Accessory Dwelling Units

[OurTulsa]

Why doesn't the City of Tulsa permit these?  I just heard about a guy getting hammered at the Board of Adjustment for attempt to establish one of these at a house down in Brookside.  Apparently the hood came out vigorously against him saying they wanted to improve the hood and didn't need more apartments while the guy insisted that the smaller unit was a mother-n-law quarters.  I don't know all the details but seems like this sort of arrangement should somehow be re-legalized...I've got them all over my historic hood and they seem to work just fine.  Matter of fact, I like that my neighbor's mother lives in the one across the street because she is almost always home during the day and sits outside, informally watches over the hood.  Anyway, here is an article from Denver supporting them.

A Place for Granny: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units
Saturday, June 23 at 12:01 AM
By James van Hemert

Fiona and Ferdinand want to buy a house and raise their young family in the city. If they rent out a basement suite, they could make the mortgage payments. Much to their dismay, they discover that such a practice is illegal. Their best option becomes a choice on the urban fringe with affordability determined by "driving till they qualify."

Emily, recently widowed, wishes to stay in her home on a large lot in a historic district. Financially astute, she calculates that she can earn some much needed additional income by tapping her home equity and building a carriage house above the garage and renting it out to a young couple or a student. Another person on the property would also make her feel much safer. The zoning department tells her what she wants to do is illegal.

Sam and Sally wish to have their aging parents move in with them in a separate private apartment, but they find that such an arrangement is not permitted by city code.

These common-sense solutions to generating income and providing housing are referred to as accessory dwelling units, and they are severely restricted by most zoning codes and private covenants. These units are smaller than the main dwelling — typically 300-600 square feet — and may be separated or contained within the primary structure. The most common forms are the carriage house above the garage, the basement- or garden-level suite, and the granny flat, a separate detached unit.

Historically, accessory dwelling units were associated with urban blight and, from the 1950s forward, were banned from almost all new single-family residential development.

The historic rationale for restricting accessory dwellings is no longer valid in today's increasingly diverse metropolitan areas. Though 87 percent of all households in 1955 were families — the majority with children — today only two-thirds of all households are families, and slightly less than half of those have children. The average household size has also decreased from 3.4 in 1950 to 2.6 today, while our houses have become larger.

There are clear financial and social benefits for both owner and rental households at all socioeconomic levels. Accessory dwelling units also provide benefits to neighborhoods by enhancing safety through more eyes on the street, revitalizing aging structures and preserving character by serving as a "green" alternative to excessive scrape-off activity. At the city level, they provide a way to comfortably add more people, promote a greater diversity of housing opportunities, and add affordable housing stock at virtually no cost to local government or the nonprofit sector.

Common concerns expressed about their reintroduction in existing neighborhoods center on parking, traffic, appropriate design, and fears about blight caused by absentee landowners. All of these matters can be adequately addressed through appropriate zoning standards and a process that ensures that at least one of the units always be owner-occupied.

Santa Cruz, Calif., has done just that with award winning standards and design guidelines. Closer to home, Longmont has standards that apply to both new developments and established neighborhoods.

Accessory dwelling units are making a slow comeback as an important element in new neighborhoods such as Stapleton. In established neighborhoods in Denver, however, unless you have a grandfathered unit from prior to 1956 or you live in one of a select few new planned developments, you are out of luck.

City planning and housing staff have been attentive in listening to presentations by groups such as "Friends of Granny Flats" who are promoting the return of accessory dwelling units as a permissible land use in the R-0, R-1 and R-2 residential districts.

Should accessory units be legalized in Denver, results in other communities suggest the creation of 500 to 1,000 units per year, depending on the level of promotion and the ease of permitting. Metrowide, there is the potential for several times that figure.

It is time to take a fresh look and modernize our aging single-family housing stock in a way that recognizes our changing social and economic needs. The current updating of Denver's zoning code offers a well-timed opportunity to give granny the rightful place she deserves.

[tulsa1603]

I've run into this a few times.  Even a pool house can be labeled as a dwelling unit if it has a range or oven in it.  

