Full Text
Accessory Dwelling Unit Public Input Summary Report compiled December 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Table of Contents Public Input Process 3 2012 Citizen Survey 3 January 2014 Open House and Online Survey 3 October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey 3 Support for Allowing ADUs in Neighborhood 5 Support for Allowing ADUs as a Permitted Use in all Residential Zones 9 Appendix A: January 2014 Open House Survey – All Responses 10 Appendix B: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only 14 Appendix C: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only 18 Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses 22 Appendix E: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only 29 Appendix F: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only 33 Appendix G: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – Aggregated Responses 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Public Input Process The City of Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission has been reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and considering whether to allow them in Moscow. There were three independent survey instruments utilized to collect input from the community regarding the allowance or disallowance of ADUs in Moscow’s neighborhoods and preferences for permitting ADUs. 2012 Citizen Survey The subject of ADUs was first introduced to Moscow citizens with the distribution of the 2012 City of Moscow Citizen Survey. The survey included questions about whether or not residents would support ADUs in their neighborhood, as well as asked residents if they would be interested in adding an ADU to their property if ADUs were permitted in Moscow. The 2012 Citizen Survey was mailed to 1,200 random addresses in Moscow, the response rate was 33%. The summary of responses to the two ADU questions begins on page 5 of this document. January 2014 Open House and Online Survey The second public input opportunity was provided to citizens at a public open house held on January 22, 2014, where attendees were encouraged to complete a survey after learning more about ADUs and options for permitting them. This same survey instrument was made available online after the open house through mid‐February. This survey included the same two questions that were part of the 2012 Citizen Survey, as well as a number of additional questions pertaining to ADUs. The additional questions were intended to gather public input in regards to options for permitting ADUs (in what zones should ADUs be permitted, and permitted by right versus requiring a Conditional Use Permit), and elements of ADUs that are important to regulate (maximum size, maximum occupancy, off‐street parking requirements, owner occupancy, location of entrances, and design). The complete summary of survey results from the 28 respondents who completed this survey can be found in Appendix A. October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey A second public open house was held in April 2014, in order to inform the community of the favorable results received from the January survey and solicit input on two proposed options for permitting ADUs. A survey was made available at the April open house and was posted online for a few weeks after the open house in order to collect input from those unable to attend. When the survey was closed and results were being compiled it became obvious that there was a severe bias in the responses to this survey, with more than 90% of responses favoring each of the less restrictive options for permitting ADUs. Due to the biased survey results, and the very minimal number of respondents for the survey in January, the Commission chose to develop a third randomly distributed survey that was direct mailed to 342 Moscow citizens. This survey included the same two questions that were part of the 2012 Citizen Survey and the survey distributed in January 2014, as well as a number of additional questions pertaining to ADUs. The additional questions were intended to gather information about the respondent that would provide data on how ADUs would be used if permitted. These questions included what type of building the respondent lives in; if they were to add an ADU to their property who it would be intended for; whether the respondent owns or rents their home; has adult children, a person with a ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 disability, or parents they provide care for living in the household; age; and two questions regarding methods of travel. The response rate for this survey was 23%, with 78 completed surveys returned and 9 surveys undeliverable. The complete summary of survey results from the 78 respondents who completed this survey can be found in Appendix B. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Strongly Agree, 27% Agree, 36% Neutral, 16% Disagree, 8% Strongly Disagree, 10% Don't Know, 3% Strongly Agree 25% Agree 38% Neutral 17% Disagree 6% Strongly Disagree 11% Don't Know 3% Strongly Agree 57% Agree 11% Strongly Disagree 29% Support for Allowing ADUs in Neighborhood On all three of the surveys utilized to collect public input on ADUs, there were two questions that were asked in the same way on each survey. The first question asked about support for allowing ADUs in neighborhood, and the second asked about interest for adding an ADU to property if ADUs were permitted in the neighborhood. The percentage of respondents who agree/strongly agree and disagree/strongly disagree with these two questions is very consistent among the three surveys. With the Moscow Citizen Survey having a return rate that provides statistically valid results, it is conclusive that the data from the two ADU surveys is representative of how the community feels about ADUs in their neighborhood. The results from these two questions are shown below. SURVEY QUESTION: I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood Agree total ‐ 63% Disagree total – 17% 2012 Citizen Survey Agree total ‐ 63% Disagree total – 18% October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey Agree total ‐ 63% Disagree total – 29% January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Strongly Agree, 15% Agree, 5% Neutral, 31% Disagree, 19% Strongly Disagree, 23% Don't Know, 8% Strongly Agree 6% Agree 7% Neutral 26% Disagree 23% Strongly Disagree 24% Don't Know 14% Strongly Agree 32% Agree 14% Neutral 11% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 25% Don't Know 7% SURVEY QUESTION: If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property Agree total ‐ 13% Disagree total – 47% 2012 Citizen Survey Agree total ‐ 20% Disagree total – 42% October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey Agree total ‐ 46% Disagree total – 32% January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 2012 CITIZEN SURVEY: Response percentage for STRONGLY AGREE and AGREE to the question of supporting ADU’s in my neighborhood. 2012 CITIZEN SURVEY: Response percentage for STRONGLY DISAGREE and DISAGREE to the question of supporting ADU’s in my neighborhood. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Response percentage for STRONGLY DISAGREE and DISAGREE to the question of supporting ADU’s in my neighborhood. 2012 CITIZEN SURVEY: Response percentage for STRONGLY AGREE and AGREE to the question of likely to add an accessory dwelling unit. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Strongly Agree 36% Agree 14% Neutral 7% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 29% Don't Know 4% Strongly Agree, 24% Agree, 29% Neutral, 17% Disagree, 16% Strongly Disagree, 13% Don't Know, 1% Support for Allowing ADUs as a Permitted Use in all Residential Zones Agree total ‐ 50% Disagree total – 36% January 2014 Open House Survey Agree total ‐ 53% Disagree total – 29% October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Strongly Agree 57% Agree 11% Strongly Disagree 29% Strongly Agree 32% Agree 14% Neutral 11% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 25% Don't Know 7% R‐1, 8% R‐2, 58% R‐3, 17% R‐4, 17% Appendix A: January 2014 Open House Survey – All Responses Residing zone of survey respondents I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood *all responses If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * all responses Agree total ‐ 46% Disagree total – 14% Agree total ‐ 68% Disagree total – 29% ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Strongly Agree 36% Agree 14% Neutral 7% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 29% Don't Know 4% Strongly Agree, 21% Agree, 7% Neutral, 14% Disagree, 29% Strongly Disagree, 25% Strongly Agree, 29% Agree, 14% Neutral, 29% Disagree, 4% Strongly Disagree, 14% Don't Know, 4% I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * all responses I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zones * all responses I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * all responses Appendix A: January 2014 Open House Survey – All Responses Agree total ‐ 43% Disagree total – 18% Agree total ‐ 28% Disagree total – 54% Agree total – 50% Disagree total – 36% ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 21% Neutral, 7% Disagree, 7% Strongly Disagree, 29% Strongly Agree, 4% Agree, 11% Neutral, 21% Disagree, 21% Strongly Disagree, 25% Don't Know, 11% My preference for permitting ADUs is with an Overlay Zone * all responses I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * all responses Appendix A: January 2014 Open House Survey – All Responses Agree total ‐ 46% Disagree total – 36% Agree total ‐ 15% Disagree total – 46% ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 0% 20% 40% 60% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * all responses Appendix A: January 2014 Open House Survey – All Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Strongly Agree, 50% Agree, 6% Strongly Disagree, 44% Strongly Agree, 31% Agree, 19% Neutral, 6% Disagree, 6% Strongly Disagree, 38% Appendix B: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Agree total ‐ 50% Disagree total – 44% Agree total ‐ 56% Disagree total – 44% ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 13% Neutral, 13% Strongly Disagree, 44% Don't Know, 6% Strongly Agree, 6% Agree, 6% Neutral, 6% Disagree, 44% Strongly Disagree, 38% Strongly Agree, 6% Agree, 19% Neutral, 31% Disagree, 6% Strongly Disagree, 25% Don't Know, 6% Appendix B: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Agree total ‐ 25% Disagree total – 31% Agree total ‐ 12% Disagree total – 82% Agree total ‐ 38% Disagree total – 44% ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Strongly Agree, 13% Agree, 31% Neutral, 6% Strongly Disagree, 44% Agree, 19% Neutral, 6% Disagree, 25% Strongly Disagree, 25% Don't Know, 19% My preference for permitting ADUs is with an Overlay Zone * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Appendix