California’s ADU Laws: Major Changes and How They Affect You The Good Men ProjectCalifornia’s ADU Laws: Major Changes and How They Affect You The Good Men ProjectCalifornia’s ADU Laws: Major Changes and How They Affect You The Good Men Project
I try to be cognizant that I’m writing for an international audience here at Strong Towns. A lot of my idea fodder comes from walks around the city I’ve lived in for the last 11 years, but I fear I can only write so much about Sarasota, Florida, and have it be relevant and interesting to people who don’t live here.
I’ve always wanted to write about Laurel Park, a Sarasota neighborhood which I lived in from 2014 to 2016 and have admired for longer than that. Now that my family and I are moving away from Florida, it feels like the right time to pay a bit of tribute. (We are relocating to St. Paul, Minnesota, where I grew up and where my parents and some of my extended family still live. It’ll be good to be close to family and (more) friends, and to raise the kids amid that “village.”)
This isn’t an exercise in mere nostalgia. The built form of Laurel Park actually provides some excellent insight into what the next incremental stage of growth could look like for the over 75% of America’s residential landscape that is currently mostly (or wholly) occupied by single-family homes with yards. Good urbanism doesn’t have to mean large apartment buildings or some immaculate row of brownstones; the ad-hoc version on display in a neighborhood like Laurel Park is more relevant as a model of adaptation for, well, “the rest of us.”
Laurel Park is located just southeast of and adjacent to downtown Sarasota. The neighborhood is roughly 100 years old. Many homes and apartment buildings showcase the telltale Mediterranean Revival style of the city’s first big development boom in the 1920s, while others were built later. Today it’s a historic district and something of a relic: restrictive zoning and fierce (one could, not inaccurately, say NIMBY) advocacy by longtime residents has preserved Laurel Park’s lush greenery and its built form of mostly one- and two-story buildings in the shadow of downtown’s modern high-rises. What you see is a time capsule of the development pattern that evolved in the pre-suburban era. And the best word for that pattern is “eclectic.”
Things are cozy and close together here. You won’t have a grassy lawn to toss a football around. But what you sacrifice in elbow room, you gain in the benefits of compactness: a walkable, lively neighborhood with the population to support local businesses in close proximity.
You also gain a different kind of beauty. The buildings aren’t huge and monolithic. There are lots of little passages. The patios and modest yards and gardens of Laurel Park are high in delight per acre: lavish attention is paid to small landscaping and aesthetic details in a way that I’ve never experienced to be the case in a neighborhood where the lots are large.
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
And there is green space: the eponymous neighborhood park is a delight. A collection of communal children’s toys—tricycles, scooters, little play houses—resides permanently on and around the playground. People are almost always in the park chatting in mid-afternoon on a nice day.
There are plenty of single-family homes:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
Many of these homes have accessory dwelling units (ADUs), guest houses, or carriage houses:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
There are duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes scattered throughout nearly every block:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
There are cottage courts (tight clusters of small homes around a shared space):
There are apartment buildings, mostly from the 1920s Mediterranean Revival:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
All of this coexists easily. Not one of these things is a nuisance, or out of character. There are simply no discernible negative effects caused by this mixing of built form. There are no traffic problems or parking problems here.
And there are beneficial effects. One obvious effect of a diverse mix of housing types is that the neighborhood is home to a diversity of residents: old and young, renter and homeowner, “snowbirds” and year-round locals, married with children, single with roommates. For many younger renters, it’s virtually the only opportunity to live a walkable, urban lifestyle in Sarasota on the kind of income you have early in your career. This was what drew my wife and me to the neighborhood nine years ago.
(Source: Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.)
When we moved to Laurel Park as newlyweds, it was into an accessory dwelling unit tucked behind a small dingbat apartment building and a duplex on a corner lot. Our apartment was on the fence line with a single-family home: we were friendly with the homeowner and got to know the stray cats he would feed daily. (One of those cats we ended up adopting.)
The ADU we used to live in.
We were also friendly with our landlord, a Canadian who came down a few times a year. The rent was a bargain for anywhere in town, let alone a five-minute walk from Main Street’s shops and restaurants. Nothing remotely comparable exists in the larger, newer buildings nearby.
Our region is in a dire housing affordability crisis: from 2021 to 2022, rent growth here was a mind-boggling 47% (compared to 18% nationally). The crunch is especially acute in and near the downtown core; in Florida, we’re good at building subdivisions in cattle pastures but not so much at handling a surge of unmet demand for walkable urban living. Affordable housing for a downtown workforce is a constant topic of conversation in city hall; new construction is too costly and too slow to be the answer in and of itself. In this context, I find it beyond obvious that the eclectic mix of ADUs and other modest housing options already available in a neighborhood like Laurel Park is a crucial source of relatively inexpensive housing.
Another beneficial effect of this neighborhood’s built form is financial productivity. This is a place that is paying its freight. Its public infrastructure is modest (streets, for example, are narrow) while the concentration of private investment is significant, a direct consequence of the variety and compact arrangement of housing in Laurel Park. To see this, we need only compare a block of Laurel Park with a much more conventional block of single-family homes in nearby Hudson Bayou, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.
The Laurel Park block accommodates roughly triple the number of homes in about the same land area. These are, on average, much smaller homes, and less expensive overall, even as the total assessed value per acre of the real estate is 39% higher in Laurel Park.
The actual market values of property here tend to be higher than the tax-assessed value by a significant margin. Real estate in Laurel Park has become tremendously expensive—in fact, prices here are just about the highest in the city when measured on a per-square-foot basis. (Keep in mind that the single-story 1920s bungalows of Laurel Park are quite small.)
This neighborhood is not expensive because it’s the kind of place that’s expensive to build—it isn’t! It’s wholly about the scarcity of this kind of place, and the desirability of the location.
And the answer to that problem is simple, in principle: more Laurel Parks. This place shouldn’t be the rarity it is. It’s a demonstrated huge success: there should be a dozen neighborhoods like it in Sarasota alone.
