes easy to navigate, and the permitting process clear and
simple yields the maximum number of permits issued. Recommendations have
arisen from the case study examples in the literature review and the investigative
interviews. These recommendations have two facets. One issue lies with ADU
permitting efficiency; in what ways could the ADU protocol change to be more
30
streamlined? The other side of the issue lies with the need for an Accessory
Structure zoning code classification for dwelling units.
The ADU zoning code could be altered in several ways to increase the
number of permits issued. The actual code can be amended, protocol for
permitting can change, and incentives programs can encourage development. If
the code were to be amended the most significant change, based on the
interview with Todd Stamm, Planning Manager for the City of Olympia, is the
current necessity of the ADU owner to live on the property. This provision
significantly hinders the development of more ADUs. It was added in the 2nd
revision of the code from the late 1990’s. Todd reiterated that this is the only
place in all of the city code that the specification between owner and renter is
made. Repealing this requirement is the most pertinent way to increase the
number of structures permitted based on the experience of a Planning Manager.
Eli Spevak supports and agrees that the Owner Occupancy Requirement
causes unnecessary barriers to permitting an ADU. A huge increase in ADU
development has never been documented in any city. Based on other city’s
experiences, there is no reason to expect ADU development will increase at a
rate beyond the acceptance of the city ethos.
There are numerous other code changes that would be beneficial,
including reducing parking requirements, and more flexible design standards. A
re-evaluation of the City of Olympia ADU code requirements would be a great
starting point for revising the ADU program. Significant public outreach through
Imagine Olympia is already happening. Imagine Olympia is a public forum that
31
focuses on re-writing Olympia’s Comprehensive plan for 2013. This event
provides a convenient driver for an evaluation of the current ADU code.
Another necessary change is a streamlined ADU protocol. Having city
staff work to streamline their process for ease of the citizens would significantly
increase compliance with the code. The use of an ADU manual, replicating
Santa Cruz’s ADU model is highly recommended. This manual should cover all
aspects of what it takes to design, fund, build and rent an ADU in the City of
Olympia. Along with the ADU manual the City of Santa Cruz also offers a preapproved design booklet. This booklet has pre-approved architectural and
engineering plans for ADU designs that fit the aesthetic and cultural influences of
the city. The pre-approved plan book significantly reduces the cost of
constructing an ADU and ensure positive aesthetic results.
An incentives program encouraging development of ADUs is highly
recommended and some key incentives to consider are:
1. A moratorium on impact fees:
The City of Portland recently enacted a three year moratorium on impact
fees for ADUs. This technique removes financial restrictions of the permitting
process and gets citizens and contractors aware and familiar with the permitting
protocol while it is free. The best way to increase the awareness of a
streamlined ADU program is to waive impact fees and encourage investors with
incentives.
2. Backing an ADU loan program with a local bank:
One identified obstacle to advancing housing options is funding for new
32
housing options. Banks are reluctant to fund new housing options due to lack of
proven return on investment, so the City of Olympia can identify funds to support
an ADU loan program with a community bank for a short period of time. The City
would guarantee all loans for ADUs, to reduce the risk for banks lending money
to homeowners constructing ADUs. Santa Cruz backed their loan program for
four years and after that four year period the bank was able to maintain the loan
through proven protocol success.
3. Public Outreach Program:
Todd Stamm mentioned one of the biggest problems for permitting ADUs
is the paranoia factor. Because citizens do not understand the coding, they
imagine that they cannot permit what they are building. This fear feeds from their
lack of knowledge of the law. In order to quell the irrational fear of the permitting
process a public outreach campaign is necessary. According to Nathaniel Taylor
Hickey “simple increases in awareness have a strong effect on overall
conversion rates” (55). This has proven successful in various other cities, most
notably Santa Cruz, California (see literature review).
