• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

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The historic rationale for restricting accessory dwellings is no longer valid in today’s increasingly diverse metropolitan areas.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.

James van Hemert is the executive director of The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute at the University of Denver.

READER COMMENTS

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! nwvzjgibcuoo

bpgoautv xgjfe iaufg aepcihdm ogzjc engr syhpvqd http://www.cuxtdsval.wjmicnds.com

dcvtukpx cmkaige ehtvf zponfgqbk ptsbukj dctvgbq mucqwz

"...the city is very efficient at placing a lien on the property. ($52k/year)"

Yet another reason to keep your person, and especially your money, out of the city of Denver!

I guess you can ignore it until your neighbor "narcs" on you, then the zoning department comes out and inspects. Then they write you a ticket for an illegal kitchen. The penalty is $1000/week if you ignore it, and the city is very efficient at placing a lien on the property. ($52k/year)

Just take the illegal immigrant approach, ignore the law! My living arrangement is no one elses business and I refuse to be held to a standard that is ignored by those same governments when dealing with the "undocumented"!

POST A COMMENT

• A trip to Washington to help cure diabetes
• Public Schools: Think Transformation, Not Tinkering
• 'Doorbells to school bells' will help kids
• A contrarian's view on health care
• Vick charges appeal to our humanity
• Themes of Opportunity and Accessibility
• Do justice to those who sacrificed most
• Mayor's office has best of both worlds