There aren’t. In fact, it’s illegal to make any other neighborhood here more like Laurel Park. Virtually every lot in Laurel Park violates some combination of the density, parking, and setback restrictions that apply to every other neighborhood in the city. (In fact, many of them violate the restrictions that apply to Laurel Park, itself—they just had the good fortune to have been developed before the modern zoning code was in place.)
We could make it so that just about any residential neighborhood could evolve to look more like Laurel Park. Not just here, but in almost any American city that shares the basic DNA of single-family detached homes on lots of modest size. It just requires some key policy changes to make the historic pattern already visible in Laurel Park legal to reproduce without a costly and uncertain variance process:
In neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes, allow buildings at the missing-middle level of intensity—certainly up to a fourplex or cottage court, but I would suggest up to the kind of small-scale apartment buildings that exist here.
Allow accessory dwelling units without onerous restrictions, like owner-occupancy on site or a separate sewer and water hookup.
Eliminate parking mandates.
Make setback requirements small to zero.
Eliminate minimum lot size requirements.
Allow lots to be split and subdivided with few restrictions, only those needed for basic access and safety.
There is some momentum in this direction. Parking mandates have begun to fall like dominoes across the North American continent. And advocates for the reform of rigid single-family zoning have caught on to the idea of lot splits, in California and elsewhere.
It’s important to recognize that a neighborhood like Laurel Park is itself the result of ad-hoc evolution and reinvention over time. It wasn’t planned to be the eclectic mix that exists today. Here is an aerial photo from 1948, showing ample lawns and still large vacant tracts:
(Source: Sarasota County.)
Here’s 1986:
(Source: Sarasota County.)
Redevelopment continues on a modest, scattered basis, as individual houses are torn down and replaced. Some of the recent redevelopment in Laurel Park itself has taken the form of large, single-family homes, but other new construction replicates the fine-grained historic pattern of the neighborhood. In the latter case, the key is splitting up lots to build on very small chunks of land. Here’s an aerial view of a cluster of new townhomes built around an alley interior to a Laurel Park block. These tiny lots were created by subdividing larger ones; the neighborhood wasn’t originally platted with them.
There’s not much but regulation and our entrenched building culture keeping the average American neighborhood from beginning to fill in with something similar to this.
It’s not a master planning process, or a coercive one. Nobody is coming for anybody’s home or yard. This is an evolutionary process that can unfold, if allowed to, as individual homeowners make a range of choices for individual reasons.
Some people will always want their privacy and their yard and their elbow room. But lots of people would take this trade-off. And some of those “lots of people” own the suburban-style lots that comprise 75% and up of urban residential land in most U.S. cities. Those people can start filling in backyards—not all of them, of course, but a fraction of them, as the owners desire—with ADUs. We can start allowing owners to split up lots, or small developers to build cottage courts where in a previous era you’d have had one or two “McMansions,” simply because that was the only thing allowed.
Laurel Park demonstrates the kind of place that would result from that evolution. Far from feeling chaotic or crowded, it can be lovable, beautiful, and a boon to your city.
I try to be cognizant that I’m writing for an international audience here at Strong Towns. A lot of my idea fodder comes from walks around the city I’ve lived in for the last 11 years, but I fear I can only write so much about Sarasota, Florida, and have it be relevant and interesting to people who don’t live here.
I’ve always wanted to write about Laurel Park, a Sarasota neighborhood which I lived in from 2014 to 2016 and have admired for longer than that. Now that my family and I are moving away from Florida, it feels like the right time to pay a bit of tribute. (We are relocating to St. Paul, Minnesota, where I grew up and where my parents and some of my extended family still live. It’ll be good to be close to family and (more) friends, and to raise the kids amid that “village.”)
This isn’t an exercise in mere nostalgia. The built form of Laurel Park actually provides some excellent insight into what the next incremental stage of growth could look like for the over 75% of America’s residential landscape that is currently mostly (or wholly) occupied by single-family homes with yards. Good urbanism doesn’t have to mean large apartment buildings or some immaculate row of brownstones; the ad-hoc version on display in a neighborhood like Laurel Park is more relevant as a model of adaptation for, well, “the rest of us.”
Meet the Eclectic NeighborhoodLaurel Park is located just southeast of and adjacent to downtown Sarasota. The neighborhood is roughly 100 years old. Many homes and apartment buildings showcase the telltale Mediterranean Revival style of the city’s first big development boom in the 1920s, while others were built later. Today it’s a historic district and something of a relic: restrictive zoning and fierce (one could, not inaccurately, say NIMBY) advocacy by longtime residents has preserved Laurel Park’s lush greenery and its built form of mostly one- and two-story buildings in the shadow of downtown’s modern high-rises. What you see is a time capsule of the development pattern that evolved in the pre-suburban era. And the best word for that pattern is “eclectic.”
Things are cozy and close together here. You won’t have a grassy lawn to toss a football around. But what you sacrifice in elbow room, you gain in the benefits of compactness: a walkable, lively neighborhood with the population to support local businesses in close proximity.
You also gain a different kind of beauty. The buildings aren’t huge and monolithic. There are lots of little passages. The patios and modest yards and gardens of Laurel Park are high in delight per acre: lavish attention is paid to small landscaping and aesthetic details in a way that I’ve never experienced to be the case in a neighborhood where the lots are large.
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
And there is green space: the eponymous neighborhood park is a delight. A collection of communal children’s toys—tricycles, scooters, little play houses—resides permanently on and around the playground. People are almost always in the park chatting in mid-afternoon on a nice day.
There are plenty of single-family homes:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
Many of these homes have accessory dwelling units (ADUs), guest houses, or carriage houses:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
There are duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes scattered throughout nearly every block:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
There are cottage courts (tight clusters of small homes around a shared space):
There are apartment buildings, mostly from the 1920s Mediterranean Revival:
View fullsize
View fullsize
View fullsize
All of this coexists easily. Not one of these things is a nuisance, or out of character. There are simply no discernible negative effects caused by this mixing of built form. There are no traffic problems or parking problems here.
