|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | = Rowhouses = | + | = Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) = |
| − | Rowhoused (also know as townhomes, townhouses, and rowhomes) are an attached single-family housing product that can be owned in fee-simple. Each home is attached in a line of 3 or more to their neighbor’s walls standing side-by-side. Row homes were popular in cities before planning for the car came in vogue - and when compact and connected wasn’t just an aspirational goal, it was the way cities functioned. Historically, they’ve been associated with everything from work-force housing for the middle class to homes for upscale manses of the well-to-do.
| |
| | | | |
| − | The residential zoning codes in Austin prohibits row homes except in some specially designated small area plans such as the Mueller PUD and Crestview TOD.
| + | ADUs, also known as garage apartments, granny flats, or backyard cottages make housing more affordable, improve tax base, provide income opportunities for homeowners, increase neighborhood diversity, and reduce sprawl - at no cost to taxpayers. ADUs should be allowed on every neighborhood lot in Austin. |
| − | | |
| − | Row homes are an excellent example of what is meant by “missing middle” housing.
| |
| − | | |
| − | They can provide the privacy that families like about single family homes but with more affordability. Neighborhoods with row homes are human scaled neighborhoods with sufficient density to support transit and small neighborhood friendly commercial activity.
| |
| | | | |
| | == The Problem == | | == The Problem == |
| − | While the draft code provides for row homes in a few of the transects, there are a number of technical problems making it unlikely we’ll see much use of this housing type outside of limited circumstances. Broadly - the following are things that must be changed in order to see this become a useful housing type.
| + | As written, the CodeNEXT draft does not easily allow the construction of the simplest form of infill. In 2015, Austin City Council allowed more ADUs to be built, and disappointingly, CodeNEXT has further restricted those amendments. Constraints such as setbacks, height limits, footprint requirements, and placement make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build ADUs in both transect zones and new nontransect zones. |
| − | | |
| − | === Lack of Small Option ===
| |
| − | The draft code provides for Medium and Large Flavor Row Homes. These are multi-family structures, permitting up to three or four stories, with up to 3 units and an ADU per lot. They only appear in T4MS and T5 transects. The only significant difference between the Large and Medium flavor is the number of attached buildings that are permitted in a row.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A new Small flavor single unit 2 or 2.5 story version should be allowed through all the T4 transects as well as some of the T3 transects with other missing middle housing types.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Building Envelope and other Limitations ===
| |
| − | The building envelope is overly prescriptive, baking in unnecessary side and rear articulations. Row homes shouldn’t be complicated to code for - all that is needed is width dimension, height, setbacks and minimum lot size. The draft code should be revised to relax the proposed envelope.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Medium and Large flavor Row Homes in the code require a minimum 14’ floor to ceiling height on the ground floor. This is expensive to build and also to heat and cool. The new Small flavor should require only an 9’ floor to ceiling height.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Though parking is reduced from current code, narrow lots have limited ability to provide on-site parking. As a result, parking still is a controlling limitation on multiple unit in the Medium and Large flavors. We recommend crediting one on-street parking space per building.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Mapping ===
| |
| − | Narrow lot homes work well urban neighborhood context where rear access can be provided either on an alley or on a shared drive. Row homes should be mapped into neighborhoods that are urban in character or that the city would like to transition to be urban.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | |Comment
| |
| − | |Sections/Pages
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | |
| − | ||<style="text-align:center">Building Form / Envelope
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Add a Small Rowhouse flavor for the T4N.IS and T4N.SS as well as T3N.DS and T3N.IS transects. 2 - 2.5 stories 9’ floor plate Minimum width of 18’ (interior) to 25’ (side) Maximum width of 25’ 1 unit per building Runs of 3 - 5 buildings up to 100’ for the Small Flavor row homes
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2100 / pg 32 23-4D-2110 / pg 40 23-4D-2120 / pg 48 23-4D-2130 / pg 56
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Permit Small Rowhouse flavor in T4MS in addition to Medium flavor
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 64
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. T4MS - allow run of up to 100’ (about 2 standard lots)
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 64
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Allow a 5 story option of the Large Rowhouse on the T5U and T5MS.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 64
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Allow for a cottage court row homes in the Small Flavor for large/deep lots.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-45-2060 / pg 13
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | |
| − | ||<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; ;text-align:center">Mapping
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Map row home zones into urban neighborhoods and transitional neighborhoods planned for more walkability. Limit to lots with rear access (via alley or shared front or side drive).
