Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWUERKER RESIDENTIAL ADDITION - NCM SITE PLAN REVIEW (MODIFICATION TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS) - 48-94A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSZBA 9/12/96 Page 9 Barnes responded that there may be some things done that make it qualify as a solar energy system. The board still has to determine whether or not that can happen without a 24:12 pitch. Does the roof pitch have anything to do with its ability to collect, store, and distribute solar energy? Board member Keating stated that this seems to be a situation where the board's hands are tied because there is no hardship on the property to allow the Board to give a variance for it. Maybe this is one of those the council needs to review. If petitioner wants to appeal to council, he has that option. Board member Lieser agreed and stated that the ZBA does not have the tools to approve this. Board member Keating moved to deny this appeal due to lack of hardship. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner. Nays: Stockover. The appeal was denied 6-1. Barnes addressed the petitioner and stated that the petitioner can do a 12:12 pitch now and see if the code gets changed the first part of next year. Then redo the roof pitch. As much as the Board felt that what you are doing is a good improvement, based on the code and the narrow grounds they have for defining hardships, it would not qualify for a variance. The Board has expressed the need for this to go to council and say that this is a problem. The petitioner could go to council if they could find some hardship. ZBA E 9/12/96 Page 8 Board member Stockover stated that the Eastside/Westside ordinance may not have been clear on this specific issue and asked if, for a small portion of a roof design, could this become an exception? Barnes stated that the code is very clear: any roof pitch has to be between 2:12 and 12:12 unless it is going to match existing roof pitch on the building. Then, and only then, you could deviate on the 2:12 or 12:12. Board member Stockover asked if you can look at intent? Board member Breth stated they had this problem last month with a flat roof on a porch. They had to come before ZBA for a flat roof. ZBA may see more of these and they will end up going to city council and council will decide maybe we need to look at the wording in the ordinance. The Plan is not specific. There are times when you can go flat or 24:12 and still be in compliance with the neighborhood. Barnes mentioned that another provision of the ordinance that went into effect in March was that staff go back to city council the first part of 1997 with issues that have come up, i.e., roof pitch, building size, etc. and make recommendation for these to be modified. Staff will go before city council probably in February. Board member Stockover asked if everything, except roof pitch, is OK? Barnes confirmed and stated that is'the only issue for this board and that everything else complies with the zoning code. Board member Shannon agreed that she likes the new design better but does not see the hardship as it is defined. She requested Barnes take this to city council as an issue. Board member Gustafson asked if one thing they can look at is solar access? Does it have to do with allowing light into a building or is it solar access of an adjacent property? Barnes explained that the section in the zoning code that addresses types of hardships the board can consider in granting variances does have the provision on solar but it would have to hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system. A solar energy system is defined as it has to have a collection and distribution method. It has to function as a solar energy system rather than just allowing light and air into a room. Board member Shannon asked if he were to put a quarry tile floor in the turret, does it make it a solar passive unit? ZBA 9/12/96 Page 7 Wuerker read a quote from the newspaper written by John Clark, county commissioner, last week. "All those buildings, along with the Loveland Civic Center and Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, all share peak roofs, cupolas, large windows, and columns that he would like to see in the $59 million justice center now in design". He stated that since the justice center also falls within the same guidelines as his house, this board may will be hearing John Clark make an appeal for the same thing he is appealing for. People like to see peaked roofs, arched windows, and columns on their property. Wuerker stated that his yard is well landscaped with rock gardens and their intention is to make. the front of this house something that people like to see. In the last four days five people he didn't know stopped by and exclaimed at the beautiful new addition to their