I’m a developer concentrating on new duplexes for the urban infill in Denver. In the R-2 zone, the zoning code requires that the two units must be “attached”. But the fire code requires that structurally you build two separate buildings. The “common wall” is really two walls with tenuous attachment between them. One method of attachment specifies that the connectors melt in a fire so that the collapsing unit doesn’t tear down the other unit.
Well, doesn’t that sound a little absurd? Why can’t I just build two separate units close together? Three feet would be a good separation distance. Total construction costs would be higher, but the market puts a lot of value on truly separate dwellings. The net added value would be at least $40,000 per unit. Who wants to own half a building with some wierdo who paints his half a funny color? Or has a thump-thump stereo that blasts right through the wall?
If the intent of R-2 zoning is to have twice the density of R-1, the goal is still accomplished. The fire safety would be much better. The only down side I can think of is that each unit is 1.5 feet skinnier than it could be.
Am I missing something? Is there some important reason for “attaching” the units? Was it cost?
Has anyone else ever encountered this issue?
Replies
Kevin,
Welcome to the real world of politics.
If what you say is true, that you could add $40K of value to each unit by doing it the way you want...Hire a good, politically connected attorney, and have the law changed.
Jon
someone around here (northern va.) did this.
All they did was "attach" one family units together with subteraanean "wine cellars".
They look like single family homes at the surface but share a common foundation wall.
Try that.
THAT is a very neat idea. Sure to drive the plan reviewers nuts, I like it for that reason alone. (just kidding all you Denver plan reviewers)
The issue may be, once you de-attach the units, how far apart are you allowed to put them? 3 ft., 5 ft., 10 ft., 50 ft.? My guess is they want it to look like one building per lot. What if you 'attached' them with 4-ft. lattice panels?
Around here, you're allowed to have a 'guest house' if it's attached to the main house. So, sometimes people build enormously long breezeways connecting two houses. Then they're attached and pass review.
Kevin ,
For the first thing there are city ordinances to follow that a board known as Plannning and Zonning have either wrote or adopted.
Most all cities have "set backs" from property lines.
Can you build a single house ? Of course as long as it meets the normal set backs of your ordinances for a single property dwelling. You may build a single in either R1 or R2.
Here our codes say a side set back of 7 feet including any overhang or protrusion from the building which could include gutters for example. The most common set back is 10 feet from the property line to base building line which ends up being 8 ft overall once overhang is considered.
There are several good reasons for the set backs . If you decided to sell the property as single their is fire protection first and formost to consider allowing firemen to respond to a building . 1.5 feet from the property line would be not allow passage. Your fire rating effects insurance rates. There are many more reasons such as your neiborhood to consider realestate. My main reason is to allow a pick up around the building . If you were allowed to build 3 feet apart , someday you would want to sell those proprties seperately wouldnt you ?
It takes more property for two singles with set backs than a duplex.
Buy a Planning and Zonning book from your local authority to answer all your questions.
Tim Mooney
You can look for designs that don't look like two halves of a whole house, so that different paint schemes don't look weird, But I don't think that you're going to get the property rezoned so you can have a foot or more between dwellings. You should buy property zoned single-family, if you want to build single-family. It costs more? Hmmm. $40K more?
Getting around the fire code, in all its glory, is out of the question. And yes, there are good reasons for the firewall and the fall-away provisions. They were written to save lives, not make construction easier. Try to get around them, and your liability is unbounded.