Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - Revision history

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T16:31:15Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T16:29:48Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T16:23:18Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T16:09:51Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T15:00:43Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T14:42:47Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T14:33:59Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T14:33:05Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-02T21:16:45Z

Recommendations

Ki: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-02T21:16:03Z

Recommendations

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 |-
-|   Page 99 defines the ADU type.  This a good place to describe how all the issues combined make ADUs impossible.  In transect zones behind the facade of the main building codenext requires ALL the parking for the 2 units.  The ADU which now can't be wider than 28 feet.  A 10 foot setback between the units.  A 20 foot rear setback.  Zero impact include parking pads on the 1/2 CRZ zone of protected trees.  A combined 15 foot side setback.  A open space that is 8x10.  The code seems to assume lots are 200 feet deep while most lots are only 120 or 130 feet deep.    LMDR is not much better with a restriction that nothing can be a 2 story beyond 80 feet.
+|   Page 99 defines the ADU type.  This a good place to describe how all the issues combined make ADUs impossible.   In transect zones behind the facade of the main building codenext requires ALL the parking for the 2 units.   The ADU which now can't be wider than 28 feet.  A 10 foot setback between the units.  A 20 foot rear setback.  Zero impact include parking pads on the 1/2 CRZ zone of protected trees.  A combined 15 foot side setback.  A open space that is 8x10.  The code seems to assume lots are 200 feet deep while most lots are only 120 or 130 feet deep.    LMDR is not much better with a restriction that nothing can be a 2 story beyond 80 feet.
 |23-4D-2060.A  (last form listed) pg. 15 pdf 99

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 |-
-|   In this section showing the ADU here are how all the issues combine to make them impossible.  Today its difficult enough to build an ADU Codenext makes its pretty much impossible.  In transect zones behind the facade of the main building codenext requires ALL the parking for the 2 units.  The ADU which now can't be wider than 28 feet.  A 10 foot setback between the units.  A 20 foot rear setback.  Zero impact include parking pads on the 1/2 CRZ zone of protected trees.  A combined 15 foot side setback.  A open space that is 8x10.  The code seems to assume lots are 200 feet deep while most lots are only 120 or 130 feet deep.    LMDR is not much better with a restriction that nothing can be a 2 story beyond 80 feet.
+|   Page 99 defines the ADU type.  This a good place to describe how all the issues combined make ADUs impossible.  In transect zones behind the facade of the main building codenext requires ALL the parking for the 2 units.  The ADU which now can't be wider than 28 feet.  A 10 foot setback between the units.  A 20 foot rear setback.  Zero impact include parking pads on the 1/2 CRZ zone of protected trees.  A combined 15 foot side setback.  A open space that is 8x10.  The code seems to assume lots are 200 feet deep while most lots are only 120 or 130 feet deep.    LMDR is not much better with a restriction that nothing can be a 2 story beyond 80 feet.
 |23-4D-2060.A  (last form listed) pg. 15 pdf 99

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ) A general statement that an exception provided for duplexes and houses should also apply to ADU's.
-We can make these comments at the top of the section
+We can make these comments at the top of this section
 |23-3D-4 D-2 pg. 1 pdf 67 (Under General Planning Standards)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *[[T3N.IS]]  23-4D-2090 Section E page 41  pdf 125
 |-
-|Requiring ADU's to fit in a 28x24 footprint is overly restrictive.  Considering that front houses have irregular shapes and other site constraints (trees, floodplain, drainage and other easements).  If an ADU is under 1100 sq ft the ADU should be able to not abide by the 28x24 footprint.  This would also allow 1 story 1100 sq ft ADU's.
+|Requiring ADU's to fit in a 28x24 footprint is overly restrictive.  Considering that front houses have irregular shapes and other site constraints (trees, floodplain, drainage and other easements).  If an ADU is under 1100 sq ft the ADU should not have to abide by the 28x24 footprint.  This would also not allow 1 story 1100 sq ft ADU's.
+|
 *[[T3NE.WL]] 23-4D-2080 Section D page 20  pdf 104

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 4 June 2017
Line 70:		Line 70:
	\|23-3D-4 D-2 pg. 1 pdf 67 (Under General Planning Standards)		\|23-3D-4 D-2 pg. 1 pdf 67 (Under General Planning Standards)

		+	\|-
		+	\| In this section showing the ADU here are how all the issues combine to make them impossible. Today its difficult enough to build an ADU Codenext makes its pretty much impossible. In transect zones behind the facade of the main building codenext requires ALL the parking for the 2 units. The ADU which now can't be wider than 28 feet. A 10 foot setback between the units. A 20 foot rear setback. Zero impact include parking pads on the 1/2 CRZ zone of protected trees. A combined 15 foot side setback. A open space that is 8x10. The code seems to assume lots are 200 feet deep while most lots are only 120 or 130 feet deep. LMDR is not much better with a restriction that nothing can be a 2 story beyond 80 feet.