house. He has talked with neighbors who like the additions. Additionally, he stated that he was opposed to the 12:12 pitch limitations in the ordinance of the Eastside/Westside Guidelines because of historic buildings already in this town. That Gina Janett and Chuck Wanner told him the reason for this ordinance was to keep mansard roofs out. If that is all they want to do, why didn't they specify this in the ordinances. Board member Breth questioned if the ZBA had already approved one such situation, the one on Peterson. Barnes explained that they weren't dealing with the roof pitch on that one, but with a variance for height. The roof pitch ordinance wasn't in effect at that time. Board member Lieser asked for clarification on the petitioner's statement of hardship - that the building permit was issued for an addition to this duplex well before the current roof pitch limitations were adopted. But they did not ask for that in the original building permit so the building permit issued has no bearing on this question at all. Barnes confirmed and stated that maybe the petitioner did not know he wouldn't have the latitude to do this, at that time. Applicant explained that their intent is to give an optimum appearance, bay window look, to the front of the house which would give more symmetry to the look of the house. Board member Gustafson stated that he likes the look of the turret but has a hard time finding hardship. Nothing has been shown that proves a hardship or something unusual about the property to overturn the Eastside/Westside ordinances. W= 9/12/96 Page 6 Board member Breth asked if the original plan had this turret on it. Barnes indicated that it did not. He referred to the elevations in the applicant's material which showed the original elevation having a door and a covered porch. Board member Shannon asked what is the design of the neighborhood in general? Barnes commented that it is pretty much a mix - some two-story and one-story. Mostly they are fifty year old houses or older - some with steeper pitch roofs than others. Board member Stockover asked if the footprint of this turret has been approved? Barnes responded that the Planning and Zoning Board has not approved the footprint, and that the work the petitioner has done so far is at his own risk. Board member Stockover asked who would decide approval of the footprint from porch to turret and when. It looks like they've gone from a single story addition to a second story addition. Board member Stockover asked if all they are looking at is the roof pitch, are they putting the cart -before -the -horse? Barnes explained that if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance to the roof pitch, then they can go with that submittal to the Planning and Zoning Board for the elevations to be approved. If the ZBA denies the variance, they may go back to the 12:12 roof pitch on the two- story bay window. Then they wouldn't need a variance from the ZBA and they would take that elevation to the Planning and Zoning Board. Board Chairperson Breth asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Applicant, Gerald Wuerker, stepped forward. Addressing the neighbor's letter, he stated that the neighbor has no garden area on her property. He noted that standing on the roof, quite a bit during the day, he observed that the sunlight is never blocked on her property. From the property line and his addition there is 20 feet. It would not block the sun on the neighbor's house. Wuerker explained that when he first talked to Mike Ludwig, in Planning, he was told that this change to the front of the house would only be an administrative change. At that point in time he didn't think that anything was serious and that he could probably get an OK right on the spot except for the roof pitch. The roof pitch was now 24:12 on that turret and he would have to a make an appeals presentation to the Zoning Board. r ZBA 9/12/96 Page 5 Barnes pointed out that the pictures showed the 2-story bay window under construction and the architectural elevation, submitted by the applicant, show the proposed turret and the slope of the roof in question. He explained that when the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood ordinance was passed and went into effect in March 1996, one of the things included in the NCL, NCM; and NCB zoning districts was a requirement that the roof pitch had to be a minimum of 2:12 and a maximum of 12:12, unless you had an existing part of your roof that had a pitch that was either greater or less than. Then, if you wanted to change or add on, you could match the existing roof pitch. Barnes also pointed out the original approved site plan and the approved elevation that was part of the building permit submittal and issuance that occurred in 1995 so Board members could compare them to the proposal with