And there are beneficial effects. One obvious effect of a diverse mix of housing types is that the neighborhood is home to a diversity of residents: old and young, renter and homeowner, “snowbirds” and year-round locals, married with children, single with roommates. For many younger renters, it’s virtually the only opportunity to live a walkable, urban lifestyle in Sarasota on the kind of income you have early in your career. This was what drew my wife and me to the neighborhood nine years ago.
(Source: Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.)
When we moved to Laurel Park as newlyweds, it was into an accessory dwelling unit tucked behind a small dingbat apartment building and a duplex on a corner lot. Our apartment was on the fence line with a single-family home: we were friendly with the homeowner and got to know the stray cats he would feed daily. (One of those cats we ended up adopting.)
The ADU we used to live in.
We were also friendly with our landlord, a Canadian who came down a few times a year. The rent was a bargain for anywhere in town, let alone a five-minute walk from Main Street’s shops and restaurants. Nothing remotely comparable exists in the larger, newer buildings nearby.
Our region is in a dire housing affordability crisis: from 2021 to 2022, rent growth here was a mind-boggling 47% (compared to 18% nationally). The crunch is especially acute in and near the downtown core; in Florida, we’re good at building subdivisions in cattle pastures but not so much at handling a surge of unmet demand for walkable urban living. Affordable housing for a downtown workforce is a constant topic of conversation in city hall; new construction is too costly and too slow to be the answer in and of itself. In this context, I find it beyond obvious that the eclectic mix of ADUs and other modest housing options already available in a neighborhood like Laurel Park is a crucial source of relatively inexpensive housing.
Another beneficial effect of this neighborhood’s built form is financial productivity. This is a place that is paying its freight. Its public infrastructure is modest (streets, for example, are narrow) while the concentration of private investment is significant, a direct consequence of the variety and compact arrangement of housing in Laurel Park. To see this, we need only compare a block of Laurel Park with a much more conventional block of single-family homes in nearby Hudson Bayou, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.
The Laurel Park block accommodates roughly triple the number of homes in about the same land area. These are, on average, much smaller homes, and less expensive overall, even as the total assessed value per acre of the real estate is 39% higher in Laurel Park.
Creating More of a Good ThingThe actual market values of property here tend to be higher than the tax-assessed value by a significant margin. Real estate in Laurel Park has become tremendously expensive—in fact, prices here are just about the highest in the city when measured on a per-square-foot basis. (Keep in mind that the single-story 1920s bungalows of Laurel Park are quite small.)
This neighborhood is not expensive because it’s the kind of place that’s expensive to build—it isn’t! It’s wholly about the scarcity of this kind of place, and the desirability of the location.
And the answer to that problem is simple, in principle: more Laurel Parks. This place shouldn’t be the rarity it is. It’s a demonstrated huge success: there should be a dozen neighborhoods like it in Sarasota alone.
There aren’t. In fact, it’s illegal to make any other neighborhood here more like Laurel Park. Virtually every lot in Laurel Park violates some combination of the density, parking, and setback restrictions that apply to every other neighborhood in the city. (In fact, many of them violate the restrictions that apply to Laurel Park, itself—they just had the good fortune to have been developed before the modern zoning code was in place.)
We could make it so that just about any residential neighborhood could evolve to look more like Laurel Park. Not just here, but in almost any American city that shares the basic DNA of single-family detached homes on lots of modest size. It just requires some key policy changes to make the historic pattern already visible in Laurel Park legal to reproduce without a costly and uncertain variance process:
In neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes, allow buildings at the missing-middle level of intensity—certainly up to a fourplex or cottage court, but I would suggest up to the kind of small-scale apartment buildings that exist here.
Allow accessory dwelling units without onerous restrictions, like owner-occupancy on site or a separate sewer and water hookup.
Eliminate parking mandates.
Make setback requirements small to zero.
Eliminate minimum lot size requirements.
Allow lots to be split and subdivided with few restrictions, only those needed for basic access and safety.
There is some momentum in this direction. Parking mandates have begun to fall like dominoes across the North American continent. And advocates for the reform of rigid single-family zoning have caught on to the idea of lot splits, in California and elsewhere.
An Evolutionary PatternIt’s important to recognize that a neighborhood like Laurel Park is itself the result of ad-hoc evolution and reinvention over time. It wasn’t planned to be the eclectic mix that exists today. Here is an aerial photo from 1948, showing ample lawns and still large vacant tracts:
(Source: Sarasota County.)
Here’s 1986:
(Source: Sarasota County.)
Redevelopment continues on a modest, scattered basis, as individual houses are torn down and replaced. Some of the recent redevelopment in Laurel Park itself has taken the form of large, single-family homes, but other new construction replicates the fine-grained historic pattern of the neighborhood. In the latter case, the key is splitting up lots to build on very small chunks of land. Here’s an aerial view of a cluster of new townhomes built around an alley interior to a Laurel Park block. These tiny lots were created by subdividing larger ones; the neighborhood wasn’t originally platted with them.
There’s not much but regulation and our entrenched building culture keeping the average American neighborhood from beginning to fill in with something similar to this.
It’s not a master planning process, or a coercive one. Nobody is coming for anybody’s home or yard. This is an evolutionary process that can unfold, if allowed to, as individual homeowners make a range of choices for individual reasons.
Some people will always want their privacy and their yard and their elbow room. But lots of people would take this trade-off. And some of those “lots of people” own the suburban-style lots that comprise 75% and up of urban residential land in most U.S. cities. Those people can start filling in backyards—not all of them, of course, but a fraction of them, as the owners desire—with ADUs. We can start allowing owners to split up lots, or small developers to build cottage courts where in a previous era you’d have had one or two “McMansions,” simply because that was the only thing allowed.
Laurel Park demonstrates the kind of place that would result from that evolution. Far from feeling chaotic or crowded, it can be lovable, beautiful, and a boon to your city.
Good urbanism doesn’t have to mean large apartment buildings or an immaculate row of brownstones; the ad-hoc version on display in this Florida neighborhood is more relevant as a model of adaptation for the rest of us.
Photo by The Lyda Hill Texas Collection of Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith’s America Project, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.
Friday, January 20, 2023 by
Preservation advocates want the city to simplify the process for building accessory dwelling units, and use an ombudsman position to help navigate city processes as some of the steps needed to save existing housing stock while helping to address affordability.
Those were some of the conclusions in a recent paper from Urban Land Institute Austin that looked at the programs and problems involved in the preservation movement while demand for local housing continues to surge.
The technical assistance report brought together more than 40 experts including city preservation staff, local business and property owners, planners and developers to make recommendations based on the findings that Austin loses its local character when long-standing homes are torn down.
The report also found demolition and new construction is often an easier and more lucrative option than preservation, noting: “At present, it is often an easier permitting path and more profitable for developers to tear down existing older homes, making way for new construction. The development process would benefit from the intentional alignment and comprehensive cooperation of the various city departments involved in preservation work, ensuring that the reviews and paperwork needed to support preservation efforts are as easy – if not easier – than demolition.”
The ability to create ADUs on the same property as a preservation-worthy home is seen as one of the best tools for the city to encourage owners to hold on to their homes while adding needed housing stock and possibly rental income to offset rising property taxes.
David Steinwedell, chair of the panel that wrote the report, said the city needs to improve and centralize more of its preservation tools involving maintenance assistance and tax relief to make them easier for non-developer owners to use.
“There are existing programs that are underutilized such as the repair program and homestead exemption. However, some existing options, such as ADUs are too complicated or expensive for many homeowners,” he wrote in an email after consulting with panel members.
“If the city grows relationships and trust with communities where displacement is occurring and provides an ombudsman as recommended in the report to help connect residents with programs or walk through complicated processes, that will help expand utilization of existing opportunities.”
Steinwedell’s group sees increased use of a community land trust as well as changes to homestead property tax exemptions as two possible remedies for property owners being priced out of their homes by rising property values. Further changes to assessment practices – including basing assessments on property rental income – would require the cooperation of Travis County and may be difficult to orchestrate.
Another problem the panel found was persistent distrust of the city by neighborhood groups throughout the area.
“A surprise was the lack of trust by residents and neighborhood groups in the city to fairly administer the programs. An often repeated fear was that using a city program would trigger inspections that would result in additional work being required that the resident didn’t have the funds to complete.”
Lindsey Derrington, executive director of Preservation Austin, said preservation of homes built before Austin became a boom town helps to keep longtime residents in the area while also creating options for first-time homebuyers who grew up here.
“(Preservation) has to be part of the equation for keeping longtime residents in place and giving first-time homebuyers more options for living in Austin’s central city neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Land Development Code, market forces and development processes make it easier to demolish existing and more affordable homes for newer, more expensive housing. We have to change this dynamic.”
Cara Bertron, a senior planner specializing in displacement prevention for the city, said redevelopment tends to result in denser clusters of homes unaffordable for most residents, while preservation and ADU expansion can help address the city’s affordability problem.
“It’s easy to overlook that many older houses are market-affordable now, so preserving them is an important part of a citywide affordability strategy. In terms of new construction, accessory dwelling units behind existing homes can help to create more affordable housing in the context of existing neighborhoods, especially with more technical and financial support for homeowners.”
Read the full report here:
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.
We’re a nonprofit news organization, and we put our service to you above all else. That will never change. But public-service journalism requires community support from readers like you. Will you join your friends and neighbors to support our work and mission?
Photo by The Lyda Hill Texas Collection of Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith’s America Project, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.
Report: ADU expansion, tax relief among city’s options to promote preservation
Friday, January 20, 2023 by
Chad Swiatecki
Preservation advocates want the city to simplify the process for building accessory dwelling units, and use an ombudsman position to help navigate city processes as some of the steps needed to save existing housing stock while helping to address affordability.
Those were some of the conclusions in a recent paper from Urban Land Institute Austin that looked at the programs and problems involved in the preservation movement while demand for local housing continues to surge.
The technical assistance report brought together more than 40 experts including city preservation staff, local business and property owners, planners and developers to make recommendations based on the findings that Austin loses its local character when long-standing homes are torn down.
The report also found demolition and new construction is often an easier and more lucrative option than preservation, noting: “At present, it is often an easier permitting path and more profitable for developers to tear down existing older homes, making way for new construction. The development process would benefit from the intentional alignment and comprehensive cooperation of the various city departments involved in preservation work, ensuring that the reviews and paperwork needed to support preservation efforts are as easy – if not easier – than demolition.”
The ability to create ADUs on the same property as a preservation-worthy home is seen as one of the best tools for the city to encourage owners to hold on to their homes while adding needed housing stock and possibly rental income to offset rising property taxes.
David Steinwedell, chair of the panel that wrote the report, said the city needs to improve and centralize more of its preservation tools involving maintenance assistance and tax relief to make them easier for non-developer owners to use.
“There are existing programs that are underutilized such as the repair program and homestead exemption. However, some existing options, such as ADUs are too complicated or expensive for many homeowners,” he wrote in an email after consulting with panel members.
“If the city grows relationships and trust with communities where displacement is occurring and provides an ombudsman as recommended in the report to help connect residents with programs or walk through complicated processes, that will help expand utilization of existing opportunities.”
Steinwedell’s group sees increased use of a community land trust as well as changes to homestead property tax exemptions as two possible remedies for property owners being priced out of their homes by rising property values. Further changes to assessment practices – including basing assessments on property rental income – would require the cooperation of Travis County and may be difficult to orchestrate.