B: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only Agree total ‐ 44% Disagree total – 44% Agree total ‐ 19% Disagree total – 50% ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Appendix B: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Strongly Agree, 75% Agree, 13% Strongly Disagree, 13% Strongly Agree, 38% Agree, 13% Disagree, 13% Strongly Disagree, 13% Don't Know, 25% Appendix C: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Agree total ‐ 51% Disagree total – 26% Agree total ‐ 88% Disagree total – 13% ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Strongly Agree, 63% Agree, 13% Neutral, 25% Strongly Agree, 50% Agree, 25% Disagree, 13% Strongly Disagree, 13% Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 13% Neutral, 13% Disagree, 25% Strongly Disagree, 13% I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zoning districts * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Appendix C: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only Agree total ‐ 75% Disagree total – 26% Agree total ‐ 38% Disagree total – 38% Agree total ‐ 76% Disagree total – 0% ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Strongly Agree, 38% Agree, 13% Neutral, 13% Disagree, 13% Strongly Disagree, 13% Strongly Agree, 13% Neutral, 50% Disagree, 13% Strongly Disagree, 25% My preference for permitting ADUs is with an Overlay Zone * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Appendix C: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only Agree total ‐ 13% Disagree total – 38% Agree total ‐ 51% Disagree total – 26% ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Appendix C: January 2014 Open House Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 MB, 3% R1, 17% R2, 28% R3, 17% R4, 28% RO, 3% SR, 1% U, 3% Strongly Agree, 27% Agree, 36% Neutral, 16% Disagree, 8% Strongly Disagree, 10% Don't Know, 3% Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood *all Residing zone of survey respondents Agree total ‐ 63% Disagree total – 18% ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Strongly Agree, 15% Agree, 5% Neutral, 31% Disagree, 19% Strongly Disagree, 23% Don't Know, 8% Strongly Agree, 24% Agree, 29% Neutral, 17% Disagree, 16% Strongly Disagree, 13% Don't Know, 1% Strongly Agree, 12% Agree, 36% Neutral, 25% Disagree, 12% Strongly Disagree, 14% Don't Know, 1% If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * all responses I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * all responses I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zones * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses Agree total ‐ 20% Disagree total – 42% Agree total ‐ 48% Disagree total – 26% Agree total ‐ 53% Disagree total – 33% ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 51% Neutral, 12% Disagree, 5% Strongly Disagree, 3% Don't Know, 4% Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 37% Neutral, 16% Disagree, 8% Strongly Disagree, 13% Don't Know, 1% I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * all responses I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses Agree total ‐ 62% Disagree total – 21% Agree total ‐ 76% Disagree total – 8% ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Extremely or Very Important Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important 100‐Point Scale 5‐Point 4‐Point 63 52 43 27 64 57 65 53 73 66 64 58 Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses * The 4‐Point Scale excludes Neutral ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 67% 7% 21% 5% One family house detached from any other house One family house attached to one or more houses (e.g. duplex or townhouse) Building with two or more apartments or condominiums Mobile home Myself, 15% Elderly Family Member, 25% Disabled Family Member, 7% Rental Income, 37% Other, 21% Own, 71% Rent, 29% Which best describes the building you live in? * all responses If you were to add an ADU to your property, who would it be for? * all responses Do you own or rent your home? * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses Other Responses: left blank, wouldn't add an ADU, adult child, N/A, adult child in school/grandchild/guest house ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Yes, 14% No, 86% Yes, 1% No, 99% Yes, 18% No, 82% Do any adult children live in your household? * all responses Are you currently caring for parents who live in your household? * all responses Does any member of your household have a disability? * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 9% 19% 12% 13% 17% 17% 13% 18‐24 years 25‐34 years 35‐44 years 45‐54 years 55‐64 years 65‐74 years 75 years or older Motorized vehicle, 80% Bicycle, 7% Walk, 14% Yes , 53% No, 47% In which category is your age? * all responses What one method of transportation do you typically use for local travel? * all responses If you checked the motorized vehicle box in the question above, do other people (adults or children) usually ride with you? * all responses Appendix D: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – All Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Strongly Agree, 9% Agree, 51% Neutral, 9% Disagree, 11% Strongly Disagree, 14% Don't Know, 6% Strongly Agree, 6% Agree, 6% Neutral, 34% Disagree, 23% Strongly Disagree, 29% Don't Know, 3% Appendix E: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Agree total ‐ 60% Disagree total – 25% Agree total ‐ 12% Disagree total – 52% ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 Strongly Agree, 6% Agree, 31% Neutral, 20% Disagree, 23% Strongly Disagree, 17% Don't Know, 3% Strongly Agree, 14% Agree, 40% Neutral, 17% Disagree, 9% Strongly Disagree, 17% Don't Know, 3% Strongly Agree, 11% Agree, 63% Neutral, 14% Disagree, 3% Strongly Disagree, 3% Don't Know, 6% Appendix E: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Agree total ‐ 74% Disagree total – 6% Agree total ‐ 54% Disagree total – 26% Agree total ‐ 37% Disagree total – 40% ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Strongly Agree, 9% Agree, 43% Neutral, 20% Disagree, 9% Strongly Disagree, 17% Don't Know, 3% Appendix E: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Agree total ‐ 52% Disagree total – 26% ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Extremely or Very Important Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important 100‐Point Scale 5‐Point 4‐Point 74 67 60 43 79 74 66 61 82 74 78 71 Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * R‐1 & R‐2 responses only Appendix E: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐1 & R‐2 Responses Only * The 4‐Point Scale excludes Neutral ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Strongly Agree, 25% Agree, 6% Neutral, 25% Disagree, 16% Strongly Disagree, 13% Don't Know, 16% Strongly Agree, 44% Agree, 24% Neutral, 24% Disagree, 3% Strongly Disagree, 6% Appendix F: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only I would support allowing ADUs in my neighborhood * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only If ADUs were permitted in my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an ADU to my property * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Agree total ‐ 68% Disagree total – 9% Agree total ‐ 31% Disagree total – 29% ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Strongly Agree, 42% Agree, 24% Neutral, 18% Disagree, 6% Strongly Disagree, 9% Strongly Agree, 9% Agree, 30% Neutral, 33% Disagree, 15% Strongly Disagree, 12% Strongly Agree, 42% Agree, 39% Neutral, 9% Disagree, 6% Don't Know, 3% Appendix F: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only I would support ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only I would support ADUs as a conditionally permitted use in all residential zoning districts * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Medium Density (R‐3) and Multiple Family (R‐4) Zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Agree total ‐ 81% Disagree total – 6% Agree total ‐ 39% Disagree total – 27% Agree total ‐ 66% Disagree total – 15% ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Strongly Agree, 45% Agree, 30% Neutral, 12% Disagree, 3% Strongly Disagree, 9% Appendix F: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only I would support ADUs as a permitted accessory use in Moderate Density (R‐2) and Low Density 1) Zones * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Agree total ‐ 75% Disagree total – 12% ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Maximum Size (square feet or bedrooms) Maximum Occupancy Off‐Street Parking (requiring additional) Owner Occupancy Location of Entrances Design Extremely or Very Important Don't Know Extremely Important Very Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important 100‐Point Scale 5‐Point 4‐Point 49 33 28 14 50 42 62 42 67 60 50 46 Importance of regulating common elements of ADUs * R‐3 & R‐4 responses only Appendix F: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only * The 4‐Point Scale excludes Neutral ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 0 5 10 15 20 25 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Own Rent 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Adult Children No Adult Children Appendix G: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey – Aggregated Responses Owners vs. Renters: Support for allowing ADUs in neighborhood * all responses Adult child in household vs. Interest in adding an ADU to property * all responses ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Myself Elderly Family Member Disabled Family Member Rental Income Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Reasons for wanting to add an ADU by level of interest in adding ADU * all responses Interest in adding an ADU to property by age category * all responses Appendix G: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –Aggregated Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18‐24 years 25‐34 years 35‐44 years 45‐54 years 55‐64 years 65‐74 years 75 years or older Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know 0 5 10 15 20 25 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Single Family House Duplex or Townhouse Apartment Mobile Home Other y Support for allowing ADUs in neighborhood by age category * all responses Support for allowing ADUs in neighborhood by current housing type * all responses Appendix G: October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey –R‐3 & R‐4 Responses Only ---PAGE BREAK--- Please complete this questionnaire to provide us with your input on allowance of accessory dwelling units in Moscow. We value your input! Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey 1. Please rate the following statements by checking the box that most closely represents your opinion: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know a. I would support allowing accessory dwelling units in my neighborhood. 