• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Carriage Units

A

Adrienne

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
19
Location
California
Does anyone have experience with getting Carriage Units approved, especially in CA or Los Angeles? We are trying to clarify if the footprint has to be EXACTLY the same all the way up (IE a giant cube), or if you are allowed to have the footprint get smaller as you go up. Also, does the no overhang rule mean that you can't have any kind of protection at the entry door?
 
Yes, and this would make it seem like the footprint would have to be exactly the same, or essentially a cube... Which is surprising because you would think that if the footprint decreased as it went up then it would still be within the spirit of the code.
 
It is my read that it can get smaller, just not any larger.

Think of the footprint like your site plan and minimum setbacks.
 
cda said:
So is the only difference between a townhouse and carriage

Accessibility??
Click to expand...
No, a carriage unit has to meet the definition. Occur over a private garage, footprint, etc.

All carriage units are townhouses, but not all townhouses are carriage units.

upload_2020-4-7_14-4-24-png.6591
 
So what is the difference??

You have to have a carriage??

Is this an Amish code
 
cda said:
So what is the difference??

You have to have a carriage??

Is this an Amish code
Click to expand...
If you have a site with limited area, you can ignore the right thing of providing accessibility, and put the dwelling units above the garages. Units are therefore not on an accessible route (no lift, just stairs) and Cali is ok with it.
 
So to be correct, if it is a multifamily building, the living space for each unit has to be completely over the garage, cannot overlap over another garage. And all floors above the garage have to be part of the same living unit ... no third floor apartment without a garage.
 
e hilton said:
So to be correct, if it is a multifamily building, the living space for each unit has to be completely over the garage, cannot overlap over another garage. And all floors above the garage have to be part of the same living unit ... no third floor apartment without a garage.
Click to expand...
That is my read as well.

To be a townhouse, has to be open on two sides and to the sky. These are basically row houses with garage units on the ground level.
 
Ty J. said:
That is my read as well.

To be a townhouse, has to be open on two sides and to the sky. These are basically row houses with garage units on the ground level.
Click to expand...

And pray tell can a townhouse have a garage?
 
Ty J. said:
It is my read that it can get smaller, just not any larger.

Think of the footprint like your site plan and minimum setbacks.
Click to expand...

So our plan checker is taking the stance that the footprint has to be exactly the same, no smaller or larger. Are you aware of any official definitions that explicitly say that the footprint just can't be larger than the garage footprint?
 
The planchecker is dumb....The definition does not say "the entire footprint", so you are using "the garage footprint".......but it is California...
 
steveray said:
The planchecker is dumb....The definition does not say "the entire footprint", ..
Click to expand...
Sorry, i think the plan checker is interpreting the definition correctly. Although i would think they would be more concerned with living spaces that were larger than the garage, or overlapped another garage.
“The footprint of the garage or garages is used as the footprint for the remaining floor or floors of the units above“
 
Yes...I would think that (interpret) they don't want you building "mushroom buildings" with tiny garages and giant living spaces....Do they define footprint anywhere? If you want to get crazy with it, is the footprint the walls or the roof overhangs? Can it not have overhangs lager than the foundation?
 
e hilton said:
Sorry, i think the plan checker is interpreting the definition correctly. Although i would think they would be more concerned with living spaces that were larger than the garage, or overlapped another garage.
“The footprint of the garage or garages is used as the footprint for the remaining floor or floors of the units above“
Click to expand...
You are thinking wrong. Footprint is a commonly used term, and it always means the maximum extent, not the precise extent. Yes the building can get smaller. Whether the building can have a projecting solid roof at the front door is maybe a little more questionable, but this would normally be within the *footprint* of the exterior stairs, which if not set directly on grade (which would be weird in this context) are usually part of the lower footprint (carriage units generally have an inside and an outside staircase from grade to the first habitable level).
 
classicT said:
If you have a site with limited area, you can ignore the right thing of providing accessibility, and put the dwelling units above the garages. Units are therefore not on an accessible route (no lift, just stairs) and Cali is ok with it.
Click to expand...
The right thing is providing adequate housing. People who clutch pearls about accessibility being always necessary cause just as many problems to objectively functional and satisfactory design as people who would ignore it entirely at every turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top