Accessory Structure Revision:
The other issue revealed by the research methods was the lack of clarity
in the Accessory Structure zoning code, in the case of dwelling units. Accessory
Structure building permits are being used to permit detached dwelling units in
Olympia, WA. However, Olympia zoning regulation for Accessory Structures
does not include defined standards for Accessory Structure dwelling units. City of
Olympia Officials are forced to use discretion to classify dwelling units without
33
kitchens and under 800 square feet as permitted Accessory Structure dwellings.
The zoning regulation for Accessory Structures needs a classification of
standards for Accessory Structure dwelling units, in order to avoid confusing
citizens and officials when interpreting the zoning regulations.
According to Tom Hill it is difficult to distinguish a kitchen and it is not his
priority to discover. There are no standards for classifying a kitchen. If a citizen
were to read the code they would have no way to interpret this. Mr. Hill does not
have a vested interest in investigating to see if occupants of a dwelling have a
microwave and a toaster oven. Mr. Hill’s ethos is respected and appreciated, but
the concern that arises is he will not be the City of Olympia Building Official
forever. As the opinions of the individual in the position changes, so shall the
interpretation of the law. While there is a consensus for the protocol of Accessory
Structure dwelling units, it makes sense for the City to make the necessary steps
to establish zoning code.
It remains very difficult for citizens to understand the protocol that the City
Officials are following. It is especially difficult to navigate this zoning code as a
novice because it refrains from mentioning dwelling units in the code. There is a
significant barrier between expert and citizen.The City of Olympia
Comprehensive Plan uses language that supports infill, small scale development,
however onerous ADU codes have resulted in relatively few permits issued for
ADUs since the ordinance was passed in 1995. A revision in the zoning code
for Accessory Structures might help increase the number of permitted Accessory
Structure dwellings. This would also allow for more accurate documentation of
34
existing dwelling units and better understanding of the actual density capacity of
the City of Olympia.
It is important to note that ADUs are different from an Accessory Structure
dwelling units and while this zoning regulation articulation would make it easier to
track dwellings without kitchens, there would still be a market for non-permitted
ADUs. Set standards for defining the kitchen will help with congruency in
decisions made by City Officials. Though this strategy does not help resolve nonpermitted ADU issues it is a step in the right direction for getting buildings to code
and properly accounted for in city records.
It is necessary for the zoning code to reflect the public interests that are
affected by the code. If those public interests cannot navigate the code without
the aid of City of Olympia Officials, then confusion results and available options
for interested parties becomes undecipherable. In order to make the city protocol
navigable by diverse perspectives, it is necessary to amend the Accessory
Structure zoning code with clarification of standards for a dwelling unit.
Last Words:
The simple conclusion is that in the short term the Olympia Planning
Commission should work with the City of Olympia Department of Planning and
Development to develop a standard Accessory Structure dwelling zoning
classification. In the not so long term, the Olympia Comprehensive plan will have
to be re-drafted in 2013 and there is opportunity to make headway on a revised
ADU code, streamlined protocol, and incentives program. In the long term,
“People are building ADUs to meet pent up demand and provide for a family
35
need regardless of the legislation in place,” (Hickey, 2011). Olympia has
significant potential to replicate Santa Cruz’s development model and benefit
from the synergy of community engagement and strategic incentives.
36
Bibliography
Andrews, James H. "Not Your Grandmother’s Granny Flat." Planning 71 3
(2005): 8-10. Print.
Brown, Martin John. "People in Portland Want and Build ADU's—with or without
Permits." Architectural Therapy Portland, OR, 2009. Print.
Carlson, Daniel, and Mathur Shishir. Can We Tell If Growth Management Aids or
Thwarts Affordable Housing? . Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute,
2003. Print.
Chapman, Nancy, and Deborah Howe. "Accessory Apartments: Are They a
Realistic Alternative for Ageing in Place?" Housing Studies 16 5 (2001):
637-50. Print.
Chhaya Community Development Corporation. Illegal Dwelling Units: A Potential
Source of Affordable Housing in New York City New York City, NY:
Department of Housing Preservation and Development 2008. Print.
City of Olympia. "Comprehensive Plan ". Olympia, WA: City of Olympia
Community Planning and Development Department, 1994. 9-10 and 2122. Print.
