HomeMy WebLinkAbout06032004 BSC Agenda Item 6 • •
■
TO: Building Standards Co
FROM: Brian Hoogendam/ SubeMrrii°ttee on Old Stock Housing
DATE: June 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Old Stock Housing ConclusignsAnd Recommendations
The subcommittee fusing on old stock housing came to several conclusions:
• There are no holies. _ niversity that could really be categorized as
"historic-; this is bas on arti` I findings from other communities who have
"historic"homes
• ri'here is no incentive fort City to have a special classification of house unless
there are financial reasons frcreating the class.
• The issues that face older homes are seen more in the remodel process
The committee did tome to the conclusion that if a definition was created for old stock
houses, there could be four main criteria:
o Date that the original house was built(before additions)
o The size of the original house based on the footprint
o The location of the house in the city
o The style of the house.
This definition could be used to allow a house classed as an "old stock house" to be
eligible for special exceptions rather than variances to West U Codes as determined by
the appropriate board or commission. However, it is this committee's conclusion that the
definition of Old Stock Housing is less important than educating the West U homeowners
on the remodel process.
This committee feels that any changes to the code to help those with older homes should
be focused on Special Exceptions within the scope of the zoning boards. The BSC is
responsible for more code type issues as they relate to the remodel process. In these
cases, the BSC has very little room to act on certain issues including:
• Older homes could not be exempted from code because of safety reasons
(foundations, electrical panels, plumbing, foundations etc.
• The new energy requirements have been imposed at a state level and must
be enforced by the City. There is very little room for variance with the
"window requirement"
• Framing issues that could impact the underlying structure
•
Specific Recommendations to Council and Other Committees
1. Education of the Homeowner
• Publish an article periodically in the West Uni 6#3,Examiner that talks about
how the city can be helpful during the remodel process. There is a certain level
of animosity ttvards the city and the inspectors that could be eliminated if the
public was educated about the process. r.
• Have a 1-2 page handout available at the Planning & Development office counter
that tes'that the Planning & Development staff is there to help an owner on
additions to old stock houses, and that the owner is encouraged to arrange a
,,,Meeting with the CBO, the architect and the builder to discuss options and how to
implement certain options.
2. Creation of a special exception for several code areas:
• The 20 foot setback on back property lines that currently applies to primary
structures, but not garages. Can we have a special exception that enables an older
home to go within the 20 foot setback? This will give the zoning board the
authority to grant an exception and avoid the current variance test mandated by
state law.
• The 5 foot setbacks on "garage type structures"that are attached to homes but
built over driveways. Currently,these structures are subject to a 3 foot setback
and a variance must be granted. A "special exception"could be granted in this
case to mitigate the issues associated with the variance process
NOTE: Dennis Mack informed the committee that a "blanket" special exception could
not be added and that special exceptions must be added on a case by case basis. There
are potentially other areas for special exceptions that could be added in addition to those
listed above.