Encouraging Backyard Cottages January 20, 2016 Morgan Community - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

encouraging backyard cottages
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Encouraging Backyard Cottages January 20, 2016 Morgan Community - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Encouraging Backyard Cottages January 20, 2016 Morgan Community Association What is an accessory dwelling unit? 1994 Attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs, ADUs allowed citywide mother-in-law apartments, or granny fmats) Detached


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Encouraging Backyard Cottages

January 20, 2016 Morgan Community Association

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 2

What is an accessory dwelling unit?

» Attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs, mother-in-law apartments, or granny fmats) » Detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs, backyard cottages)

1994 ADUs allowed citywide 2006 DADUs piloted in southeast Seattle 2010 DADUs allowed citywide 2014 Council Resolution 31547 calls for code changes 2015 221 DADUs built or permitted citywide

Above garage Freestanding

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 3

Why are we encouraging more backyard cottages?

» Allowed citywide since 2010, but only about 220 constructed » Backyard cottages provide many benefjts:

  • More housing options, often in areas

unafgordable to many people

  • Stable extra income that helps homeowners

remain in neighborhood

  • Flexibility to adapt to changing household

needs

  • “Infjll” development means effjcient use of

land and resources

» Opportunity for housing suitable to many household types, including families

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DADU by year built ! 2015 ! 2007 ! 2008 ! 2009 ! 2010 ! 2011 ! 2012 ! 2013 ! 2014 ! ADU SF 5000 SF 7200 SF 9600 Single Family Zoning
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 4

The scale of the opportunity

» Cottages allowed on single-family lots:

  • at least 4,000 square feet in area
  • outside Shoreline District and some

Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs)

  • subject to various development

standards, such as lot coverage and height limits

» Of 125,000 single-family lots, almost 75,000 are eligible for a cottage » Cottages on only 5% of eligible lots would mean almost 4,000 new housing units » Current rate about 40/year

Single-family zoned lots Eligible for DADU Ineligible for DADU
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 5

Removing barriers to backyard cottages

» Despite many benefjts and numerous eligible lots, only about 200 built » Surveys and observation suggest several barriers:

  • Many lots are under 4,000 square feet but could

accommodate a cottage

  • Parking requirement can increase project cost, add

impervious surface, requiring removing vegetation

  • Development standards prevent some owners from

building a cottage or inhibit functional design

  • The owner-occupancy requirement deters some

interested homeowners and limits fmexibility

“We live on Beacon Hill and own a rental near Columbia City which fjts all

  • f the criteria for an ADU (setbacks,
  • fg street parking, lot size, etc) but we

could not develop in this space because

  • f the occupancy ruling ... There is at

least one family out there that thinks they could do a good job with this and be respectful to neighbors.” “I have one uncovered parking space

  • fg an alley that is not used. This is the

area where it makes the most sense to site a DADU in order to minimize the impact to our neighbors’ privacy as well as preserve sunlight that reaches the backyard and the main house. But I would need to build a 2 car garage underneath the new unit or get rid of the remaining backyard to put in two new parking spaces. My neighborhood is not even close to having a shortage of street parking and most houses do not have parking.”

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 6

Potential code changes

» We’re seeking ideas and feedback on a range of potential changes we are exploring:

  • Should we remove the ofg-street parking

requirement?

  • Should we allow an ADU and DADU on the same lot?
  • Should we remove the owner-occupancy

requirement?

  • Should we modify development standards?

— Maximum height — Rear yard coverage — Minimum lot size — Maximum square footage

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 7

We’re also looking at:

  • Making it easier to obtain fjnancing
  • Allowing a broader range of

households to build accessory dwelling units

  • Adjusting permitting fees
  • Providing resources for interested

homeowners

PHOTO CREDIT: STEFAN HAMPDEN

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 8

Project timeline

April 2015 City Council Lunch & Learn 1 September 2014 Council Resolution 31547 calls for exploring code changes to encourage ADUs/DADUs

  • Sept. – Dec. 2015

Targeted stakeholder

  • utreach

December 9, 2015 City Council Lunch & Learn 2 January 19, 2016 Community Meeting #1 Filipino Community Center February 3, 2016 Community Meeting #2 Wallingford Senior Center late February / early March Draft legislation and SEPA

  • ngoing

Exploring ways beyond the Land Use Code to make the process easier for prospective ADU/DADU owners

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 9

» Currently, one ofg-street parking space required for ADU/DADU » Can add to project cost, increase impervious surface, result in removal of vegetation » New cottages so dispersed that each additional unit creates small incremental change

POLICY OPTION:

Should we remove the ofg-street parking requirement?

