Replies

1. 
   philarenewal | Mar 16, 2006 04:36pm | #1

   You might be thinking your local zoning code.  How many "buildings" is the lot zoned for?  What is the use group of each "building"?

    

   "A job well done is its own reward.  Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"

1. 
   pampine | Mar 16, 2006 04:43pm | #2

   I can have two residences plus accessory buildings, or 1500 sqft more space; but I only want to add one building to the house, a workshop/studio/guest bed & bath/office. My real concern is jacking up my property taxes, as is Austin's; so if I can call this structure 4 sheds/accessory buildings, I don't have to file for a building permit and the assessment office won't care so much about it, may never even hear of it. The city is also concerned about impervious cover (I'm OK here) and setbacks (also OK).Pam

1. 
   bobl | Mar 16, 2006 04:48pm | #3

   think yo need to talk to the local authoriities snce it is so dependent on them.example a detached garage in my town is taxed higher than an attached garage.iy's how they interpret that is important. 

   bobl          Volo, non valeo

   Baloney detecter

2. 
   philarenewal | Mar 16, 2006 11:17pm | #10

   Hey Pam, I don't think I can go much further for how the assessor in Austin might treat this.  Where I am, to have another structure (whatever it is) considered a separate building, the lot has to be zoned for 2 buildings, and they have to be separated by either demising walls (fire rated) or at least 3 feet.

   For permits here, add a square inch and you got to have one.

     

   "A job well done is its own reward.  Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"

1. 
   pampine | Mar 17, 2006 12:37am | #11

   Sure, understood, thanks anyhow.Pam

3. 
   philarenewal | Mar 17, 2006 05:15pm | #15

   I was thinking about this again last night, and it's remarkable how much difference tax policy can make in how things are done in different places.

   Where I am, we'd fight tooth and nail for the opposite -- to have everything defined as a single structure.  Separate structure gets a separate tax bill.

   I do see that the whole point is to avoid the permit so the assessor doesn't run out and reassess.  Just interesting how different it is. 

   "A job well done is its own reward.  Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"

1. 
   pampine | Mar 17, 2006 05:37pm | #16

   Yes, our laws are kind of like menus in poor restaurants, more what they'd like to have rather than what they actually do have. Our tax laws as implemented are what our various governments actually want us to do. So while society says it wants us to marry, tax laws say you'll do better if you don't.My current workshop, a tiny 10 X 12 structure, doesn't even get honorable mention on my tax bill; therefore, I assume that additional very small structures will be the same. :) But my real goal is to not see a city assessor at all for several years.Pam

2. 
   BillHartmann | Mar 16, 2006 05:15pm | #4

   "Austin claims they follow a uniform code."

   That is not exactly true.

   They pass ordinaces to adopt specific versions of specific codes.

   And those ordinaces will also include exceptions and changes to the model codes.

   Now I did a google on Austin, Tx building code - and foudn the site details.

   http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/development/bpinfo1.htm

   " Which building codes has the City of Austin adopted? The City of Austin is currently under the following building codes:

   2000 International Energy Conservation Code
   2000 International Residential Code - for residential construction
   2003 International Building Code - Commercial construction
   2003 Uniform Plumbing Code - Commercial
   2003 Uniform Mechanical Code - Commercial
   2005 National Electrical Code - All electrical installations

   Ordinance 011129-78 adopted the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code on November 29, 2001. Additionally, the city has adopted the Uniform Building Conservation Code, Uniform Housing Code, and Uniform Dangerous Buildings Code as they pertain to reuse and maintenance of existing buildings. "

   Now there also links to the ordinances on that page.

   Looking at the changes to the IBC they restrict aux structures under 120 sq ft so each unit is already over.

   However, I did not see any changes in the IRC on that part and the IRC excepts anything less than 200 sq ft.

   But even if each unit is less than that needs a premit I suspect that they will treat multiple units that are connected by a common structure as one unit.

1. 
   pampine | Mar 16, 2006 06:24pm | #5

   Thanks, Bill. Austin's top level documents, the ones that specify in general who and what requires a building permit, say less than 200 sqft needs no permit. However, when I got to the part you quoted, I knew I was lost; and when I tried to read the online detail documents, to find out about decks and the like, I couldn't properly access the docs, not sure why, probably a Win/Mac thing.Anyhow, you and Bob are probably correct, I'll have to draw it and review with someone at the building office.Pam

3. 
   CapnMac | Mar 16, 2006 06:56pm | #6

   Austin claims they follow a uniform code.

   LoL!  Oh, I needed that laugh.  Austin claims so many things . . .

   If I remember the rules for in Travis Co rightly (having done much more work out in Williamson), the "kind" of deck will become the rule.  That, and the zoning.

   Most of Austin will require variances for multiple buidings in residential zoning on single lots.  Note, that if you have a multiple lot as single property situation, that you may not (absolutely) have that restriction.

   So, if you have separate foundations, you will generally have separate buildings, even if all the buildings are connected by a continuous deck surface (like a patio).

   Hmm, what sort of structure are you thinking of/working with?

   I'm trying to imagine a case of having a continuous, weather-tight deck/patio/lanai with some sort of continuous foundatiuon edge beam, that also will support structures without additional foundation.

   Details, I want details <g> (I want a paid vacation, too, not holding my breath <g> . . . )

    

   Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
1. 
   pampine | Mar 16, 2006 10:55pm | #8

   Wow, the kind of deck will matter? I didn't know there was more than one kind. I'd have to guess covered or not? You seem to be saying that a walkway/patio would be another type of deck?