the turret addition. He explained the process for getting approval on an addition to a duplex in the NCM zone. It is required to get approval from the Planning and Zoning Board through the NCM site plan review. Part of what they approve are the architectural elevations of the proposed addition and what the building will look like. The petitioner is proposing to amend the approved elevations the Planning and Zoning Board dealt with in 1995. He will have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Board, or whatever process the Planning Department feels is appropriate for the NCM amendment here. Barnes explained that if the Board approves the petitioner's proposal, the P&Z Board will be looking at the bay window and the turret with the 24:12 pitch. So, when the petitioner is finished with this Board, he will begin his process through the Planning and Zoning Board review. Barnes showed slides of the house from about one and one-half weeks ago when no framing had yet occurred, though the foundation had been poured for the bay window and turret construction. The pictures passed out shows that since then some framing has occurred. The petitioner is not asking for a height variance. The overall height is 27 feet from grade to the top of the turret and the top of the turret proposed will be just slightly higher than the existing roof which is just under 27 feet. The house to the south is somewhat taller than this particular house. The house to the north is lower than these two. Barnes showed slides of a house on Peterson now under construction with the same kind of turret that the petitioner wants to build. Board member Gustafson asked if the roof pitch would have come into question before the Eastside/Westside Guidelines were approved? Barnes stated that prior to March 1, 1996, the roof pitch was not an issue. It was not a code requirement and there were no design standards or guidelines adopted by the city. They would have had to go before the Planning and Zoning Board amending what the P&Z had originally approved, but the roof pitch would not have been an issue. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 4 Board member Gustafson asked that if this was classified as a service center, would the petitioner be allowed the 55 square feet. Barnes responded that is correct and explained that the petitioner has enough land to meet the neighborhood service center criteria but not the use proposed. If the petitioner had the appropriate mix of uses, then he could have the larger sign and actually have a number of signs. Board member Shannon stated that she feels this circumstance is unusual and that there is definitely cause. In addition, she feels there is a safety concern because if someone does not see the sign until they pass it, they may make a u-turn to get back to the store. She motioned for this appeal to be approved. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal 2182., 407 S. Grant Street by Janice and Gerald Wuerker, owners, NCM Zone, denied. Section 29-167 (14) --- The variance would allow the roof pitch of a proposed turret addition on the front of the house to be greater than a 12:12 pitch. Specifically, it would allow the turret roof to be built with a 24:12 pitch. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A building permit was issued for an addition to this duplex in 1995, well before the current roof pitch limitations were adopted. There is a second floor apartment in the building and this revision to the original plan is an opportunity to add light to the apartment as well as a way to make the east elevation more appealing. See petitioner's letter for additional comments. --- Staff comments: none --- There was one letter received and read into the record.(copy attached). Zoning Administrator Barnes passed out recent pictures of the neighbor's yard that were sent with the letter that was received from the neighbor.. .. WUERI(�Q RE51I Activity A: ALL CRITERIA ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IAPPLICAeL� - ONLY s the c-tenon vertu the cry C�ITC. ,In acrticaete7 be Satisriea? C-RrERION = 3 g s Yes INo If no, please ex=lain A1• COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIJA 1.1 Solar Orientation I I 1.2 Comprehensive Plan I I I I I I 1.3 Wildlife Habitat I ( I I 1.4 Mineral Depcsit I I I I 1.5 Ezclocically Sensitive Areas - I I 1 1.E Lands cf Acricultural imoor,ance rzszrved I I I I �z�er•ed 1.7 Enercy Conservation I I I I Jill 1.t? Air Quality 0I 1 c Water Quality I I I - 10 Sswace and Vlgstes I I✓I 1 1 t Vya r(`Orl ^' 1 I 1.12 ResidentialDensity ,, I I I I✓I I I -• NE!Gi-!EO14HOOD COMFATIEILITY CRI i =RIJ I 2. � Ve�tic::iar. Psdesman. Bike Transocration I I I I I 2 ? Euiicirc P!acEr; ent and Orientaticr, I I I 2.3 Natural Features I I I I 2 4 Vehicular Circulation anc Parking I I I I I ?