With the rising cost of renting or buying a home, the City of Austin is considering relaxing the rules for building an accessory dwelling — or granny flat home — on residential property.
The idea is to provide more housing options for mid- to low-income residents and providing more homeowners the ability to collect rent for their guest homes, garage apartments and other livable structures.
But it’s a controversial move.
Many neighborhood groups oppose the idea because it relaxes the requirement for off-street parking. More people renting backyard dwellings would likely mean more cars parked in the street, and it would mean more temporary residents in some neighborhoods that have mostly permanent homeowner residents.
Last year, the city council asked city staffers to study the issue and present the idea to the Austin Planning Commission to gather public input and expert insight. Since then, the city elected an almost entirely new city council, and the accessory dwelling proposal debate has been delayed until recently.
The Codes and Ordinances Subcommittee of the Austin Planning Commission plans to review the idea this month and will likely make a recommendation to the Commission, which could then advance it with a recommendation to the City Council this spring.
The proposal would eliminate the need to have a paved driveway for the accessory dwelling. It require just one space for secondary homes that are more than 550 square feet, compared to the two spaces currently required.
Currently, accessory dwellings are allowed in Single Family-3 zoning districts on lots that are 7,000 square feet and larger, which includes large swaths of Austin neighborhoods. (See a map of impacted areas on page 6 of this city document.)
City officials say that Austin has gotten less affordable and that relaxing restrictions should reduce the cost of building secondary housing units.
But neighborhood groups remain weary.
The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, which would likely be among the most impacted neighborhoods because of its proximity to the University of Texas, voted to oppose the changes.
“We see our neighborhood plan, which grew out of a process of civic participation, as central to maintaining the character and the quality of life of our neighborhood,” the Association wrote in its resolution opposing the change.
The Westcreek Neighborhood Association, in south Austin, also urged people to oppose the change when it first emerged last summer.
“Our neighborhood, for instance, cannot take additional impervious cover without it affecting many of our homes which sit in the floodplain, not to mention localized flooding concerns,” the Association wrote in a sample letter to city council members. “Increasing vehicles within a neighborhood without additional parking not only crowds the streets and sidewalks, but results in much higher traffic patterns than the neighborhood streets were originally built to accommodate.”