Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Application Effective Date: August 2020 P IP 0 U CA 1A/ f\N0 NUOING, Appeal from a Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer Application Form (This form must be completely filled out before the application will be accepted.) 1. Property Address for this i�ppea/Application (if applicable): i, A e- tt A 2. Legal Description (attach if lengthy): s3 k:is W /A /Ot 04 3. / (We) the undersigned, do hereby respectfully appeal to the Ames Zoning Board of t bi k 9-1 Adjustment alleging that an error has been made or appealing a decision of enforcing in connection with (Attach if sufficient space is not provided.) e- 4. Property Owner: _Q6AII e- K44 Business: Address: 5 (Street) (City) (State) (zip) Telephone: __'S'6Z -3 C _jC (Home) (Business) (Fax) 5. Applicant: 6�� O'b-Ovy- Business: Address: (Street) (City) (State) (zip) Telephone: (Home) (Business) (Fax) 6. Contact Person: 06/111— Business: Address: (Street) (City) (State) (zip) Telephone: (Home) (Business) (Fax) E-mail address: dozi [-a 6-VIA 3 Effective Date: August 4, 2020 The Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant an Appeal, provided the Board finds that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. This Appeal will not be granted unless sufficient facts are presented in this application and at the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing to support a position finding by the Board. Concurrence with this Appeal by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in no way absolves the applicant from subsequently obtaining the necessary building permits or other permits from the City of Ames or from any other applicable agency, I(We) certify that I(we) ant (are)familiar with all applicable ordinances and codes and I(we) have submitted all the necessary information to fully understand this appeal. Date: I, Signed by: Property Owner(s) RI vl�'t 1�' Print Name (Note: No other signature may be substituted for the Property Owner's Signature.) 4 Effective Date: August 4, 2020 Permission t® Place a "Zoning Action Pending" Sign ®n Private Property (This form must be filled out completely before your application will be accepted.) Section 29.1500(2)(d)(iii) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that notice shall be posted by the City on the subject property. The owner of property at ( e,, 'A j14ye-- hereby grants the City of Ames permission to place "Zoning Action Pending" signs on the property for the purpose of informing interested persons of the request for action by the City of Ames. I understand that the signs will be placed on the property several days prior to action on the request by Zoning Board of Adjustment and may remain on the property until the request has been approved or denied by the City. Signed by: j , Date: Property Owner -a- 6 i e- 41� Print Name (Note: No other signature may be substituted for the Property Owner's Signature.) 6 Effective Date: August 4, 2020 Appeal from a Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Offlicer Supporting Information (This form must be filled out completely before your application will be accepted.) As provided by Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code, Section 29.1403(7)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance grants power to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to facilitate review of this application for an appeal the appellant must provide sufficient facts to support the appellant's position. (Note: Additional facts may be attached on a separate sheet if sufficient,s ace is not provided.) 5 Supporting Information I'm seeking to appeal an interpretation by the city staff(see attachment A) classifying a proposed project(see attachments B and C) as a fence. I'm asking that the tall parts (referred to in attachment A as extended features), or as much as is necessary, be classified as"landscape features". This matter comes before you because of its unique nature. In July this project was presented to the Ames Historic Preservation Commission for review(see partial meeting minutes in attachment D). They found it to be historically appropriate and several members had kind things to say about its design. As I hope the transcript conveys, they were in favor of the project and spent time considering different ways that it could be classified in order that they could approve it. However,the city staff assessment was that this project should be classified as a fence and the code sections related to fences applied to it. This would unfortunately make the"extended features" (vertical members) non-compliant with the code, in that they are taller than the 6 foot limit placed on fences. However,what I'm asking to be classified as landscape features are not what one would normally think of as a"fence". They do not occlude lines of sight or movement in the way a fence would, and certainly not in a way which would represent a danger, given their shape and location. Their classification as"fence"seems to be because they touch walls which would be considered fencing. Although I agree that we, in this design and choice of materials, have tried to make these vertical features part of a harmonious whole,they are not in themselves what one would consider a fence nor do they further the purposes of a fence, regardless of what objects they touch. I request that you classify them in this light. Ak— CITY OF OW Ames," Smart Choice September 15,2022 Angie&Dan Kolz 802 Burnett Avenue Ames,1A 50010 RE: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness — 802 Burnett Avenue, Ames, 1A, Case File COA-001486 Dear Angie&Dan: On July 11,2022,the City of Ames Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with Ames Municipal Code Section 31.11, considered your request to construct a brick fence with extended features up to and exceeding 12-feet in the rear yard of the house located at 802 Burnett Avenue. The Historic Preservation Commission referred your request back to the City staff and/or the applicant for additional information,such as a new design for the three columns and extended posts and arms(extended features). Since the brick columns and extended features are an integral part of the brick hip wall and are located within 12"of