57% 11% 0% 0% 29% 0% b. If accessory dwelling units were permitted within my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an accessory dwelling unit to my property. 32% 14% 11% 7% 25% 7% c. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use within all residential zoning districts. 36% 14% 7% 7% 29% 4% d. I would support accessory dwelling units as a conditionally permitted use (requires notice and a public hearing) within all residential districts. 21% 7% 14% 29% 25% 0% e. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use within the Medium Density (R-3) and Multiple Family Residential (R-4) Zones. 29% 14% 29% 4% 14% 4% f. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use within the Moderate Density Single Family (R-2) and Low Density Single Family Residential (R-1) Zones. 25% 21% 7% 7% 29% 0% g. My preference for permitting accessory dwelling units is with an overlay zone, allowing them in certain locations within the city which may not directly correlate with zoning district boundaries. 4% 11% 21% 21% 25% 11% 2. The following elements are commonly considered by other cities in the northwest for regulating accessory dwelling units. Please rate the level of importance for regulation of accessory dwelling units in Moscow: Not Important Somewhat Important Neutral Very Important Extremely Important Don’t Know a. Maximum Size – specifying maximum square feet and/or number of bedrooms allowed within an ADU 4% 11% 7% 32% 39% 0% b. Maximum Occupancy – limiting the number of occupants residing within the ADU 4% 4% 4% 32% 50% 0% c. Off-Street Parking – requiring additional off-street parking for an ADU 21% 0% 14% 14% 39% 0% d. Owner Occupancy – requiring property owner to reside upon the property 7% 7% 4% 18% 50% 7% e. Entrances – specify that only one entrance may be visible from the public street to maintain the single-family character of the property 18% 4% 18% 21% 29% 4% f. Design– require design and materials of ADU to match primary residence 21% 4% 21% 14% 29% 4% 3. Please locate your place of residence on the Zoning map and tell us what Zone you reside in: See Reverse Side January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- Please use this side of the survey to provide any additional input regarding accessory dwelling units in Moscow. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- They should be regulated by number of occupants on a complaint basis only. I recommend approving ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones. Specifying a maximum square footage and maximum of two occupants (to allow for elderly parents for example). Owner occupation is a good idea so that SFRs with ADUs don't get converted into student ghettos. I also recommend that you specify that all utilities be billed through the main residence, and the address for the ADU is the same as the main residence. Separate meters are sometimes useful do to site logistics, but if two meters, then the billing should be through a single account holder. Get input from a variety of appraisers and lending institutions as SFR home loans/refis can get messy really quickly if the appraiser and lender think that an ADU means duplex...thus disqualifying the home as a single family residence and subject to higher rates/downpayments. Also, get feedback from insurance companies. They might also think that a SFR with ADU is equivalent to multi-family... Since the P&Z Commission worded the 2012 Citizen Survey Question about ADUs so as to make residents believe that they would be limited to "elderly parents", that's what they should be limited to. People who are related who may need care. They should not be allowed to be income property. I strongly object to having such dwellings in R2 Zones. I also don't understand why my property is zoned R2 when MY lot is 11000 SF+. I sincerely do not understand why this ADU issue is something the city is even considering. Whose silly idea was this? We don't need units for students in established residential neighborhoods. Just keep the status quo. As my parents age, we are really interested in alternative living arrangements which would allow them to be close, but not necessarily living with us or in a nursing home. I think the ADU option . . . with carefully considered design requirements (limited size, designed to match existing home, etc) . . . makes efficient use of already developed spaces as well as provides families with broader options to care for loved ones or provide affordable housing options students and other members of the community. Accessory dwelling units already exist in nearly all neighborhoods in Moscow whether allowed or not. The proposed ordinance would legitimize what is already taking place - allowing the city to track them and insure they meet code. Allowing them would also help to reduce the sprawl surrounding Moscow and reduce the auto traffic through the older more central neighborhoods. I think that accessory dwellings already exist in every older neighborhood in Moscow. Allowing them would legitimize them and allow the city to track them and monitor them. Allowing them would also slow down Moscow's sprawl and make the core more walkable with less traffic. I believe allowing ADU's in single family residential areas will change the character and livibility of now family friendly neighborhoods, eventually creating higher density multiple family areas in much of the city. Most people who