Another problem the panel found was persistent distrust of the city by neighborhood groups throughout the area.
“A surprise was the lack of trust by residents and neighborhood groups in the city to fairly administer the programs. An often repeated fear was that using a city program would trigger inspections that would result in additional work being required that the resident didn’t have the funds to complete.”
Lindsey Derrington, executive director of Preservation Austin, said preservation of homes built before Austin became a boom town helps to keep longtime residents in the area while also creating options for first-time homebuyers who grew up here.
“(Preservation) has to be part of the equation for keeping longtime residents in place and giving first-time homebuyers more options for living in Austin’s central city neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Land Development Code, market forces and development processes make it easier to demolish existing and more affordable homes for newer, more expensive housing. We have to change this dynamic.”
Cara Bertron, a senior planner specializing in displacement prevention for the city, said redevelopment tends to result in denser clusters of homes unaffordable for most residents, while preservation and ADU expansion can help address the city’s affordability problem.
“It’s easy to overlook that many older houses are market-affordable now, so preserving them is an important part of a citywide affordability strategy. In terms of new construction, accessory dwelling units behind existing homes can help to create more affordable housing in the context of existing neighborhoods, especially with more technical and financial support for homeowners.”
Read the full report here:
Download (PDF, 14.27MB)
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.
Join Your Friends and Neighbors
We’re a nonprofit news organization, and we put our service to you above all else. That will never change. But public-service journalism requires community support from readers like you. Will you join your friends and neighbors to support our work and mission?
Report: ADU expansion, tax relief among city’s options to promote … Austin Monitor
They are called Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs for short, and it was this subject that consumed the best part of a two-hour Marysville City Council meeting Monday.
ADUs are just as described, additional housing units – which can be either attached or detached from a single-family home – inside the city limits. While there are a number of ADUs in use in the city right now, the Marysville City Council is seeking to codify their existence. New ADUs will have to meet certain standards to include matching architectural styles, living space minimums and maximums, height requirements and so on. As of now, the City of Marysville has no standard code for the use of ADUs and two ordinances that were before Council Monday for second readings and public hearings would regulate their construction and use. ADUs that are already in use will be grandfathered in; the legislation will mostly affect only new construction.
After the measure was first introduced to the Marysville City Council at its last regular meeting in December, a number of questions were raised, again concerning the architectural styles, minimum space requirements and zoning changes which would codify their use. The ordinances would not allow for a recreational vehicle, for instance, to be used as an ADU, but would allow a garage conversion into living space or an addition – again either attached or detached to the original structure – on a single-family lot. Often called “In-Law” homes or “Grandma” homes, these small units are often used for just that, a place for elderly relatives to live with their families, yet retain a certain amount of independence as the ADUs have their own kitchenettes and water/sewer lines.
Several members of the public addressed – both for and against – the codification of the ADUs at Monday’s meeting. As many sections of the city have Homeowners Associations, where ADUs are not permitted under the HOA’s rules, Donald Boerger, who represents the city’s 4th Ward, noted that the 4th Ward would most likely be the areas that ADUs are to be utilized and expressed his dissatisfaction for the measures, fearing that an expansion of ADUs would harm the historical and architectural significance of his ward, leading to a spike in rental units, which he said are often neglected and in disrepair, which in turn leads to falling property values where the ADUs are to be located.
But the real debate of the subject Monday concerned matters of semantics and governmental intervention. That ADUs exist and will likely be codified is a matter of fact, it’s the manner on how future ADUs will be regulated that is at the heart of this ongoing debate.
A number of changes were made to the original ordinances that were given during their first readings at the last Marysville City Council meeting which include the size limits as noted above (ADUs may not be larger than the existing structure in term of square footage, nor may they be taller than the existing structure or over 30 feet in height), architectural integrity by using with the same materials, colors and styles of the existing building, and paved or concrete driveways. These updates were welcomed as a whole, but the bone of contention remains as it has been since the ordinances introduction: Which city board or commission will have the final say on the matter?
This is the very heart of the matter, deciding whether or not the ADUs should be considered incidental use or conditional use and whether or not both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board will have a say in the matter as applications for ADUs are made. There are those who argued that an application and approval by the DRB should be enough, while others insist that ADU applications must go before both the DRB and the Planning Commission and receive approval from both.
Again, it appears likely that the Marysville City Council will eventually recognize and codify the use of ADUs in the city – numerous cities in Ohio and throughout the country have already done so – with the added stipulations, but how the city plans to advance the matter remains up in the air. Both ordinances dealing with the ADUs will be up for a third reading and final vote at the next Marysville City Council meeting.
In other action, the Marysville City Council passed a resolution allowing the city manager to apply for transportation alternative funds from the Ohio Department of Transportation for the State Route 31 widening project. The project is expected to be started in 2024 and will add turn lanes, sidewalks and traffic lights on Maple St/SR 31 from Elwood Ave to the U.S. Route 33 interchange. The city already has $2,000,000 earmarked in the budget for the project and will be asking the state to kick in a similar amount for its completion. President of Council Henk Berbee looks forward to the project, noting that the Maple St./Elwood Ave. intersection has been a “nightmare” for years and estimated that by the time ground is broken on the project, costs are expected to be north of $4.5M.
Also passed on the third reading and final vote was an ordinance amending the city code in regard to connection of city utilities to properties that border the city limits. The measure passed without a dissenting vote.
Prior to the council meeting, the Public Safety/Service Committee had its monthly meeting where City Engineer Kyle Hoyng outlined the acceptance of public dedicated infrastructure which includes Chestnut Crossing Phase 1 (street/water/storm/sanitary), Warner Rd (water & sanitary only), Village of Timberlakes Phase 5 Section 1 (water & sanitary only), Village Neighborhood 3 (water only), Residence at Bethel Woods (water & sanitary only), Eversole Run Neighborhood 2 (sanitary only), Marysville Flats (water only),Woodside Phase 1 (water/storm/sanitary) and Keystone Crossing Section 3 (street/water/storm/sanitary). No official action was taken by the PSSC on Mr. Hoyng’s report Monday.