City of Olympia Clerk's Office. "Permitted ADUs since 1995 Ordinance." Olympia,
WA, 2010 of Public Records Request. Print.
City of Santa Cruz. "ADU Manual." Santa Cruz, CA: City of Santa Cruz
Department of Planning and Community Development, 2003. Print.
"Prototype Plan Sets." Santa Cruz, CA: City of Santa Cruz Department of
Planning and Community Development, 2003. Print.
City of Seattle. "Backyard Cottages: Director's Report." Seattle, WA: Department
of Planning and Development, 2009. Print.
"Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: Director's Report." Seattle, WA:
Department of Planning and Development, 2004. Print.
"A Guide to Building a Backyard Cottage in Southeast Seattle." Seattle, WA:
Department of Planning and Development, 2010. Print.
Cobb, Rodney Le., and Scott Dvorak. Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act
and Local Ordinance. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Retired
Persons 2000. Print.
37
De Neufville, Judith Innes, and Stephen E. Barton. "Myths and the Definition of
Policy Problems." Policy Sciences 20 3 (1987): 181-206. Print.
Fader, Steven. Density by Design: New Directions in Residential Development.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2000. Print.
Flint, Barbara J. "Zoning and Residential Segregation, a Social and Physical
History, 1910-1940." University of Chicago, 1977. Print.
Gellen, Martin. Accessory Apartments in Single-Family Housing. New Brunswick,
NJ Center for Urban Policy Research, 1986. Print.
Glick, Paul. American Families. Eds. Census Monograph Series, Social Science
Research and Bureau of the Census Council and U. S. Department of
Commerce. New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1957. Print.
Gratz, Roberta Brandes. "Density without Disruption." Places 16 3 (2004): 30-31.
Print.
Hare, Patrick, Susan Conner, and Dwight Merrian. Accessory Apartments: Using
Surplus Space in Single Family Houses Chicago, IL, 1982. Print.
Hare, Patrick H. "Accessory Apartments and Funding Roulette." Planetizen:
Urban Planning, Design and Development Network, 2004. Print.
Hickey, Nathaniel Taylor. "Urban Consolidation: An Analysis of Accessory
Dwelling Units and Backyard Cottages in Seattle." University of
Washington, 2010. Print.
Hill, Tom. Personal Interview. 7 Apr. 2011.
Moudon, Anne Vernez, and Chester Sprague. "More Than One; a Second Life
for the Single-Family Property." Built Environment 8 1-4 (1982): 54-59.
Print.
Moudon, A.V., and P. M. Hess. "Suburban Clusters: The Nucleation of MultiFamily Housing in the Suburban Areas of the Puget Sound." Journal of the
American Planning Association 66 3 (2000): 243-64. Print.
Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington. Accessory Dwelling Units:
Issues and Options Seattle, WA: The Center 1995. Print.
Perin, Constance. Everything in Its Place, Social Order and Land Use in
America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977. Print.
38
Sage Computing Inc. "Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study ". Reston, VA: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2008. Print.
San Francisco Development Fund. Small Solutions: Second Units as Affordable
Housing: The Evaluation of the Double Unite Opportunity Program of the
San Francisco Development Fund, 1985-1988. San Francisco: San
Francisco Development Fund, 1988. Print.
Spevak, Eli. Personal Interview. 20 Oct. 2010.
Stamm, Todd. Personal Interview. 25 Mar. 2011
Tyre, Patricia Therese. "Accessory Dwelling Units as Affordable Housing and
Smart Growth: Case Studies of Winter Park and Orlando, Florida."
University of Florida, 2008. Print.
Washington State Legislature. "Growth Management Act." 36.70A RCW, 1990.
Print.
Wegmann, Jake and Alison Nemirow. Secondary Units and Urban Infill: A
Literature Review. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional
Development, 2011. Print.
Woodruff, A. M. "Conversion of One-Family Houses to Multifamily Use" Housing
Research 7 (1954): 11-20. Print.
39