   I'm not sure whether I'll have to have a variance or not. This won't be a second residence, although it may become one when I get too old and tired to do woodworking and other studio type stuff. In 2004 the city took us through this abomination of a neighborhood planing event, lasted months, and their goal seemed to be increased density since we're supposed to double in size very quickly. Along those lines, the planners recommended things like second and third residences on single lots. I just don't know yet (have a call in) what actually passed and whether it involved some zoning chance for my house.

   I'm trying to imagine a case of having a continuous, weather-tight deck/patio/lanai with some sort of continuous foundatiuon edge beam, that also will support structures without additional foundation.

   That pretty much describes what I want to do, much better than I could have done. Perhaps I can provide partial joy for you. I'll be building a Japanese influenced timber frame workshop/studio that will have a guest room and bath. I'm working on the plans now.

   Pam

1. 
   CapnMac | Mar 17, 2006 12:45am | #12

   That pretty much describes what I want to do, much better than I could have done. Perhaps I can provide partial joy for you. I'll be building a Japanese influenced timber frame workshop/studio that will have a guest room and bath. I'm working on the plans now. Pam

   Ok, that kind of jibes with what I was getting from the rest of the answers.

   We built a dojo off up the Colorado that would be a similar sort of thing.  It really was one great big platform, with only three weather-tight spaces (and a boatload of shoji in tracks all around).  Now, that one was treated as if the foundation line was the building limits for P&D purposes.  The insurance company wsa only interested in "heated area."

   Ok, the tough part may be getting P&D "on board" with your idea.  It sounds rather like your "walled" (for want of a better term) area will be liej the negative image of a "plus" sign.  Might just be easy as giving the total area (and not splitting it into Area 1, Area 2, etc.) on the plans and see what they say.

   Where I wanted to be sure of what you're doing, is that if you had four separate buildings, each with their own foundation, you could (generally) "deck" them all together, and no (P&D) body would give it a second thought. 

   Hmm, going more "pure" Japanese might actually be better.  That would be a free-standing (no perimeter foundation at all) surface.  Ok, so you have some corner posts that go through the deck to bearing points underneath--so what?  Hmm,  might be the thing, call it a multi-purpose (single) structure, but only specifiy "finished room" area.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)

1. 
   pampine | Mar 17, 2006 06:48am | #13

   Oops, I lied, there is no perimeter foundation, all pier and beam. I've got to learn to be more literal about these terms. We got the piers, beams, joists, and subfloor done before being stopped by a code compliance inspector. There had been a neighborhood association complaint about "unsanitary debris," which was not true. It was all building materials. Nevertheless, we were ordered to stop construction.I'd planned three walled areas with the fourth corner being essentially a shoji laden veranda, a 16 X 24 open area for the main bench and hand tool work area. So not quite a cross, the left horizontal is missing, but not far off.Pam

1. 
   CapnMac | Mar 17, 2006 04:37pm | #14

   Sounds like one building to me.

   Now, how big is that building will (might) be a sticking point.

   What you might want to do, is to take the plans & elevations, and set up a meeting with the P&D people.  Often, you can ask to have an informal appointment with either the Planning or the plan review people.  Explain that you have a unique situation, and you want a sense of what their opinion would be (note, make no promises of on or off record, let the P&D people decide that).

   Since you are going to have very similar foot-print and roof overhang lines, the "sticking point" will be in what is the "official" area, per the AHJ.  If you can get them to say, "We say it's xxxx sf," you can then (try to) beat up the Travis Co Property Assement people if they come bring you a "surprise" next tax season.

    Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)

2. 
   pampine | Mar 17, 2006 05:40pm | #17

   Great idea, CapnMac, let the planning people decide what I'll have when done. Then they'll have no complaints.Pam

3. 
   CapnMac | Mar 17, 2006 08:00pm | #18

   let the planning people decide what I'll have when done. Then they'll have no complaints

   LoL!

   Planning people with no complaints . . . that's funny on so many levels <g> . . .

   Getting their "read" though can help.  You definitely need to be in the "middle" of the process, though, otherwise they can occasionally get a bit snippy (which almost always requires a good balance in the checking account to fix . . . <sigh>).

   Your exsiting "shed" is permisible (likely) as it's under the 150sf "rule" (a much abused rule).  That's part of why I suggested just asking for an informal meeting with somebody over to P&D, it's partially to "show" that you are not intending on scofflawry.  You just hava unique sort of situation that may have a simple answer desipte seeming complicated.

   The P&D people will have come across those who pushed the envelope, and for less-than noble reasons.  Like bolting 7 120sf sheds together, and claiming that they were a "temporary structure" . . . (stupid councilman; dumber still to complain when the burned down, too . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)

4. 
   pampine | Mar 17, 2006 09:59pm | #19

   I thought that might amuse you. :)Anyhow, I plan to be meek but assertive, ask for their help but knowledgeable, new at this but competent....Pam

5. 
   CapnMac | Mar 17, 2006 11:45pm | #20

   I plan to be meek but assertive

   oHo my, if that is not the prescription for dealing with the modern muni P&D department . . .

   That, and patience, endless patience . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)

4. 
   pickings | Mar 16, 2006 08:52pm | #7

   "I have a roof that covers the full 24 X 34, does that make a difference?"

   Normally.....one roof....one floor......one building. Ask your insurance co too.

1. 
   pampine | Mar 16, 2006 10:56pm | #9

   Excellent point to check with my insurance company. I'll do that.Thanks,
   Pam