The Marysville City Council is scheduled to meet again Monday, January 23 at 7 p.m.
They are called Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs for short, and it was this subject that consumed the best part of a two-hour Marysville City Council meeting Monday.
ADUs are just as described, additional housing units – which can be either attached or detached from a single-family home – inside the city limits. While there are a number of ADUs in use in the city right now, the Marysville City Council is seeking to codify their existence. New ADUs will have to meet certain standards to include matching architectural styles, living space minimums and maximums, height requirements and so on. As of now, the City of Marysville has no standard code for the use of ADUs and two ordinances that were before Council Monday for second readings and public hearings would regulate their construction and use. ADUs that are already in use will be grandfathered in; the legislation will mostly affect only new construction.
After the measure was first introduced to the Marysville City Council at its last regular meeting in December, a number of questions were raised, again concerning the architectural styles, minimum space requirements and zoning changes which would codify their use. The ordinances would not allow for a recreational vehicle, for instance, to be used as an ADU, but would allow a garage conversion into living space or an addition – again either attached or detached to the original structure – on a single-family lot. Often called “In-Law” homes or “Grandma” homes, these small units are often used for just that, a place for elderly relatives to live with their families, yet retain a certain amount of independence as the ADUs have their own kitchenettes and water/sewer lines.
Several members of the public addressed – both for and against – the codification of the ADUs at Monday’s meeting. As many sections of the city have Homeowners Associations, where ADUs are not permitted under the HOA’s rules, Donald Boerger, who represents the city’s 4th Ward, noted that the 4th Ward would most likely be the areas that ADUs are to be utilized and expressed his dissatisfaction for the measures, fearing that an expansion of ADUs would harm the historical and architectural significance of his ward, leading to a spike in rental units, which he said are often neglected and in disrepair, which in turn leads to falling property values where the ADUs are to be located.
But the real debate of the subject Monday concerned matters of semantics and governmental intervention. That ADUs exist and will likely be codified is a matter of fact, it’s the manner on how future ADUs will be regulated that is at the heart of this ongoing debate.
A number of changes were made to the original ordinances that were given during their first readings at the last Marysville City Council meeting which include the size limits as noted above (ADUs may not be larger than the existing structure in term of square footage, nor may they be taller than the existing structure or over 30 feet in height), architectural integrity by using with the same materials, colors and styles of the existing building, and paved or concrete driveways. These updates were welcomed as a whole, but the bone of contention remains as it has been since the ordinances introduction: Which city board or commission will have the final say on the matter?
This is the very heart of the matter, deciding whether or not the ADUs should be considered incidental use or conditional use and whether or not both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board will have a say in the matter as applications for ADUs are made. There are those who argued that an application and approval by the DRB should be enough, while others insist that ADU applications must go before both the DRB and the Planning Commission and receive approval from both.
Again, it appears likely that the Marysville City Council will eventually recognize and codify the use of ADUs in the city – numerous cities in Ohio and throughout the country have already done so – with the added stipulations, but how the city plans to advance the matter remains up in the air. Both ordinances dealing with the ADUs will be up for a third reading and final vote at the next Marysville City Council meeting.
In other action, the Marysville City Council passed a resolution allowing the city manager to apply for transportation alternative funds from the Ohio Department of Transportation for the State Route 31 widening project. The project is expected to be started in 2024 and will add turn lanes, sidewalks and traffic lights on Maple St/SR 31 from Elwood Ave to the U.S. Route 33 interchange. The city already has $2,000,000 earmarked in the budget for the project and will be asking the state to kick in a similar amount for its completion. President of Council Henk Berbee looks forward to the project, noting that the Maple St./Elwood Ave. intersection has been a “nightmare” for years and estimated that by the time ground is broken on the project, costs are expected to be north of $4.5M.
Also passed on the third reading and final vote was an ordinance amending the city code in regard to connection of city utilities to properties that border the city limits. The measure passed without a dissenting vote.
Prior to the council meeting, the Public Safety/Service Committee had its monthly meeting where City Engineer Kyle Hoyng outlined the acceptance of public dedicated infrastructure which includes Chestnut Crossing Phase 1 (street/water/storm/sanitary), Warner Rd (water & sanitary only), Village of Timberlakes Phase 5 Section 1 (water & sanitary only), Village Neighborhood 3 (water only), Residence at Bethel Woods (water & sanitary only), Eversole Run Neighborhood 2 (sanitary only), Marysville Flats (water only),Woodside Phase 1 (water/storm/sanitary) and Keystone Crossing Section 3 (street/water/storm/sanitary). No official action was taken by the PSSC on Mr. Hoyng’s report Monday.
The Marysville City Council is scheduled to meet again Monday, January 23 at 7 p.m.
What To Do With The ADUs? Union County Daily Digital
MILFORD — The city’s Planning and Zoning Board delayed action on accessory dwelling units after residents raised a number of concerns at the board’s recent public hearing.
An ADU is a separate small house or apartment that shares a lot with a larger main home.
According to board member Robert Satti, Milford’s proposed regulations would allow owners to derive income from the ADU, and that the person living in the space does not have to be related to the owner. Milford also would limit ADU’s size to 800 square feet and require it to be attached to the main structure.
During the meeting, some residents voiced concerns regarding parking and the effect it could have on neighborhoods under the proposed new regulations.
“I know some local ordinances and regulations deal with parking,” Satti said. “I expect we can get (an) answer from (City Planner David) Sulkis at the appropriate time.”
Another item brought up by the public was having the ADUs be deed-restricted and count as affordable housing.
“If you’re doing affordable housing, by statute, it would need to be deed-restricted,” said Sulkis. “With affordable housing, you have to know the people who are in the units, and they have to file an annual report about their income.”