[OurTulsa]

I also recall INCOG at one recent point attempting to amend the Code to add these in with some limitations on size and such and the active NIMBYs and (so I'm informed) Maria Barnes killed them.  
I went to a handful of the meetings and remember a bunch of angry people there seemed pissed that they weren't asked for their ideas up front and because of that they didn't seem to want to engage in any sort of productive dialog regarding the proposed changes.  
I think TMAPC ended up continuing the Code amendments to give the public more time to get more information and then they continued them a couple more times to give those same 3 dozen or so people more time to get more information and talk about the amendments a little more and then I think I remember the TMAPC went as far as breaking up to Code amendments into small groups so that the hearings could be concentrated (I think they over accommodated the 3 dozen unsilent minority) only to have the City Council tell INCOG and the TMAPC to take their 2 or so years of effort and F-off because we are about to embark on a Comprehensive Planning process that's gonna save the world and may result in Code amendments in say...5 to 8 years.  
I remember the list they handed out and I don't recall an unreasonable proposal...but then that's me.

[PonderInc]

I am all for accessory dwelling units, garage apartments, servent's quarters, granny units, or whatever else you want to call them.

I wonder why these units are so feared in Brookside...their long history of existence in Maple Ridge does not seem to have resulted in the demise of one of the most beautiful and affluent neighborhoods in town.  

In fact, they add density and diversity without adding obvious structures to the hood. (Much less damaging to the hood than horrendous MacMansions with their 4-car garages!) It's a way for college kids and young people to live in a great neighborhood they could not otherwise afford.  In some cases, renting out a garage apt allows older residents on limited incomes an additional source of $$ to help pay for their medical bills or whatever.  And since the homeowners are the "landlords," you can bet they pay attention to the behavior of their renters.  (Unlike many absentee landlords or slumlords like Perry Properties.)

As the population ages, we're going to see a lot more people taking care of their parents and grandparents...and we're going to need a lot more flexibility in how families live together.  It may be that a small cottage in the back yard for granny (or a caregiver) would be a positive way to support those oft-touted "family values" we hear so much about.

I don't get the fear.  Drive around Maple Ridge and show me the downside.  I don't see it.

[pmcalk]

The problem with a zoning code amendment is that it would apply to the entire city.  Some areas are perfectly suited for accessory dwellings; others are not.  As I recall, the majority of people who complained about allowing accessory dwellings were suburbanites, who felt such would be incompatible with their neighborhoods (a correct belief, IMO).  And there was some fear that the law would be abused, allowing two houses where only one was allowed.  That has occurred in some cities, where housing is scarce, and developers will cram a house anywhere they can.

We need a new zoning code that is sensitive to the different areas of Tulsa and their characteristics.  As for the "NIMBYs," why shouldn't people have a say in what their neighborhood looks like?

[brunoflipper]

i love them...

our last house had an 800 sq ft "garage apartment"... we loved it... but it was a ***** getting guests to leave... at least we did not have to see them if we did not want to... when shopping for our current home, one of the requirements was a quarters... we have a detached garage/shop that will eventually get converted...

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

The problem with a zoning code amendment is that it would apply to the entire city.  Some areas are perfectly suited for accessory dwellings; others are not.  As I recall, the majority of people who complained about allowing accessory dwellings were suburbanites, who felt such would be incompatible with their neighborhoods (a correct belief, IMO).  And there was some fear that the law would be abused, allowing two houses where only one was allowed.  That has occurred in some cities, where housing is scarce, and developers will cram a house anywhere they can.

We need a new zoning code that is sensitive to the different areas of Tulsa and their characteristics.  As for the "NIMBYs," why shouldn't people have a say in what their neighborhood looks like?

I don't know why they wouldn't be compatible in all residential neighborhoods so long as they are obviously secondary in size and placement (which you can outline in the amendment) and the main house is owner occupied.  While they may not be common, or present at all, in a lot of 50's - current neighborhoods I don't see why they couldn't be introduced in an appropriate way.  

I do agree that 'City wide application' of our current zoning code is one of its primary short comings.  The same suburban standards DO NOT apply (or allow without jumping through way too many hoops) for the type of hoods that we used to have and in many cases really desire.

What's happening with the Form Based Code for the Pearl District.  Didn't some INCOG people go to a training on that subject?  Are we working toward creating a Code and regulating plan for that area?  I so hope so!

[Double A]

I think the concerns that are primarily keeping ADU's off the table have to do with keeping developers from using loopholes to use ADU's to avoid getting lot splits in order build two single family units on one lot. Under the current broken zoning it became increasingly apparent that protection against this abuse would be difficult to enforce. The other problem with AUD's is that our one size fits all zoning would have allowed these in neighborhoods where they clearly were not compatible. This is why it is so critical that we develop a system of zoning or codes that use a mixture neighborhood stabilization overlays, conservation districts, historic preservation zoning, and form based codes. We need to develop planning and zoning that offers the uniformity and flexibility to increase densities(only where appropriate) and promotes infill development that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods.

