Proposed Outline - Monster Homes (DRAFT)

12/30/2017

Goal: to provide timely information to policy makers and the public, about the issues and
potential impacts of proposed Bill 110 (2017) on Monster Homes, from an Architect’s
perspective.

c) NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE:
1) Why Important/Define the Problem
• New single-family development
a) MARKET FORCES
does not require any landscaping.
• Monster Homes and illegal
• Monster homes are allowed
conversion of dwellings into
under the current code. They are
multifamily and short-term rental
often built to the maximum
units are created by market
buildable envelope and cover all
forces: investors maximizing
required yards with hardscape. No
profit, high cost of living, and the
landscaping increases the
demand for housing. To be
apparent bulk of structures.
effective, land use regulations
d) PARKING:
must align with market
• Current LUO parking
conditions.
requirements do not require
• For example, one way to
adequate amount of off-street
discourage monster homes is to
parking for users (i.e., 20-
allow cottage-style infill
bedroom, 5,999 sq ft home is only
development that can be CPR’d.
required to have 5 stalls).
• More vigorous regulation of
e) LIFE SAFETY:
transient vacation rentals is
• Monster homes illegally
important, but as a lone measure,
partitioned into multifamily
enforcement is costly, difficult,
dwellings or TVUs do not have
and fails to address the underlying
adequate life safety measures to
market conditions that drive
protect occupants.
development of monster homes.
f) HOUSING CODE:
b) INFRASTRUCTURE:
• Review definition of
• How is sewer adequacy
“Roomers/Rooming” and “Family”
calculated? Why does Dept of Env
to understand what is already
Services consider a 20-bedroom,
allowed under the current LUO.
6,000 sq ft home equivalent to an
g) APARTMENT ZONE LOTS:
ADU?
• Many apartment zoned lots have
• Is ESDU (Equivalent Single
substandard lot area; the highest
Dwelling Unit) also used to
and best use is a single-family
calculate adequacy or just the
dwelling. However, within
sewer connection fee?
apartment districts, ADUs are not
• ADU and Ohana permits require
allowed, even if they would be
an infrastructure capacity
accessory to a single-family
precheck, but Rec Rooms do not.
dwelling.
Current regulations restrict supply
2) Precedents/Case Studies
of legal dwelling units.
b) Vancouver
• Why are homes on a septic
c) Seattle
system limited to 5 bedrooms?
d) Honolulu (see Resources section)

1 of 3

3) How It Relates to Honolulu
a) Bill 110 (2017) – Proposes to give the
1 d) Remove Road Widening Setbacks: or
City time to explore and evaluate the
“rapidly increasing rate of
development of large detached
dwellings” and determine what
permanent regulatory controls are
necessary and reasonable. Hopefully
this will include provisions for
adequate infrastructure, on-street
parking, disregard for neighborhood
scale, potential life safety hazards
created by illegal partitioning into
multifamily units or conversion into
TVUs, and other problems associated
with monster homes.
b) Graphics
• Existing vs proposed changes at
various lot sizes: 3,500/5,000/
7,500/10,000/20,000 sq ft.
4) Recommendations
a) Planning: provide a more
comprehensive analysis of where the
monster homes occur.
b) Sewer usage: a 20-bedroom home is
currently in the same category as a
small ADU. Instead, determination of
sewer adequacy should be based on
total floor area or fixture count. ADUs
should pay a lower monthly sewer
base charge and monster homes
more. Calculate sewer capacity based
on bedroom count instead of ESDU
(Equivalent Single-Dwelling Unit).
c) Parking: increase requirements for
monster homes. (i.e., support
Resolution 17-276, which proposes to
increase parking min to: 2 stalls per
2,500 sq ft + 1 stall per additional 500
1
Passed 1st reading 12/6/2017; sched for Committee
on Zoning and Housing. Previous version was Bill 94
(2017) deferred in Zoning and Housing Committee
11/16/2017.
2 of 3
Proposed Outline - Monster Homes (DRAFT)
12/30/2017
sq ft (currently 1 stall per 1,000 sq ft)).
at least allow these areas to be used
to satisfy parking requirements.
e) Expand ADU eligible areas: allow
ADUs within apartment zones, under
certain conditions (i.e., substandard
lot size, accessory to single-family
homes). This would allow more
homes access to ADU fee waivers
(i.e., park dedication and sewer fees)
and could increase the supply of legal
dwelling units in areas already zoned
for higher densities.
f) Landscaping: as it also supports
sustainability, storm water quality,
and softens the visual bulk of large
homes, redefine lot coverage to
include some amount of landscaping
for residential development.
g) Cottage Clusters: In select residential
areas with adequate infrastructure,
allow higher unit density. Consider
that an Ohana Unit and the primary
residence can each have its own Rec
Room. Meaning that 4 defacto units
can be established on a 5,000 sq ft
lot. That’s 1 dwelling unit/1,250 sq ft
land.
Restrict building area (footprint) to
say 750 sq ft, 2-stories OK (1,500 sq ft
max total floor area possible). Require
2 stalls. Require Cluster Permit with
updated design guidelines and require
review by a newly established design
review committee.(It is difficult to
legislate good design.)
Allowing each cottage to be CPR’d
and sold separately, would discourage
monster homes because cottage
clusters would provide greater net
revenue to developers. Plus, cottages
would be more appropriately scaled
to existing neighborhood character.
 Proposed Outline - Monster Homes (DRAFT)
12/30/2017

References:
a) Bill 110 (2017) Would set a 2-year
moratorium on the issuance of
building permits for large homes in
residential districts. Adds new
definitions to the LUO:
• “Large detached dwelling” means
a dwelling unit with more than
___ bedrooms in each dwelling
unit or more than ___ wet bars in
each dwelling unit. Max floor area
is not defined.
• “Wet bar” means a bar or serving
counter in a dwelling or lodging
unit that is equipped with a sink
and running water.
b) City Resolution 17-276 (adopted):
seeks to amend the LUO to limit the
number of bedrooms and wet bars in
new single-family homes.
c) City Resolution 17-198 (adopted):
Urging DPP to increase enforcement
and propose and modifications to its
administrative rules or legislation the
Director deems necessary to address
the problem of the illegal use of large
residential structures in residential
zoning districts.
d) Design guidelines: 1982 Ohana
Dwelling design guidelines
e) Cottage clusters in Washington.
f) Convert commercial space into
homes; expand the area where
mixed-uses are allowed.
g) Other Cities’ approach to monster
homes:
• City of Hamilton, Vancouver
• Minneapolis, Minnesota
• San Francisco, California
• Honolulu, Hawaii (case studies)
and floor area comparison matrix.

3 of 3