the property line,staff has classified the entire structure as"fence".And, since the fence includes components that exceed the maximum allowed height of 6-feet for rear yard fences,a Certificate of Appropriateness cannot be issued. You may appeal this interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to the Zoning Board of Adjustment within 30 days of the date of this letter in accordance with the Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1403(8). A copy of the Appeal Application Form is attached. The fee is $75.00. Alternatively, if the extended features were removed from being an integral part of the fence, a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued for the knee wall. The extended features could either be removed altogether or placed to the interior of the wall,as a separate and detached structure or landscape feature.Thank you for your efforts to preserve the historic character of the Old Town Historic District. Sincerely, E of rse Sahlstrom Planner Cc: Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning&Housing Planning and Housing Department v 5�5 239 5400-,.atA 515 Clark Ave P O Box 811 515.239.5404 jax Ames 1/Tb0i0 ' www.CityofAmes.org I tll 1 t t' > I` 0 I U C y i w 4 0 Q 71, .......... m .......... x G 44o, ),VVAe1T1- C Certificate of Appropriateness Application 802 Burnett Ave Patio Project Contact Dan Kolz(507)398-5648,d,pkol,zC ng 1ail rn Written Statement • Description of the project: The proposed project will build a brick patio and appurtenances in the southeast corner of the lot.The patio will be surrounded by a low hip wall.A trellis consisting of three columns with inwardly stretching arms will be added as well as a brick grill. • Types of Materials to be used: ® Bricks salvaged while demolishing the original 1910-porch will be the primary material of construction for the brick wall and grill. ® New bricks will supplement the old where additional quantities are needed. New bricks will be same spec as were used in new porch reconstruction:'Midtown Iron Spot' manufactured by Sioux City Brick. ® The trellis piers will be constructed of the same materials as the porch's brick piers. ® Patio laid on ground surface will be natural stone. • Dimensions of proposed alterations and new construction: ® The proposed project is completely freestanding and does not touch the original house. No alterations,extensions,or connections to the original structure are proposed. • Plan view dimension of new patio are 18-5"(east/west)x 28'-2"(north/south). ® The wall around the patio will be 36" high. ® Heights and dimensions of the trellis piers are 6'-2"of brick capped with a 4"concrete cap for overall height of 6'-6".White posts will extend up to a height of 12'.The arms of the trellis will extend inwardly by up to 9'in horizontal length. • Architectural style of alterations and new construction: ® There is no architectural style of the new construction. ® Our design intent is to add functional outdoor space while balancing and highlighting the existing historic house and be just different enough to not create a false sense of history. ® Materials and details from the home's new porch,brick foundation,and gable roof angles are reused in the patio which creates harmony with the house. ® The hip wall will extend visually from the height of the house's brick foundation as it surrounds the patio.The hip wall will provide seating and a sense of enclosure for the space while allowing the house to still be viewed in full,from any angle of street view. ® The trellis piers also increase the sense of place while being open to the air and allowing for house viewing.The angle of the arms pointed inwardly and upwards towards the house directs the eye up to the house at the same angles as the hip rooftops provide and overall helps to highlight the house itself.The piers are relatively high on purpose.They copy the porch pier design at the base for symmetry,and they are high enough to put horizontal pieces that are completely freestanding and do not have to connect to the house for support. Photographs ® Existing condition of all structures and areas of the property proposed for alterations and/or new construction: Three photos show the southeast corner of the lot.The area is currently just being used as a stockpile area for the old bricks from the porch demolition.This southeast corner is proposed to be cleaned up and used for the patio. n ,ry l_ rrY a m Figure 1 Photo of existing conditions-southeast view a Figure 2 Existing conditions-south view(Sth Street) l.. � R A '�..�'�`��� ,,�, ,:ma's:" � ��,,.� ,.�.' �`�� 7• Figure 3 Existing conditions-east view Drawings Drawings of the proposed project 3-D render drawings of the proposed project are included on the following pages. I s li ill I >i y i fl 1 Ski �yi fV ly tgY4Y i.,( i h; r o w �n `o U a k a 3 o i r �MMET ` Goy. S f � G i 2 " � s v r� Ili i I s 6 � t � 9 r' ' � a 'rf % r J „ y N -' C x 1 n 3 3' L v v. O C= 6i t � r r yr � o. P w i r +r i rr � I Y� r r s`r s o u, 4 i m ko ko a Site Plan ® Site Plan for the proposed project The site plan is attached on the following page. MINUTES CITY OF AMES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Date: July 11, 2022 Edith Hunter 2023 Susan Minks 2024 Call to Order: 6:OOPM Angie Kolz 2024 Place: Council Chambers Mary Jo Winder 2024 Matt Oakley* 2023 Adjournment: 8:16PM Jesse David Chariton 2023 Rosemary Dale 2025 ['Absent] CALL TO ORDER: Susan Minks, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (Kolz/Dale) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of July 11, 2022, MOTION PASSED: (6-0) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 09, 2022: MOTION: (Chariton/Hunter)to approve the Minutes of the meeting of MAY 09, 2022. MOTION PASSED: (6-0) PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 802 BURNETT AVENUE Eloise Sahlstrom, Ames City Planner, gave a summary of the application that came in for a brick fence with extended features in the rear yard at 802 Burnett Avenue. She noted the house came before the Commission in 2018 for the front porch and other features that are now complete. Ms. Sahlstrom noted the proposed low hip brick wall would be detached from the home. The applicant noted the features of his request as a