[bigdtottown]

I don't have a problem with these units, per se, but if you have to factor in a renter to make the mortgage you're asking for trouble...just look at the headlines about mortgage default rates.  Besides, you if you are looking at trying to qualify for a mortgage using rental income there will need to be some sort of lease in place to document it AND vacancy factors will typically reduce the income by 25% for lending purposes.  And what happens when (not if) the renter moves out?  If you can't afford a particular property don't try to make up for it by hypothetically renting out the basement.

[OurTulsa]

With certain standards that relegate accessory units to secondary status including standards that address size and location on the property, I can't see why these sort of units couldn't be appropriate in every boring single family neighborhood in Tulsa.  
But then again, I like diversity and density...

[cannon_fodder]

It isnt the cities job to tell someone whether or not to factor in a border on their mortage, so that would be a poor excuse to ban them.

Likewise, zoning does not have to apply to an entire city.  The city can zone one square block "only red buildings" if they so please.  No reason they could not make this an area thing if that is what's most appropriate.

Finally, many areas in Midtown have lax lot rules.  The subdivision does not have a "must have X acres."  So spin off your back garage into its own lot and sell it to "My rental company, Inc." and lease away.  Slightly more complex than that, but you get the point.  Stupid laws deserve to be subverted.

If there are areas in Tulsa that are so desirable that people want to live in garage apartment, let them do it.  Certainly the denisty would be welcomed in some areas.

[PonderInc]

No worries.  Let the suburban sprawlers keep their big ol' lawns free of ADUs.  In the future, after we've paved all our local farmland, we'll need their backyards to grow crops and raise animals.  (Though I do believe that nobody would notice a little ADU behind those giant garages and enormous rooftops.  And it's not like it would negatively affect the "architecture"...)

(Whoops!  Just drove to the burbs yesterday in search of sweet corn.  Still feeling snarky!)

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Finally, many areas in Midtown have lax lot rules.  The subdivision does not have a "must have X acres."  So spin off your back garage into its own lot and sell it to "My rental company, Inc." and lease away.  Slightly more complex than that, but you get the point.  Stupid laws deserve to be subverted.

It's not nearllllllllllllly that simple.  You'd have to have access easements to get to the rear, you can't have "landlocked" property like that.  Second, all neighborhoods in Tulsa fall under Tulsa County zoning - see INCOG.  Even older areas that were around before this zoning have a zoning label now, such as RS-1, RS-2, RE, etc., and they all have lot size minimums by square footage.  That's part of what's going on over there on 38th where the developer is being attacked by the neighbors.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

It isnt the cities job to tell someone whether or not to factor in a border on their mortage, so that would be a poor excuse to ban them.

Likewise, zoning does not have to apply to an entire city.  The city can zone one square block "only red buildings" if they so please.  No reason they could not make this an area thing if that is what's most appropriate.

I don't know about "only red buildings" or one square block--zoning must pertain to health, safety, & welfare, and cannot result in "spot" zoning.  It would be nice if our current zoning code would allow variations in different parts of town.  But right now, as written, the same rules apply whether you live at 15th & Harvard or 121st & Harvard.  Residential is residential regardless of the area of town.

quote:

Finally, many areas in Midtown have lax lot rules.  The subdivision does not have a "must have X acres."  So spin off your back garage into its own lot and sell it to "My rental company, Inc." and lease away.  Slightly more complex than that, but you get the point.  Stupid laws deserve to be subverted.

EVERY house in Tulsa, regardless of age, has minimal required acreage, which depends on the zoning category. I don't know who told you that Midtown has lax lot rules.  All houses/lots have minimum set-backs, frontage, etc....  In most cases, you could not split a lot to sell off, unless you met all of the requirements.  I cannot imagine that a garage behind your house could meet any of the requirements.

I don't think that the current system is too bad.  Areas where ADU are appropriate (Swan Lake, Yorktown, MapleRidge) are usually supported by the neighborhood.  I can think of several examples in Swan Lake where the homeowner went before the BOA to get a variance for the ADU, and was granted the right.  If they don't want them in Brookside or out south, well, move to SwanLake or Yorktown (better neighborhoods anyway []).  I like garage apartments.  But I don't expect that every neighborhood has to have them.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

I don't know about "only red buildings" or one square block--zoning must pertain to health, safety, & welfare, and cannot result in "spot" zoning.

Perhaps spot zoning was not the goal in my neighborhood, but it was the direct result of the TMAPC's efforts.  Before the TMAPC pushed the re-zoning of my property against my wishes, the neighborhood was a much more homogeneous RM-2 district.