Zoning's role in Austin's unaffordability (Dorchester: houses, neighborhoods, new construction)

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Um, no. That approach did a ton of damage to Hyde Park. Speedway, for example, should be a showcase street for Austin.

Originally Posted by capcat

My thoughts as well. I thought the comments were tongue in cheek at first.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I agree. Perhaps brattpowered doesn't remember Hyde Park before all of that happened, or even while it was happening.

Indeed. If anything, Hyde Park is an example of what should not be done.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by scm53

I will admit to ignorance. On a SF-3 lot, with a SFR, why can't the cars be parked off street? Why does any SFR resident have to park on the street?

For what I understand, SF-3 requires a certain lot width at the street, I want to say 150 feet (not up to looking at the CoA code right now). Not sure if it was designed for the purpose of creating street parkng but one result of this code requirement is that it creates street parking in excess of the housing units. Of course, most SF-3 lots can accommodate a driveway that can fit 1-2 cars.

SF-4A was designed to address some of the density concerns listed here, still SF but at a greater density (for example, 18 homes on a less than 2 acre plot, the area would hold maybe 4 standard SF-3 lots). The result of this greater density is that some of the homes have driveways that can only accommodate a single car. That pushes a certain number of homeowners' car onto the street, add in tenants (especially students) and it gets messy.

Stealth dorms are clearly built on SF-3 lots but if it is duplex situation (allowed under SF-3 zoning) with six bedrooms per side, you can have 12 people and possibly 12 cars! on a lot that under normal circumstances would have had maybe two car spots on a driveway and two on the street.

If you could make the cars disappear, few neighbors would have complaints about them.

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Stealth dorms are clearly built on SF-3 lots but if it is duplex situation (allowed under SF-3 zoning) with six bedrooms per side, you can have 12 people and possibly 12 cars! on a lot that under normal circumstances would have had maybe two car spots on a driveway and two on the street.

If you could make the cars disappear, few neighbors would have complaints about them.

Stealth dorms are clearly built - where? Considering that the only way someone would know if a house was a stealth dorm is by the number if utility sockets per room - and that the only "stealth dorms" ever determined by the city was in West Campus between 2008-2010 during the height of housing slump. I'm not sure how you came up with that logic - or maybe it isn't logic. I guess I shouldn't presume too much..

[scm53]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Of course, most SF-3 lots can accommodate a driveway that can fit 1-2 cars.

SF-4A was designed to address some of the density concerns listed here, still SF but at a greater density (for example, 18 homes on a less than 2 acre plot, the area would hold maybe 4 standard SF-3 lots). The result of this greater density is that some of the homes have driveways that can only accommodate a single car. That pushes a certain number of homeowners' car onto the street, add in tenants (especially students) and it gets messy.

Ok, I actually went and looked in 25-6, the city code that governs parking reqs. SF-3 and SF-4A both require at least 2 off street parking spots per dwelling unit. Duplexes require 4, or 1 per bedroom, whichever is greater.

So it sounds like, people aren't parking off street in the required spaces each lot must have. Some homes have more than two cars - but two off street spaces per unit is the requirement.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ok, I actually went and looked in 25-6, the city code that governs parking reqs. SF-3 and SF-4A both require at least 2 off street parking spots per dwelling unit. Duplexes require 4, or 1 per bedroom, whichever is greater.

So it sounds like, people aren't parking off street in the required spaces each lot must have. Some homes have more than two cars - but two off street spaces per unit is the requirement.

But the city can and does grant waivers for that requirement! And the house in question only has one spot off street and one spot on the street!

Since you braved the code, what does it say, if anything about street parking? Does a lot have to be wide enough for X number of street parking slots or does code not address this?

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

Stealth dorms are clearly built - where? Considering that the only way someone would know if a house was a stealth dorm is by the number if utility sockets per room - and that the only "stealth dorms" ever determined by the city was in West Campus between 2008-2010 during the height of housing slump. I'm not sure how you came up with that logic - or maybe it isn't logic. I guess I shouldn't presume too much..

C'mon on! Haven't you ever driven down Franklin street? or Duval? or read CL listings?

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

C'mon on! Haven't you ever driven down Franklin street? or Duval? or read CL listings?

Yes, I have been down that street and looked on craigslist with their x-ray vision tool and seen all of the modified electrical outlets in every room!

[gpurcell]

Sigh.

There are stealth dorms. It is a fact.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

But the city can and does grant waivers for that requirement! And the house in question only has one spot off street and one spot on the street!

Since you braved the code, what does it say, if anything about street parking? Does a lot have to be wide enough for X number of street parking slots or does code not address this?

Not trying to be combative, but there is no such thing as a "spot on the street". I understand there may be too many cars for a particular dwelling unit, but no one owns a street parking spot - not even the one in front of their residence. And that was the land use code - what we have to do, not what the city has to do.

I wonder if the problem is, residents with garages (that originally counted as the two parking spots) now have them full of something other than vehicles? I realize y'all have a problem. But it seems the waivers and this behavior could be as much a part of the problem as anything else.

What's really funny about this is that I was lectured here recently about how wasteful we suburban proles are because of the useless requirements for streets wide enough for cars to pass. Sounds like something HP would kill for today.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

That is an interesting question, SF-4A zoning reduces the size of the lot line on the street (with SF-3 zoning there is space for at least two cars to be parked on the street) and I *think* that the developer had a waiver that might have impacted the street width somewhat, in any case, if cars are parked -- with apparent legality, that is without blocking driveways or sidewalks -- on both sides of the street it is difficult for AFD to get through, not impossible but both fire trucks and trash trucks have to go extremely slowly. AFD has actually stopped and spoken to homeowners on the street about not parking on both sides of the street, but how can we enforce that?

Sounds like in your case, the city needs to prohibit parking along one side of the street. It's easy enough to do (just takes a few signs and some paint). They just did it in my neck of the woods (Ohlen road).

Of course, that's completely separate and orthogonal to "stealth dorms". Lowering the number of unrelated occupants doesn't prevent the family with 2 teenagers which now has 4 cars. Or the guy with his pickup, his daily driver, and his project car, and his wife's car.