Sulkis said for the ADUs to be considered affordable housing under the state’s 8-30g guideline, the city would need to follow state statute.
Satti suggested the board not take a vote during the meeting to consider all the new material brought up by the public.
“I think we should consider everything they have to say and find a way to address their concerns or good thoughts,” he said.
During the meeting, Mayor Ben Blake stated the proposal was appropriate and balanced. He said back in August, he came before the board and asked the P&Z to opt-out of the ADU state regulation and consider more localized rules.
“I just ask that you consider this again, given my testimony back in August in a favorable light,” he said.
Board of Aldermen Majority Chair Greg Harla also supported the proposed regulation.
“I’m before you as taxpayer civilian and would like to thank the board for the hard work and what they’ve done,” he said. “I think the result shows a forward move for Milford and a forward move for what the goal was.”
Milford resident Bruce Barrett said people with ADUs can now legally rent them because they don’t have to be only for family.
“I’m fully in support of this,” he said. “We are victims of our success. It’s a wonderful town, and you and the people before you have made it an attractive place and a wonderful place to live in. But the result is landlords want to charge more in rent, and the prices go up, making it hard to live in Milford.”
MILFORD — The city’s Planning and Zoning Board delayed action on accessory dwelling units after residents raised a number of concerns at the board’s recent public hearing.
An ADU is a separate small house or apartment that shares a lot with a larger main home.
According to board member Robert Satti, Milford’s proposed regulations would allow owners to derive income from the ADU, and that the person living in the space does not have to be related to the owner. Milford also would limit ADU’s size to 800 square feet and require it to be attached to the main structure.
During the meeting, some residents voiced concerns regarding parking and the effect it could have on neighborhoods under the proposed new regulations.
“I know some local ordinances and regulations deal with parking,” Satti said. “I expect we can get (an) answer from (City Planner David) Sulkis at the appropriate time.”
Another item brought up by the public was having the ADUs be deed-restricted and count as affordable housing.
“If you’re doing affordable housing, by statute, it would need to be deed-restricted,” said Sulkis. “With affordable housing, you have to know the people who are in the units, and they have to file an annual report about their income.”
Sulkis said for the ADUs to be considered affordable housing under the state’s 8-30g guideline, the city would need to follow state statute.
Satti suggested the board not take a vote during the meeting to consider all the new material brought up by the public.
“I think we should consider everything they have to say and find a way to address their concerns or good thoughts,” he said.
During the meeting, Mayor Ben Blake stated the proposal was appropriate and balanced. He said back in August, he came before the board and asked the P&Z to opt-out of the ADU state regulation and consider more localized rules.
“I just ask that you consider this again, given my testimony back in August in a favorable light,” he said.
Board of Aldermen Majority Chair Greg Harla also supported the proposed regulation.
“I’m before you as taxpayer civilian and would like to thank the board for the hard work and what they’ve done,” he said. “I think the result shows a forward move for Milford and a forward move for what the goal was.”
Milford resident Bruce Barrett said people with ADUs can now legally rent them because they don’t have to be only for family.
“I’m fully in support of this,” he said. “We are victims of our success. It’s a wonderful town, and you and the people before you have made it an attractive place and a wonderful place to live in. But the result is landlords want to charge more in rent, and the prices go up, making it hard to live in Milford.”
Milford zoning board delays vote on accessory dwellings CTPost
Granny flat have evolved from makeshift additions for an older relative to live out her days to stylish dwellings that could
The city of Salinas is tackling the housing crisis, once again – this time by making it easier for homeowners to
MARIN COUNTY, CA — Several new tools are available for homeowners interested in building an accessory dwelling unit in Marin County.
ADU Marin is a new partnership between 10 local cities and towns and the county. The group launched a step-by-step website and workbook along with a webinar series to guide people through the process of building an ADU, also known as a second unit, a granny flat, an in-law unit or a converted garage.
Creating more housing options, especially affordable units, has been a top priority of local cities, towns and the county for years, county officials said. ADUs are a way to create more housing without an increase in suburban sprawl.
"There is a significant opportunity for more growth in accessory dwelling units in Marin," said Jillian Nameth Zeiger, a planner with the Community Development Agency.
"We are already seeing moderate growth, but these new tools can assist homeowners in the process and create more homes for our workforce. Having people be able to live close to where they work is not only good for morale and a sense of community, but it’s good for the planet because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions."
The new website covers each step of the process, from thinking about building to obtaining permits and starting construction. It features stories from homeowners who have built an ADU and renters now living and working in Marin, along with more than a dozen floor plans. There is also a calculator to figure out what it might cost and what rent could be.
The workbook goes deeper into the process and is full of exercises, checklists and activities.
To introduce the new tools, webinars will be held on Oct. 26, Oct. 29 and Nov. 5. The webinars will take place from 6:30-8 p.m.
More than 70 ADUs have been created in unincorporated Marin over the past two years, according to the county. Although growth has been slower in local cities and towns, surrounding Bay Area counties are seeing steady increases in the number of ADUs built and now available for rent.
"With housing such a huge priority, there is much more assistance available now than there used to be for people thinking about creating an ADU to supplement their income," Nameth Zeiger said. "In the bigger picture, we hope people will investigate ADUs as a way to improve the quality of life for our workforce. Providing a home for an individual or family can be rewarding and promote a feeling of community."
MARIN COUNTY, CA — Several new tools are available for homeowners interested in building an accessory dwelling unit in Marin County.
ADU Marin is a new partnership between 10 local cities and towns and the county. The group launched a step-by-step website and workbook along with a webinar series to guide people through the process of building an ADU, also known as a second unit, a granny flat, an in-law unit or a converted garage.
Creating more housing options, especially affordable units, has been a top priority of local cities, towns and the county for years, county officials said. ADUs are a way to create more housing without an increase in suburban sprawl.
