Accessory dwellings in other Oregon cities
• How Portland residents use their accessory dwellings:
As someone’s primary residence, currently occupied: 77.7 percent
As someone’s primary residence, currently vacant: 1.9 percent
For short-term housing (less than one-month stays): 4.5 percent
Extra room or workspace for main house occupants: 11.4 percent
Not currently being used: 0.8 percent
Other: 3.8 percent
• How residents use accessory dwellings across Portland, Eugene and Ashland:
As someone’s primary residence, currently occupied: 78.6 percent
As someone’s primary residence, currently vacant: 2.7 percent
For short-term housing (less than one-month stays): 4.2 percent
Extra room or workspace for main house occupants: 10.4 percent
Not currently being used: 0.6 percent
Other: 3.6 percent
Source: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland State University
The shortage of affordable rental housing in Bend has placed local officials in the unusual position of calling for the city to emulate an infill development tactic used by Portland.
Bend city councilors will soon hear a proposal from the city’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee that would make it easier for property owners in Bend to build accessory dwellings, commonly referred to as mother-in-law apartments. The small homes are already allowed under city code, but the approval process required in older areas of the city makes it simple for a neighbor to halt a project.
“It’s not too often you hear something come out where Bend wants to be more like Portland,” said Andy High, chairman of the committee and staff vice president of government affairs for the Central Oregon Builders Association. However, High said that with a streamlined process, people could build these small homes in as little as two months.
“In my view, this is the quickest way to get rental housing up,” High said. “This is a great way to put an issue out in front of the community to see how much we … care about affordable housing.”
Members of the advisory committee said during a meeting on Wednesday that they do anticipate their ideas will run into some opposition. The proposal would allow accessory dwellings without a conditional use permit on all lots across the city and increase the cap on size to 800 square feet, a change that committee members said is necessary to allow for two-bedroom apartments and to make the units pencil out financially. High said the committee will likely present this recommendation, along with a couple of other ideas it is still developing to increase the supply of affordable rental housing, to the City Council in late September. Earlier this year, City Manager Eric King asked the committee to pitch ideas to ease the housing shortage.
Portland is the most dramatic example in the state of the infill development that occurs when it is easier to build accessory dwellings. Property owners used to build about 30 accessory dwellings each year, but Portland received approximately 200 permit applications for the structures in 2013, according to the city.
The increase followed a 2010 Portland City Council decision to waive development impact fees for three years, in an effort to encourage construction of more small homes. The change allowed homeowners to save as much as $11,000 per project in city fees. Portland also increased the allowable size of accessory dwellings, from the previous limit of 33 percent of the living area in the primary home to 75 percent. An overall cap on the size of the homes remains 800 square feet, according to the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. City officials there have extended the fee waiver through June 2016.
So far, no one in Bend has proposed waiving any fees for accessory dwellings.
The Bend Planning Commission has also started to discuss possible changes to the city development code for accessory dwellings, and two commissioners attended the affordable housing meeting Wednesday. Commissioner Laura Fritz said the concerns that residents raised at planning commission meetings were that it can be expensive to build accessory dwellings, and the new apartments can change the feel of neighborhoods.
Fritz said she heard “mostly concern about the integrity of the neighborhood, and getting a big (accessory dwelling) over a garage that is then looking down over this smaller property’s yard, so the privacy is lost.”
Jim Landin, an architect and member of the affordable housing committee, said he knows of accessory dwelling projects that stalled because of opposition from neighbors. A neighbor might object that an apartment above a garage will invade his or her privacy, despite the fact that the property owner could increase the height of the existing home and add a deck that would be just as intrusive. Landin said he believes the real reason some people object to the accessory dwellings is that they will be occupied by renters, and some property owners do not believe the renters will care as much about the neighborhood. “It’s the fact that now it’s renters,” Landin said.
High said the $1,400 fee for the city to review conditional use permit applications — as currently required for lots developed before 1998 — discourages many people from trying to build apartments above their garages or other forms of accessory dwellings, because one neighbor could derail the project.
“I know that’s not a ton of money, but that’s still a pretty big commitment in terms of if they’re just exploring,” High said.
— Reporter: 541-617-7829, firstname.lastname@example.org