stone patio, appurtenances including a low hip brick wall (which the Planning Department considers to be a fence), a trellis consisting of three brick columns with inwardly stretching arms. The proposed elements would be in the rear yard, detached from the historic home. Chapter 31 does not regulate patios but does have regulations on the proposed fence. Ms. Sahlstrom described the Zoning District the house is in. She noted the east and west setbacks are non-conforming. Ms. Sahlstrom noted this proposal would not extend the non- conformity. She explained what features are allowed in the setback, and said patios and fences are allowed. She said there are no compatibility standards that apply to patios or fences., A Certificate of Appropriateness can be granted administratively for fences in certain cases. The Planning director can refer applications to the Commission for review. Ms. Sahlstrom noted the proposed structures will be visible from the street since the house sits on a corner lot. She described in more detail the beams and features of the patio. Chapter 31 does not include brick in the list of approved materials but brick is a material that has been used historically. The brick the applicant would use is from the porch reconstruction for their property. She commented she thought this would fall under the category of Other Fence Design, She noted elements of the design would reflect elements of the front porch. If the proposed columns are considered part of the Certificate of Appropriateness, they could not be more than six feet tall. Ms. Sahlstrom noted that the Planning staff believes the extended height of the trellis columns does not meet the fence criteria. Rosemary Dale, Commission member, asked if the intent of the proposed trellis arms was to cover them in greenery. The applicant, Mr. Kolz, replied that in the future, they may be. The main intent was to define a sense of place. Mary Jo Winder, Commission member, asked Ms. Sahlstrom if it was correct that the Commission cannot approve the height of the columns due to the zoning requirements, Ms. Sahlstrom replied that was correct. Jesse David Chariton, Commission member, asked if the proposed features need to be labeled differently by Planning, rather than redesigned. Ms. Sahlstrom replied that it is staff's opinion that it is a fence. Ms. Winder said she would call it a new addition to a historic building. She said if the Commission approves what is proposed, Zoning would not be able to approve the height. She asked what would happen if the Commission approved it, Ms. Sahlstrom indicated that the options available to the Commission were listed in the Alternatives. Mr. Chariton asked if the feature would be a fence if it was attached to the house. Ms. Sahlstrom replied that it would still be called a fence, and it is easier to review and approve since it is not attached. Ms. Minks said pergolas and arbors have not been reviewed yet by the Commission. Ms. Sahlstrom said in 2012 there was one reviewed, but the code was revised in 2015. She said since that time there have not been any submittals for arbors or pergolas. Ms. Minks said in looking at the diagram the pillars mimic the front porch of the house. She said from the brick pier above it seems to be landscaping elements. She said it seems more like a pergola element and that the fencing is the brick wall and piers. Ms. Hunter said she does not think there is anything on the masonry side that would go against code. Ms. Sahlstrom showed slides or pictures of arbors, pergolas, lattices, and trellises. Dan Kolz, owner of 802 Burnett Avenue, said the idea was to echo the design of the front porch of the house. He said in his mind the features did not seem to be a fence. He commented if he could not have it as shown, he could detach the trellis from the other feature to make it separate. Ms. Minks asked if the angled part of the trellis would be at the same angle as the front porch. Mr. Kolz said it is supposed to match the mudroom in the back of the house. Mr. Chariton asked how the uprights would be constructed. Mr. Kolz described they would be designed to provide stability to the structure. Ms. Winder commented that this is difficult to evaluate. She thought the design differentiates from the neighborhood and would look good when constructed. Ms. Minks said the color of the columns in the rear yard matched the trim on the house. Ms. Hunter commented that former Commission member, Ted Grevstad-Nord brock, thought homes in the Historic District should honor the historic content but also be livable. Ms. Minks then read aloud and discussed the alternatives in the staff report. Ms. Winder asked Ms. Sahlstrom to clarify Alternative two. Ms. Sahlstrom explained in more detail Alternative's two and four. Ms. Hunter commented she thought the height requirements were more for visibility, but this project did not seem to affect visibility at all. MOTION: (Winder/Dale) to approve Alternative four to refer this request back to City Staff and the applicant for more information, by having this request go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for approval. MOTION PASSED: (5-0)Angie Kolz abstained from voting, REVIEW OF CHAPTER 31, SECTIONS 31.7—31.9 Ms. Minks read Section 31.7, the proposed changes that would be for clarity, and the corresponding staff comments. She went on to item 1, subsections A through E and read the corresponding staff recommendation, Ms. Sahlstrom asked if regarding item 1, if the topic of diverse ownership is discussed anywhere else. She said she thought the chapter should note that it could be a single owner or diverse owners. Ms. Sahlstrom commented the Commission could come back to this question later. Ms. Winder said she thought the ownership did not have anything to do with a District and could be misconstrued. Ms. Minks noted the sub areas under item 1 are criteria of what would make a nomination appropriate. Ms. Sahlstrom noted the difference between a building and a structure. She also made a comment on wording of principal structures. She did not think the word "buildings" needed to be added. Ms. Minks moved on to item D on contributing buildings and structures. Ms. Minks said they could take out the word "buildings"to align with C.