"There is a significant opportunity for more growth in accessory dwelling units in Marin," said Jillian Nameth Zeiger, a planner with the Community Development Agency.
"We are already seeing moderate growth, but these new tools can assist homeowners in the process and create more homes for our workforce. Having people be able to live close to where they work is not only good for morale and a sense of community, but it’s good for the planet because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions."
The new website covers each step of the process, from thinking about building to obtaining permits and starting construction. It features stories from homeowners who have built an ADU and renters now living and working in Marin, along with more than a dozen floor plans. There is also a calculator to figure out what it might cost and what rent could be.
The workbook goes deeper into the process and is full of exercises, checklists and activities.
To introduce the new tools, webinars will be held on Oct. 26, Oct. 29 and Nov. 5. The webinars will take place from 6:30-8 p.m.
Oct. 26 – Belvedere, Tiburon, Sausalito, unincorporated Southern Marin. Register online. Oct. 29 – Larkspur, Corte Madera, San Anselmo, unincorporated West Marin. Register online. Nov. 5 – Mill Valley, Ross, Fairfax, unincorporated Central Marin. Register online. More than 70 ADUs have been created in unincorporated Marin over the past two years, according to the county. Although growth has been slower in local cities and towns, surrounding Bay Area counties are seeing steady increases in the number of ADUs built and now available for rent.
"With housing such a huge priority, there is much more assistance available now than there used to be for people thinking about creating an ADU to supplement their income," Nameth Zeiger said. "In the bigger picture, we hope people will investigate ADUs as a way to improve the quality of life for our workforce. Providing a home for an individual or family can be rewarding and promote a feeling of community."
ADU Marin Launches For People Exploring Accessory Dwelling Units San Rafael, CA Patch
Builder Ethan Hare has seen commercial projects go “nearly flat” during Covid-19 while residential renovations and new construction continue to increase. His namesake company’s biggest uptick is in construction of accessory dwelling units – attached or detached living spaces on existing properties.
The sudden surge in interest in ADUs is no coincidence. On Jan. 1, new state regulations took effect superseding city and county ADU rules, streamlining the ability to add ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units – efficiency units built within an existing home – to the housing mix. Under the state rules, ADUs are approved through building departments and not through public hearings. The laws limit cities’ and counties’ abilities to impose regulations, like strict parking requirements, that in the past made adding ADUs nearly impossible.
“The state law cracks the door open, particularly for those with single-family homes,” says Monterey Principal Planner Ande Flower. Previously the city required a minimum 5,000-square-foot lot size, but minimum lot sizes are not allowed under state law. Also opening the door a little wider are recently passed ordinances by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District that change previous requirements that made adding ADUs challenging.
Municipalities may create their own rules that fit within state regulations, which is why the Monterey Planning Commission is scheduled on Oct. 27 to discuss and give guidance to planners on updating the city’s existing ADU ordinance. Flower’s goal is to create flexible rules that will facilitate constructing units that fit neighborhoods.
Flower serves on the United Way Monterey County ADU advisory group, which with the American Institute of Architects Monterey Bay put on a series of online workshops recently that attracted more than 500 participants, according to Kelly de Wolfe, United Way’s associate for affordable housing. In addition to public education, the group partnered with the city of Seaside to build two ADUs using a grant from AARP both to rent out and as a demonstration for others to follow.
United Way Executive Director Katy Castagna says the nonprofit decided about a year ago to be the “backbone support” for the region to diversify and increase the housing stock and create stability for workers as well as families who could use ADUs as an income stream. ADUs also provide flexibility for caring for older family members, or allowing young adult children to remain in the area, Castagna says.
Builder Ethan Hare has seen commercial projects go “nearly flat” during Covid-19 while residential renovations and new construction continue to increase. His namesake company’s biggest uptick is in construction of accessory dwelling units – attached or detached living spaces on existing properties.
The sudden surge in interest in ADUs is no coincidence. On Jan. 1, new state regulations took effect superseding city and county ADU rules, streamlining the ability to add ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units – efficiency units built within an existing home – to the housing mix. Under the state rules, ADUs are approved through building departments and not through public hearings. The laws limit cities’ and counties’ abilities to impose regulations, like strict parking requirements, that in the past made adding ADUs nearly impossible.
“The state law cracks the door open, particularly for those with single-family homes,” says Monterey Principal Planner Ande Flower. Previously the city required a minimum 5,000-square-foot lot size, but minimum lot sizes are not allowed under state law. Also opening the door a little wider are recently passed ordinances by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District that change previous requirements that made adding ADUs challenging.
Municipalities may create their own rules that fit within state regulations, which is why the Monterey Planning Commission is scheduled on Oct. 27 to discuss and give guidance to planners on updating the city’s existing ADU ordinance. Flower’s goal is to create flexible rules that will facilitate constructing units that fit neighborhoods.
Flower serves on the United Way Monterey County ADU advisory group, which with the American Institute of Architects Monterey Bay put on a series of online workshops recently that attracted more than 500 participants, according to Kelly de Wolfe, United Way’s associate for affordable housing. In addition to public education, the group partnered with the city of Seaside to build two ADUs using a grant from AARP both to rent out and as a demonstration for others to follow.
United Way Executive Director Katy Castagna says the nonprofit decided about a year ago to be the “backbone support” for the region to diversify and increase the housing stock and create stability for workers as well as families who could use ADUs as an income stream. ADUs also provide flexibility for caring for older family members, or allowing young adult children to remain in the area, Castagna says.
Streamlined state regulations spark a surge in local interest to build more ADUs. Monterey County Weekly
ADU Journal is an advocacy publication. Housing is a human right. Building smaller, more affordable dwellings is one solution to solving our housing problems.
ADU Journal is aimed at a general audience of potential ADU owners, tenants, and the people that make it happen. If we build ADUs on just ten percent of existing single family homes in the United States, we would have no housing crisis, either affordability or homelessness.
Copyright 2024 ADU Journal. All rights reserved.