purchased homes in single family residential zones desire the quality of life the low density helps provide. This zone modification would compromise this quality of life as well as threaten property values as the neighborhoods become more congested. I would only support ADU's in higher density zones, not single family neighborhoods. Thanks, Ken White The time has come to once again allow ADU's--with careful consideration. I support the idea. It could provide much needed affordable housing in Moscow. Furthermore it would make many of the existing apartments in town legal. This is important for safety reasons. All units would be declared making it easier for emergency personnel to find ADUs. Seems like a reasonable idea. Reminds me of 'carriage house' of old, also reminds me of 'mother-in-law' apartments. Seems better than the practice of "renting out a spare room"' Requiring that the property owner live on site is important; I dislike absentee landlord situations. These dwellings are very much in need in Moscow. As our population ages we need to be able to have the choice to stay in our homes. Having a caregiver being able to live in would be a definite plus. The additional income will help many of the people within this age group also. January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- I support ADUs in concept. It can be an important part of an affordable housing strategy. It is also a good way to incorporate more housing through infill, rather than new subdivisions. Requiring off street parking is contrary to promoting a walkable city and could be a barrier to implementation. In addition, requiring the ADU to look like the primary residence ignores the possibilities of interesting design that could add character to a neighborhood. It seems to me that there could still be design guidelines that could ensure compatibility with the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Let's consider the long view and the character of our residential neighborhoods into the future. What may work today may not be appropriate tomorrow, and by then we're stuck with it. How will the city enforce owner occupancy? Currently, unallowed uses are ignored unless someone complains. Will ADU issues force neighbor-ratting-on-neighbor enforcement? A: Lots of questions, ifs, and, or buts. 1) how would utility hookups be addressed? Shared sewer line or new line required? Shared water line and meter or new line required? Shared (slaved) electrical system or new service? 2) Would there be a compromise on the developed percentage maximums allowed? How much of the lot square footage could be developed? 3) Side yard setback and rear yeard requirements to be altered? 4) Would an accessory dwelling unit within an existing house have to follow the same regulations? 5) Would a registry of accessory dwellings be required or created or advisable? 6) How would enforcement of the permitted use/uses be carried out? What happens when property changes ownership? 7) Would this potentially overtax the utility systems in some neighborhoods? B: There should always be zone/s where there are (owner-occupied) single family dwellings and nothing else. No exceptions. I am opposed to this especially for R1 and R2 because it converts them to R3--which is not fair to people who paid to live in low density. Among other things, it lowers the value of their property. Even if by a CUP because things change over the years, and there is seldom follow-up. May start with mother-in-law and end up being a rental unit. And definitely off-street parkig needs to be required. Even in our R2 block, so many have extra students living in one house that on-street parking is over crowded. Integrating the design with the neighborhood and the primary residence is important to harmonize with neighborhood character. The idea of ADUs is a positive concept. Expanding more local housing options, promoting property values (if done tastefully), and overall community cohesiveness without sprawl. Our community is agricultural based with surrounding farms. ADUs would reduce impact of construction for extra housing. I have been watching this on P&Z (tv broadcast) and am pretty well versed. You've done a good job with regulating codes. My major cocnerns revolve around misuse/aabuse and ADUs downgrading into overpopulated or cobbled- together rentals. I see plenty of junk in R4--protect your better zones and all zones. You know the problems when not used properly: too many people = excess trash, parking, noise, parking in yards, degrading the property and neighborhoods. Relying on complaints is inadequate and can become the Hatfield & McCoys or a neighbor's heart attack at ruining peace and quiet. I URGE yearly (or 2-yr) permit/registrations to curb abuse. I really think it helps and gives legal history when action is needed to correct problems. Re: survey-- high percentage of interest/suport I think is because "sounds good--I might do that someday" which may be down the road not in Moscow. Lower percentage who wouild consider doing it = reality: can't afford it and no time soon. Do make materials, design, etc. compatible to principle dwelling and neighborhood and so that a sheet metal garage becomes an ADU with a nice real principle dwelling. Keep up the good work. Victoria Seever Thank you for considering this important addition to Moscow! I prefer ADUs for additional housing versus increased spread of apartment buildings. Designing for