Case study: Portland, OR

Two-thirds of accessory dwelling units have zero vehicles parked on the street, despite no parking requirement. In these cases, either tenants do not have a car, or the property own- ers voluntarily provided parking.

Current DADU inventory: 1 per 550 single-family lots Current ADU inventory: 1 per 120 single-family lots

PHOTO CREDIT: MATT & AMY STEVENSON
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 10

» Maximum of one accessory dwelling unit currently » From outside, single-family lot would not necessarily appear difgerently than under current code » Could consider changes to current household size limit » Development standards continue to limit location and scale of all structures on lot

POLICY OPTION:

Should we allow an ADU and DADU on the same lot?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 11

» Currently, property owner must reside in either main house or ADU/DADU six months/year » Waiver may be grant for up to 3 years for specifjc reasons like illness » Deters many homeowners from building an ADU/DADU since they cannot rent both units » Also makes obtaining fjnancing more diffjcult than if both units could theoretically be rented » This results in fewer cottages constructed and available as housing for people

POLICY OPTION:

Should we remove-the owner-occupancy requirement?

Case study: Portland, OR

Portland does not have an owner-occu- pancy requirement. Despite this, 64% of ADU owners occupy their property an-

  • yway. The vast majority of ADUs in Port-

land are built be current homeowners.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 12

» Current minimum 4,000 square feet » Reducing to 3,000 square feet would add about 9,000 newly eligible lots » Many are centrally located near transit and services » On smaller lots, dimensional requirements would continue to restrict scale of cottage

  • Lot coverage limits cottage footprint
  • Height limit is lower on narrower lots

POLICY OPTION:

Should we reduce the minimum lot size?

Between 3000 and 4000 Less than 3000 or greater than 4000 Square footage of single-family zoned lots
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 13

» Current minimum 4,000 square feet » Reducing to 3,000 square feet would add about 9,000 newly eligible lots » Many are centrally located near transit and services » On smaller lots, dimensional requirements would continue to restrict scale of cottage

  • Lot coverage limits cottage footprint
  • Height limit is lower on narrower lots

POLICY OPTION:

Should we reduce the minimum lot size?

30’ 100’

MAIN HOUSE COTTAGE
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 14

» Cottages can be at most 800 gross square feet, including any garage or storage space in the structure » Cottages above garage often limited to 350 or 400 square feet — too small for second bedroom » An attached ADU can already be 1,000 square feet » If max square footage changed, other standards would continue to limit the scale and location of a cottage

POLICY OPTION:

Should we change the max square footage for a cottage?

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 15

» Height limit varies with lot width » Some narrower lots cannot get usable second story » Living space in some cottages above garages constrained due to height limit

POLICY OPTION:

Should we increase the height limit for certain lots?

This example studio cottage is only one

  • story. On some

narrow lots, the height limit prevents building a second story.

Maximum height limits Lot width (feet) Less than 30 30 or greater up to 35 Above 35 up to 40 Above 40 up to 50 50 or greater (1) Base structure height limit (feet)

12 14 15 16 16

(2) Height allowed for pitched roof above base structure height limit (feet)

3 7 7 6 7

(3) Height allowed for shed or butterfmy roof above base structure height limit (feet)

3 4 4 4 4

This cottage is 1.5

  • stories. It could have

a more functional second story if allowed a few more

  • feet. This could make

it more suitable to a family with a child and provide more rental income for the homeowner.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Encouraging Backyard Cottages 16

» Accessory structure like a backyard cottage can cover only 40% of rear yard » For owners wanting one-story cottage, this standard limits design options, even when a taller two-story structure might be allowed » One-story design accommodates people with limited people or looking to age-in-place

POLICY OPTION:

Should we modify the rear yard coverage limit?

primary residence backyard cottage

ground fmoor plan loft fmoor plan
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Contact us

Councilmember Mike O’Brien

mike.obrien@seattle.gov

Nick Welch

Offjce of Planning & Community Development

nicolas.welch@seattle.gov

For more information:

seattle.gov/council/obrien/ backyardcottages/ seattle.gov/DPD/cityplanning/ completeprojectslist/backyardcottages