Scaled back
****UPDATE**** This plan is out. It’s all or nothing, folks!
I’m looking at an option of building the project in phases: a simple, single story unit designed to be added on at a later date (hence the wacky roofline). If you look closely, you’ll see it’s the same building, but with a simple, nearly flat roof. We’d tear this off later, then use the flat roof joists below for the floor of the second story.
North Elevation
East Elevation
November 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
An associate of mine in Denver is doing this exact thing for his ADU carriage house on the alley. In his case, the first floor is a garage, and it’s built already. Later this month he tries for a variance to complete the second floor. The variance is required because detached carriage homes aren’t allowed by zoning.
Our group is advising the City on new ADU zoning as they completely rewrite the zoning code. Is it true that Portland dropped the requirement of owner occupancy? If so, why?
November 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hi Kevin,
I think the restriction of owner occupancy was removed to encouraged additional infill and ADU construction. That helped encourage developers to use the program to build more ADUs, I think. Personally, I believe that if you want ADUs built, you need to do the following:
1) Remove owner-occupancy restrictions
2) Price SDCs and permits in line with the true cost to infrastructure
3) Streamline the variance process
4) Allow for a broader range of ADU – attached, basement, detached, garage, etc.
5) Provide innovative bridge-funding programs in collaboration with private lenders