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | # Permit up to one curb cut per 100' frontage of row house units.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | |
| − | ||<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; ;text-align:center">Relax the Building Envelope
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Applicable to all Row Homes - Eliminate Depth Requirement - setbacks and lot width are sufficient to control form. If must limit density, do so with lot size.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">Subsections C in sections: 23-4D-2140 / pg 63 23-4D-2150 / pg 71 23-4D-2160 / pg 79 23-4D-2170 / pg 87
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | |<tablestyle="border-width: initial; border-style: none; border-color: initial;"rowstyle="height:0pt"style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;"> 1. Eliminate side building and rear wing articulations.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | # Allow the Medium Rowhomes an additional 14’ depth on the main building.
| |
| − | # Allow the Large Rowhomes an additional 14’ of depth and 4’ of width on main building.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 64 23-4D-2150 / pg 72 23-4D-2160 / pg 80 23-4D-2170 / pg 88
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | |
| − | ||<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; ;text-align:center">Parking
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Credit 1 on-street parking space per building towards parking minimums.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 67 23-4D-2150 / pg 75 23-4D-2160 / pg 83 23-4D-2170 / pg 91
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Consider eliminating parking minimums on the Main Street transects.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 67
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | |
| − | ||<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; ;text-align:center">Building Runs
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| |
| − | | 1. Eliminate Length of Runs - just limit the units in a row to control massing.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | # Medium and Small Flavors - no minimum length of run - just a maximum of 5 units (about what could be fit on 2 standard lots in Austin).
| |
| − | # Larger Flavor - limit to a run 4 - 10 buildings, no minimum length of run (about what could fit on 2 - 4 standard lots).
| |
| | | | |
| | + | == Recommendations == |
| | | | |
| − | {|border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0|
| + | Comment |
| − | |<style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;">23-4D-2140 / pg 64 23-4D-2150 / pg 72 23-4D-2160 / pg 80 23-4D-2170 / pg 88
| + | Page # |
| − | |}
| + | The code should not mandate that the ADU have a smaller footprint, a narrower width, and a depth not greater than the primary building or to be smaller than the adjacent building. These provisions would frequently require older homes that are small and near the street to be torn down so that the new ADU can fit within the rules. Instead, we should eliminate this requirement so that the entire lot doesn’t have to be demolished and reconstructed—just the ADU behind the old, small house. |
| | + | 4D-2 pg 11 |
| | + | (p. 95) |
| | + | The code should allow ADUs in front of or to the side of the primary unit. Again, depending on the placement of the older home on the lot, this could force the unit to be torn down to build an ADU. There’s no reason to mandate specific placement—especially when considering that some lots are not deep, but are wide. Allowing the ADU in the front could even allow some small old houses to be preserved: designate the existing small house as the ADU and build a larger house in the back. |
| | + | 4D-2 pg. 11 |
| | + | (p. 95) |
| | + | The side, rear, and front setbacks leave very little room for an ADU on most lots. In particular, the 20’ rear setback is the same for the primary structure and the ADU where alleys do not exist. The rear setback should be five or ten foot setbacks for the ADU. The code should encourage ADUs by allowing for smaller setbacks when an ADU is built. |
| | + | 4D-2 pg. 40 |
| | + | (p 124) |
| | + | 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) |
| | + | Removing 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? |
| | + | 4D2, pg 10 |
| | + | 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. |
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
ADUs, also known as garage apartments, granny flats, or backyard cottages make housing more affordable, improve tax base, provide income opportunities for homeowners, increase neighborhood diversity, and reduce sprawl - at no cost to taxpayers. ADUs should be allowed on every neighborhood lot in Austin.
The Problem
As written, the CodeNEXT draft does not easily allow the construction of the simplest form of infill. In 2015, Austin City Council allowed more ADUs to be built, and disappointingly, CodeNEXT has further restricted those amendments. Constraints such as setbacks, height limits, footprint requirements, and placement make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build ADUs in both transect zones and new nontransect zones.
Recommendations
Comment
Page #
The code should not mandate that the ADU have a smaller footprint, a narrower width, and a depth not greater than the primary building or to be smaller than the adjacent building. These provisions would frequently require older homes that are small and near the street to be torn down so that the new ADU can fit within the rules. Instead, we should eliminate this requirement so that the entire lot doesn’t have to be demolished and reconstructed—just the ADU behind the old, small house.
4D-2 pg 11
(p. 95)
The code should allow ADUs in front of or to the side of the primary unit. Again, depending on the placement of the older home on the lot, this could force the unit to be torn down to build an ADU. There’s no reason to mandate specific placement—especially when considering that some lots are not deep, but are wide. Allowing the ADU in the front could even allow some small old houses to be preserved: designate the existing small house as the ADU and build a larger house in the back.
4D-2 pg. 11
(p. 95)
The side, rear, and front setbacks leave very little room for an ADU on most lots. In particular, the 20’ rear setback is the same for the primary structure and the ADU where alleys do not exist. The rear setback should be five or ten foot setbacks for the ADU. The code should encourage ADUs by allowing for smaller setbacks when an ADU is built.
4D-2 pg. 40
(p 124)
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)
Removing 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?
4D2, pg 10
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.