		+	\|23-4D-2060.A (last form listed) pg. 15 pdf 99

	\|-		\|-

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 4 June 2017
Line 60:		Line 60:
	\|The tree ordinance of the code allows for reasonable use. Reasonable use needs to be defined. Here is how it should be defined. A reasonable use allows to meet all current other codes and for A) A main house with 1000 sq ft ground floor and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor OR if the front house is to be preserved (and its over 10 years old) reasonable use should always allow for the current house to stay in place and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor to be built.		\|The tree ordinance of the code allows for reasonable use. Reasonable use needs to be defined. Here is how it should be defined. A reasonable use allows to meet all current other codes and for A) A main house with 1000 sq ft ground floor and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor OR if the front house is to be preserved (and its over 10 years old) reasonable use should always allow for the current house to stay in place and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor to be built.
	\|23-3C-2020 D-2 pg. 2 pdf 32 (Under General Planning Standards)		\|23-3C-2020 D-2 pg. 2 pdf 32 (Under General Planning Standards)
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\|There are exceptions to the 100 year floodplain that apply to duplexes and houses but not to ADU's because at the time they were written people didn't think of ADU's. This section of the code is left out what we see in codenext but we can comment at the top of the floodplain section. Here are the two main ones.
		+	1) Houses and Duplexes are allowed to be built on previously subdivided lots in the 100 year floodplain if the finished floor elevation is 1 foot above the floodplain. ADU's should be included in this exception.
		+	2) Houses and duplexes that are out of the floodplain are not required to have a point on the exterior of the property abutting public land that is one foot above the floodplain. ADU's should be included in this exception.
		+	3) A general statement that an exception provided for duplexes and houses should also apply to ADU's.
		+
		+	We can make these comments at the top of the section
		+	\|23-3D-4 D-2 pg. 1 pdf 67 (Under General Planning Standards)

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 |The tree ordinance of the code allows for reasonable use.  Reasonable use needs to be defined.  Here is how it should be defined.  A reasonable use allows to meet all current other codes and for  A) A main house with 1000 sq ft ground floor and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor OR if the front house is to be preserved (and its over 10 years old) reasonable use should always allow for the current house to stay in place and a ADU with 600 sq ft of ground floor to be built.
 |23-3C-2020 D-2 pg. 2 pdf 32 (Under General Planning Standards)
-|-

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 |The restrictive covenant agreement requirement for the non-transect zone should be completely removed. It’s unenforceable and abhorrent, but will also significantly restrict the production of new units and creates a code enforcement nightmare for the owner and lender. For example, from the perspective of the lender, what happens if the property is foreclosed? How can the owner reside in one of the units? It may be safer for the lender to pass on the loan rather than possibly violate the covenant. What’s more, an occupancy requirement was specifically rejected by Austin City Council in the 2015 ADU reform ordinance.
 |4E-6 pg. 4 (p. 424)
 |-
 |Remove the restriction that ADUs aren’t allowed for large form houses. If the ADU can fit, it should be allowed. Why create that restriction and block more housing?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 2 June 2017
Line 56:		Line 56:
	\|Remove the restriction that ADUs aren’t allowed for large form houses. If the ADU can fit, it should be allowed. Why create that restriction and block more housing?		\|Remove the restriction that ADUs aren’t allowed for large form houses. If the ADU can fit, it should be allowed. Why create that restriction and block more housing?
	\|4D 2060, pg 10 (pdf 95)		\|4D 2060, pg 10 (pdf 95)
−
−	\|-
−	\|ADU's should be allowed with all house forms including Large House and Multihouse form. This restriction should be removed. There are large houses (assumed today they would be under large house form) with ADU's in the back all over Austin. Also many existing houses will fall under this house form so you can't build an ADU unless you tear this house down and change the house form
−	~~\| 23-4D-2060 D 1~~

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |Remove the restriction that ADUs aren’t allowed for large form houses. If the ADU can fit, it should be allowed. Why create that restriction and block more housing?
 |4D 2060, pg 10 (pdf 95)
 |-
 |ADUs shouldn’t have its own height restrictions— just rely on the primary building limits. Again, sometimes the ADU may be the “larger” unit when an old small home is preserved.