quality and performance and standards for energy efficiency offers Moscow opportunity to excell and excede, i.e. consider zero-carbon and other measures defining the best of what is being done elsewhere, can be done here. Funders and Insurers ought to be invited to prepare terms consumate with the security implied by owner occupancy and in recognition of business being found and made for them despite their track records. Urbanization of agriculture and the local economic interests are well-served by this, which secures income and/or saving that can "just lift" the property owner from too adjacent to being underwater. This idea is an idea that's time has come; encouraging visions and illustration of "what makes an awesome ADU" ought to be opened to town and gown alike. Well done! January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- I don't think we should require off-street parking if we do not have a means of enforcement. I think we need to look at space provided by cars vs. pedestrians and bicycles. Can we look at "credit" for development if we do not need car parking? I wasn't at the open house, but I'd like to put forth my input. 1. My main concern is that one of my neighbors will take advantage of this ADU code to put a dwelling unit in their back yard--then rent it to college students or other tenants. That seems to me to be a true violation of "single family home". I know that the INTENT of the law would be allow elderly family live in them, but what's to keep someone from using it as a rental unit? I think there should be a large MINIMUM lot size before such a dwelling should be approved. Do neighbors get to have input when one of these units is built? 2. I would REALLY like to know the story behind why this item has been raised with the city. Sounds to me as if there is some "influential" person who wants this to happen. I can't imagine that there are suddenly 50 (20? 5? or just families in Moscow who want to have some space for their elderly parents--not with Good Sam in town. I don't expect to ever really know the answer to that, but I still wonder. 3. Seems to me that this ADU issue would be best reserved for county properties with some acreage. Other Zoning Items: 4. I'd also like to know how the R2 residential zoning works. I believe that my home (2248 East 6th) is zoned R2. Does that mean I can rent it out to 5 college students (with my 5 bedrooms)? Or rent my basement to a couple of college students? So far we don't have anything like that happening on this part of 6th street, but rentals like that can really change the character of a neighborhood. 5. Zoning is so important to a community. It gives people/homeowners some kind of guarantee that they will have a certain type of atmosphere. We make a choice on where to buy--high density, low density, acreage, certain type of homes and neighbors, families, renters, college kids, high or low traffic--and we'll know that when we need or want to sell, we'll be selling to people who have those same requirements. If things change after we buy the house, it isn't what we "bargained for" and can certainly affect resale value. Before you tell me that an ADU can improve property value, I'd say it depends on how it's used and how big the lot is. Also--higher density housing among houses with larger lots can only bring down the value of the larger properties. We'll see how Harvest Hills affects surrounding property values. 6. Just a couple more off the cuff comments; When we moved to Moscow, the house we bought had so-called CC&Rs. We thought that according to the CC&Rs, people couldn't store RVs, Boats, ATVs etc in their driveways, among other similar regulations. Well, I feel the realtors/developers really just sold a bill of goods to make the neighborhood seem more "exclusive". There is certainly no enforcement of those rules and I don't believe that the developers/realtors should be allowed to use them as selling points in the city. 7. These last comments have to do with the Harvest Hills Development. I don't believe that ANY developer should be allowed to ask for any kind of deviation from any code. The fact that this developer wants to make some court longer or narrower than is allowed by code for turnaround of fire equipment is nonsense. If that means they have to build 2 fewer houses to meet code, so be it. That isn't hostile to business/developers--those are the ground rules. They just have to play by them. 8. I also hope that Harvest Hills has to accommodate children walking to Macdonald School via Moser/Damon. If not, it would be a bad oversight on the part of the city. As you can see, I've given these things much thought. Hope they provoke some thought for you in the city as well. Regards, Nichols I know of several already within Moscow. Will they be grandfathered in? January 2014 Open House Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- Please complete this questionnaire to provide us with your input on allowance of accessory dwelling units in Moscow. We value your input! Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey 1. Please rate the following statements by checking the box that most closely represents your opinion: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know a. I would support allowing accessory dwelling units in my neighborhood. 27% 36% 16% 8% 10% 3% b. If accessory dwelling units were permitted within my neighborhood, I would be interested in adding an accessory dwelling unit to my property. 15% 5% 31% 19% 23% 8% c. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted use within all residential zoning districts. 24% 29% 17% 16% 13% 1% d. I would support accessory dwelling units as a conditionally permitted use (requires public notice and a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment in which neighborhood input would be considered) within all residential districts. 12% 36% 25% 12% 14% 1% e. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use within the Duplex (R-3) and Multi-family (R-4) Residential Zones. 25% 51% 12% 5% 3% 4% f. I would support accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use within the Single Family (R-1 and R-2) Residential Zones. 25% 37% 16% 8% 13% 1% 2. The following elements are commonly considered by other cities in the northwest for regulating accessory dwelling units. Please rate the level of importance for regulation of accessory dwelling units in Moscow: Not Important Somewhat Important Neutral Very Important Extremely Important Don’t Know a. Maximum Size – specifying maximum square feet and/or number of bedrooms allowed within an ADU 7% 21% 9% 36% 28% 0% b. Maximum Occupancy – limiting the number of occupants residing within the ADU 4% 10% 12% 27% 45% 0% c. Off-Street Parking – requiring additional off-street parking for an ADU 7% 13% 22% 20% 36% 3% d. Owner Occupancy – requiring property owner to reside upon the property in either the primary residence or the ADU 14% 11% 12% 25% 37% 1% e. Entrances – specify that the ADU entrance not be visible from the public street to maintain the single-family character of the property 26% 12% 30% 20% 11% 1% f. Design– require design and materials of ADU to match primary residence 12% 11% 18% 26% 32% 1% See Reverse Side October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Which best describes the building you live in? 67% One family house detached from any other houses 7% One family house attached to one or more houses (e.g. duplex or townhouse) 21% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 5% Mobile home 0% Other: 4. If you were to add an ADU to your property, who would it be for? 15% Myself 25% Elderly Family Member 7% Disabled Family Member 37% Rental Income 21% Other: 4 wouldn’t add one, 1 adult child/grandchild/guest house, 1 adult child, 9 left blank 5. Do you own or rent your home? 71% Own 29% Rent 6. Do any adult children live in your household? 14% Yes 86% No 7. Are you currently caring for parents who live in your household? 1% Yes 99% No 8. Does any member of your household have a disability? 18% Yes 82% No 9. In which category is your age? 9% 18-24 years 19% 25-34 years 12% 35-44 years 13% 45-54 years 17% 55-64 years 17% 65-74 years 13% 75 years or older 10. a. What one method of transportation do you typically use for local travel? 80% Motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, etc.) 7% Bicycle 14% Walk 0% Work at Home 0% Public Transit 0% Other: b. If you checked the motorized vehicle box in 10a., do other people (adults or children) usually ride with you? 53% Yes 47% No Please use this portion of the survey to provide any additional input regarding accessory dwelling units in Moscow. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- Increasing density within the city proper will help to maintain a contained city. I t hink it is very important to continue to explore and implement methods that keep Moscow from spreading outward. Thank you for this opportunity to participate. Should be allowed with limit on occupancy and cap on lease amount. Affordable housing is rare in Moscow. If there was a surplus the rents would decrease making things affordable for permanent residents. NO, NO, NO, Not in my R1 neighborhood. I did not buy my lot and build on it to have the street take on the appearance of a used car lot because of inadequate off-street or out-of-sight parking for visitors and RVs. (Full comments on survey #31) I like the idea but feel there needs to be control, especially in the single family zones. A hearing to present design plans and address parking should be required. I feel if people want ADUs on their property, the city should have a designated development. I don't see anything on what type of charges would be accessed (sic) if this does happen to go through. Strong enforcement of off-street parking and occupant load Consider lot sizes, minimum lot dimensions for new construction Size is of no one's concern except the residents. Will number of children be monitored? City has no business telling me what I can/can't do with my home. Current building codes cover much of this and City is writing too much control over private property. I fully support ADUs. I believe they offer a viable alternative to the traditional single family home. Parking is biggest concern. NSA running board houses is still not acceptable. I support decisions made on an individual basis with sufficient effort given to public input. Please contact me at if I can assist in this endeavor. Lee I think ADUs make perfect sense for all involved. I live in a Comm-55 or older: I couldn't answer most of your quesitons! Linda This would be a great way to increase property values, increase owner revenues, and provide more affordable housing while also limiting sprawl, keeping people closer to the city center and maintaining the strong local feel of our community. Mike Ray is awesome! October 2014 Direct Mailing Survey