•� Emergency Accass _ I I -'•E t=ecestrian UrCulation I I I I 2.7ure I I I I I 2 E' Euilding Heicnt and Views I I I I 2.:: Shading . I I I 2.10 Solar AcV-ss I I I 2.11 Historic Rescurcas I I 2.12 Setbacks I I 2.13 Landscape i 2.1, Sicns 11 2.15 Site Lighting I I I I I I I 2.16 Ncise and Vibration I I 2.17 Glary or Heat I I I I 2.18 Hazardous Materials I I I I A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity 3.2 Design Standards I I 3.3 Water Hazards I I 3.4 Gaclooic Hazards I I Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado; Revised , h 1994 IA-.Su`E5� -61- To M ppREYIOVED ® RLO1110N} 0 DWDUOUt TREE EVERGREEN TREE PLAT 5CALCI I". I6d-0' N � D 5 ❑e v❑ 5 ®_ R ❑o =❑ R m - R ❑Y �❑ S 8• 8[[®�� bUIJECT D r�❑bS ��®��� R`AENT S:S"u D.OUPLEM twmr TREE M r r rn OWNER CERTIFICATION .x[x � Ulp fM Yx[xx .ro[Y[L •N N>»IweaW eunlnlxW trt NOTARY ... I .... .uow.. .. ... r •... xr er»efw ..rl.a PLANNING AND ZONING. BOARD CERTIFICATION__ w .n a .—Il L ." ww wnfa » A[ aRL1Y fY wot •W pixf, wYY[IPo Mo M[•YrIPo TI[ nIn1O[ xoma i. win we]w.•If. / .I] YlU e»lLLlptaln' eIUL[,ur . anus aYaa wan •. IaY YUr IU] pR. VYU w;*. ff• N rt mnL ]a» p. rt Ue R[s • wmfp Lau[ )aeeu['w a p. w. •Y[waalwacwa� • anUY »[tT[U[ w Y [Ip Y[ . w[IU [IM• 1• CnYL q }e[ •YgYL^r w �alro� 11 . plalro a nLv •w • wexMew u. mrtlro w. nr Lwa . u� w. n 0. !1 wlLRxo lau LI [ p • )a [[ cl n VY u Lpvomw[u R• •m rvu a: w . •LaL » . Lewf. uwnw w m mn rt m)x[ • L•le ra•• eevvne. ro. �n WUERKER RESIDENTAL AMMON 407 SOUTH ORANT AVENUE FORT COLLNS COLORADO O= 140M SfTE PLAII1 LIOOD 4 TO 0\DEuouoit II.TREE �11 EVERREEN 7FEE6 PLAT ,-}5GALG I'- N N , r EA5T ELEVATION pf , n IJLGYMI vry SLA�E+f-h'-U 1901rT D A L ' " _-_ PARKIKr LALLN IN SrR�ovrEzi REnae C.J vlu.`J F �� PPaD u pI1LNT LnuN cea OlIST01G reNCE Z CxgAvcl K�IL—L]'�G tY- I[-SLIfJA' .. n �P F y y L-l'LI.Eq qT i S El 2 ❑. 5 m R ❑, LgRR ❑o D ❑j 5 ©' YACNDI IA R•RENTAL S O.`: N© S: SILALE D.DUPLEK oil to 0 u l�ilf�RI a�a+ L4 .�••.I.eYll":I.� SOUTH ELEVATION OWNER CERTIFICATION n! mm.wm. n NOTARY m"' '. • ,RILL !..al..l. ....N..`f 1c].)—.I. lye.aG..... ]. ..Rlw 1. ....N .I a::... .. :.t —I—,— o..... D....E wm PI AN.NLN.G_.AKv. ZONING: BOARD CERTIFICATION_ I2 nl[lE IN. w TI ,vnvNnLYC1.�D MD F . R]o.wxmD rLW.v 1.10 1, .nIDR1IY .CDIt)b v Ix...5. sw N. s.IT! n.on W IN �u.owa aT vLo.aa n m vn a. snevrua v s.0 / .vL ]a ep, n • ]L.J w. rt. ]f\ M 4D] eILL e. .pDML fact mlroo ep. n .].D oay.ass n.]n\ a. m.w.t . ru.va �e. acwe: en w rx�r�owuu u. —..L.mt.a .. d• ].m.n v: .Ltx v rpe n�a v,xe ou twn ovl.m. w.sry rW ON .-. TL mule. 110w: w ]n. evvmw m mo.n ^IlI w als.w. 1 R vtevn ..w.v:. , amn o.n RveL em I .wan i WUERKER RFSIDWnALADDTON 407 SOUTH GRANT AVENUE FORT COLLINS COLORADO m! Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A October 28, 1996 Page 4 The City Attorneys Office has advised staff that the Planning and Zoning Board can approve a 24:12 roof pitch for the turret, conditioned on the roof not being constructed until such time as the code is changed (no later than June 1, 1997). In the event the code is not changed by June 1, 1997 to allow a 24:12 roof pitch for turrets, then the maximum pitch of the roof allowed will be 12:12 (see recommended condition of approval). North Elevation: The applicant proposes to amend the north elevation to reflect a side view of the proposed turret as well as to delete a second -story window and replace the eastern most first -story window with an exterior door (new access for the upstairs dwelling unit). FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: The Wuerker Residential Addition, NCM Site Plan, #48-94A satisfies each of the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS; 2. The Wuerker Residential Addition, NCM Site Plan, #48-94A conforms with the Goals and Policies of the West Side Neighborhood Plan; 3. The Wuerker Residential Addition, NCM Site Plan, #48-94A conforms with the East Side West Side Design Guidelines which were adopted on February 20, 1996 as amendments to the Zoning Code, except for the proposed 24:12 roof pitch. 4. The Wuerker Residential Addition, NCM Site Plan, #48-94A is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A with the following condition: The proposed 24:12 roof pitch for the turret, may not be constructed until such time as the code is changed to allow a 24:12 pitch (no later than June 1, 1997). In the event the code is not changed by June 1, 1997 to allow a 24:12 roof pitch for turrets, then the maximum pitch of the roof allowed will be 12:12. Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A October 28, 1996 Page 3 district or structure. If the proposed development conforms, it shall be approved; if the proposed development does not conform, it shall be denied." The proposed addition (architectural modification) satisfies each of the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS; and conforms with the Goals and Policies of the West Side Neighborhood Plan. The proposed addition is in compliance with the East Side West Side Design Guidelines which were adopted on February 20, 1996 as amendments to the Zoning Code, with the exception of the proposed 24:12 roof pitch for the turret. The property is not located in a historic district nor is it a historic structure. 3. Architecture: East Elevation: The applicant requests to amend the east elevation of the NCM Site Plan which was approved on December 12, 1994, to allow an approximately 8' x 6', two story turret, with a 24:12 coned roof pitch. The maximum height of the turrets cone shaped roof would be approximately 25 feet (1 foot less than the remainder of the existing roof). Section 29-167(14) of the City Code states: "The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit." No portion of the roof on the existing structure is 24:12, therefore the maximum roof pitch allowed under the existing code is 12:12. On September 12, 1996, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request by the applicant for a 24:12 roof pitch for the proposed turret due to a lack of hardship that satisfied variance criteria. However, Board Members felt strongly that what the applicant was proposing was appropriate, and that the code should be changed for these type of architectural elements (see attached minutes of the 9/12/96 ZBA meeting). Staff anticipates making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council regarding some changes to the roof pitch requirements for structures within the East Side and West Side Neighborhood planning areas (for architectural elements such as turrets) in February -March 1997. Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A October 28, 1996 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N: NCM, NCL; existing single family residential S: NCM; existing single family residential E: NCM; existing single family residential W: NCL; existing single family residential The property was annexed into the City with the Loomis Addition by resolution on May 23, 1887. The property was subdivided as Lot 4, Block 287 of the Loomis Addition on May 26, 1887. The 1'h story residence was originally constructed in 1907. On December 12, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Wuerker Residential Addition, NCM Site Plan, #48-94 by a vote of 6-0, allowing a 1,234 square foot addition to the existing 1,344 square foot duplex residence (a combined total of 2,578 square feet). 2. Land Use: This is a request to amend the north and east building elevations of the N-C-M Site Plan that was approved on December 12, 1994 to allow a two-story turret. The proposed architectural modifications result in a net increase of 45 square feet (a new combined total of 2,623 square feet). The number of dwelling units will not change due to this addition. There are presently, and will be after the addition, two, one -bedroom dwelling units. Section 29-166 (8)(a) of the City Code allows for this use with the provision that the intended uses are shown on a site plan submitted to and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 29-168 of the City Code states: "...a site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, and other supporting documentation complying with Section 29-526(G) shall be submitted...... In making its decision to approve or deny the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board shall determine whether the proposal conforms to Section 29-526(D), Activity A, "All Development Criteria" of the Code, the Design Standards for the neighborhood planning area, and the standards for any applicable historic City Fort Collins STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 10/28/96 STAFF Mike Ludwig PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A. APPLICANT: Gerald and Janice Wuerker 407 S. Grant Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Gerald and Janice Wuerker 407 S. Grant Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the north and east building elevations of the N-C-M Site Plan which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 12, 1994, to allow a two-story turret, a net increase of 45 square feet. The subject property is an existing duplex residence located at 407 S. Grant Avenue and is zoned N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval with a condition. The Wuerker Residential Addition N-C-M Site Plan Review, #48-94A: • satisfies each of the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS; • conforms with the Goals and Policies of the West Side Neighborhood Plan; • conforms with the East Side West Side Design Guidelines which were adopted on February 20, 1996 as amendments to the zoning code, except for the proposed 24:12 roof pitch. • is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT