HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Staff Report dated 11-09-2022 Item #: 2
Date: 11/09/22
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE PREPARED: November 2, 2022
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2022
APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR REGARDING A
PROPOSED FENCE IN THE REAR YARD THAT CLASSIFIES THE ENTIRE
STRUCTURE AS FENCE:
The Planning Director's decision is that a proposed structure located along the rear
property line is a "fence," as defined in Section 29.201 (74). As a fence, the structure is
limited in its height and location on a property per the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The appellant's proposed fence exceeds the maximum height of six feet for fences
in the rear yard setback for posts utilized in the design of the fence. The appellant
asserts that the extended posts are not part of a fence, but instead landscape
accents, which would then exempt them from height limits.
Note: The appeal is regarding the definitions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, it is
not a property specific exception or variance from a standard of the Zoning Ordinance.
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Daniel & Angela Kolz
APPELLANT: Daniel Kolz
LOCATION: 802 Burnett Avenue (See Attachment A— Location Map).
ZONING: Residential Medium Density (RM); Single Family Conservation Overlay District
(O-SFC); & Historical Preservation Overlay District (O-H)
BACKGROUND:
The property at 802 Burnett Avenue is a corner lot (NE corner) in the Old Town Historic
District (a local historic district), (see Attachment A- Location Map). The property is
occupied by a single-family residence and attached garage. The location of the house
and attached garage have non-conforming side and rear building setbacks. Fences may
be constructed without regard to the required building setback, as long as the height of
the fence meets the height limitations described in Section 29.408(20). Properties in the
Old Town Historic District are required to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness for
certain improvements, including fencing.
The Zoning Ordinance defines a fence as an unroofed barrier or enclosing
1
structure. Fences in the Old Town Historic District are required to comply with the height
standards described in the Zoning Ordinance. In this instance the height limit is six feet
in a rear yard setback. Staff measures height as a zoning standard from the average
abutting grade to highest point of a structure or to the midpoint of sloped roof if applicable.
The appellant's proposed structure includes a 3-foot brick wall with three brick columns
that are proposed to extend to at a height of 6'-6". The brick columns surround support
posts that extend to 12 feet with 8-foot arms at the top of the posts extending
inwardly toward the house at an angle, resulting in a total height over 12 feet. The
extended features are to be built into the brick wall and located along with the hip wall
one foot from the property line. The 12-foot extensions are physically part of the fence
design and were determined to be subject to the fence height limitations. (see
Attachment D, Applicant's 3-D Renderings of the Proposed Project and Attachment E,
Applicant's Description).
On July 11, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Certificate of
Appropriateness to construct a brick fence with extended features in the rear yard of the
house at 802 Burnett Avenue and referred the request back to staff or the applicant for
additional information.
On September 15, 2022, staff met with the applicant and presented a letter to the
applicant explaining next steps (see Attachment C.). One of the options described to the
applicant, was to appeal the decision of the Planning Director. The item tonight before the
Zoning Board of Adjustment is that appeal.
BASIS OF DEPARTMENT DECISION:
The City of Ames Zoning Ordinance applies setback and other development
regulations to all structures. Structures include the full array of elements and
features associated with its construction, projections and exceptions are
specifically called out when applicable.
The Ordinance also allows for exceptions to setbacks for certain features. In this
situation, staff determined that a proposed structure was classified in its entirety
as a fence, and that as a fence it does not meet the allowable fence height for being
in a rear yard setback.
Additionally, as discussed with the appellant's appeal, if the structure is
determined to not be a fence and is a "landscape accent" it is still subject to fence
limitations due to the design and configuration of the structure.
The relevant definitions and Zoning Ordinance sections are identified below.
Sec. 29.201 DEFINITIONS.
(223) Structure means anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires, directly or
indirectly, a permanent location on the land.
2
The Zoning Ordinance considers essentially all constructed improvements above ground
to be structures, this includes parking areas, buildings, fences, etc. Staff has determined
that the proposed object with a permanent location on the ground qualifies as a
"Structure," defined in Section 29.201(223). The structure varies in height between six
feet and twelve plus feet and acts as a barrier along the property line and is intended to
enclose the rear yard. (see Attachment D, Applicant's 3-D Renderings of the Proposed
Project and Attachment E, Applicant's Description).
(74) Fence means an unroofed barrier or unroofed enclosing structure, including retaining
walls.
Staff finds that the structure is a barrier enclosing an area. The structure is proposed to
be located one foot from the rear property line, defining the property boundary and
enclosing the patio space on one side.
All individual components of the structure together comprise the structure. The extended
features are to be built into the brick wall. The appellant has indicated that the intent of
the extended features is to create a sense of place. As currently designed, the extended
piers, posts, and arms are integral to the proposed structure, both visually and structurally
in creating a boundary.
The entire structure, along with the extended features, define the property edge and
create enclosure, meeting the definition of a "fence".
Setbacks
The Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to meet setbacks based upon the applicable
standard for the zoning district and type of structure. The Ordinance does provide for
certain specific projections into the setbacks as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. At issue
in this appeal is Section 29.402(2) which gives a list of permissible projections: minor
projections, architectural projections, and full projections.
Section 29.402(2)(c) lists full projections allowed into the setbacks. Staff highlight the area
of contention below.
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS.
(1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below, all buildings and structures,
Principal and Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum
Building Setbacks established for Principal and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone
Development Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards Table, condition, or
other regulation applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site.
(2) Extensions into Required Building Setbacks. Certain building elements and site features
are allowed to be located within or project into required setbacks.
3
(c) Full projections allowed. In addition to the minor projections listed in the previous
section, the following features are allowed to fully project into required setbacks:
(viii) Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors with a coverage
area no greater than 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in
height, and constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished grade, and
similar incidental landscape accents. The design and location of accent features
shall not have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet_fence
standards.
(xi) Fences as allowed in Section 29.408(2);
(xii) Planter boxes/walls at allowable fence heights;
The Appellant has requested that the extended piers, posts, and arms be classified as
"landscape features," (landscape accents). However, as currently designed, the fence is
one structure, comprised of components that visually and structurally form the fence. For
the extended features to be considered landscape accents, they would have to be
disconnected from the other components of the fence as a separate and detached
structure. Staff has conveyed this to the appellant (see Attachment C, Correspondence
from the City).
See. 29.408. OTHER GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
See. 29.408(2) Fences.
(2) Fences.
(a) Applicability. These standards apply to all zoning districts except General
Industrial (GI), Research and Innovation (RI) and Planned Industrial (PI).
(b) Types of Fences. These standards apply to walls, fences, and screens of all types
whether open, solid, wood, metal, wire, masonry, earthen, or other material.
(c) Location and Height.
(ii) Height in Side and Rear Setbacks. The maximum height for fences in side or
rear setbacks is six (6) feet, except as further limited by this section in setbacks
abutting street rights-of-way.
The proposed fence varies in height from three feet to greater than twelve feet and does
not meet the maximum height of six feet. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the
Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment uphold the
decision of the Planning Director that the classification of the proposed structure as a
"fence" is correct, and therefore, the height of the proposed structure must therefore meet
the height restrictions of a "fence" as outlined in Section 29.408.
BASIS FOR APPEAL OF DECISION:
The appellant's ability to appeal a decision of the Planning Director is given in Chapter
29.1403(8)(a) as an aggrieved party. In this case, the appellant believes the Planning
Director has incorrectly interpreted the Zoning Ordinance by determining the proposed
4
structure to be a "fence," regulated in Section 29.408(2).
The appellant is appealing the interpretation by the Planning Director classifying a
proposed structure in its entirety as a fence (see Attachment B, Supporting Information
for the Appeal from the Appellant).
The appellant asserts that the tall parts (extended piers, posts, and arms) of the structure:
• are not part of the fence
• should be classified as "landscape features" (landscape accents).
He states, although "they touch walls", "they do not include 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."
However, the appellant also states, "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."
The appellant's full appeal is included as part of the record for this item.
DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to consider an appeal of an administrative
decision per 414.12 of the Code of Iowa to determine if there was an error. The appeal
process is not an exception or variance process, it is an interpretation of zoning
standards that apply uniformly across the City. The Board must determine there was
an error in the interpretation of the Planning Director that the entire structure including the
extended piers, posts, and arms proposed at 802 Burnett Avenue is a "fence" per Section
30.2(30). At issue is not the appropriateness or adequacy of the standards, only if
staff made an incorrect interpretation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Planning Director correctly
interpreted the Ames Municipal Code that the proposed structure at 802 Burnett
Avenue in its entity is a fence and that the fence exceeds the maximum height
allowed for a fence in the rear yard.
2, The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Planning Director incorrectly
determined that the proposed structure at 802 Burnett Avenue in its entity is a fence.
With the Board's determination of the appropriate zoning standard, staff would then
apply it to this property and others in the City.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can table this appeal and request additional
information from City staff or the appellant.
5
STAFF COMMENTS:
The appellant asserts that the extended features are a landscape feature (or accent)
under Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(viii) and that the purpose of the structure is to create a sense of
place. Staff does not believe the purpose of the design supersedes its actual physical
characteristics.
As it is currently designed, the extended piers, posts, and arms are integral to the
proposed structure, both visually and structurally. All of the components of the structure
together comprise the enclosure or "fence". The entire structure, along with the extended
features, help define the property edge and create enclosure, meeting the definition of a
fence. There is no precedent to exclude parts of a structure from the interpretation
of the standards that apply to the overall structure unless expressly authorized by
the Zoning Ordinance, for example, eaves may encroach partially into setbacks as
stated in the code, they are not excluded from being part of the structure in order
to allow for them to not meet a setback standard.
For the extended features to be classified as a landscape accent (Section 29,402) they
would need to be redesigned, as a separate, structurally sound, detached structure and
not serve as an enclosure or boundary.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning Director that the Zoning Board
of Adjustment approve Alternative #3, which is to find that the Planning Director
correctly interpreted the Ames Municipal Code that the proposed structure at 802
Burnett Avenue is a fence and subject to the maximum fence height standards.
6
�' 1 tpw 1Y` 1 •�� •`•
f
'` 'x�� .,fir-• '��-`'� r�
Ail
l- '� lei -•ee{:i7 FN [ �/'�� +7
Wed _
s.• �� tti_.F9P} is :'• .'a -Fh.-k«p [ ^n �eht`. - -
.�I t. � � •• i- ._r?►.�' ;rRc .Ai+
�a. f
'1
'�r�- i.a` - .>•r ...;error �+F
k .
( r
[1T —
till
lilt �•� ��
Attachment B
Supporting Information for Appeal from Appellant
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 1 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.
1 request that you classify them in this light.
8
Attachment C
Correspondence from the City
CITY OF
Ames-
Sm,nr Cbuire
September 15,2022
Angie&Dan Kolx
802 Burnett Avenue
Antes,[A 50010
RE: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness—802 Burnett Avenue, Ames, TA, Case
File COA-001486
Dear Angie&Dan:
On July 11,2022,file City of Ames Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with Ames
Nlurnlcipnl Code Section 3 1.1 I,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.
i 17te Historic Preservation Commission referred your request back to tine City staff and/or the
applicant for additional infornnation,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 arc
located within 12"of the property line,striff has classified the entire structure as"fence".And,
since the fence includes components Ilnat 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.llte extended features could
tither 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,
Oise
Saif
trom
Planner
Cc: Kelly Diekntann,Director of Planning&Housing
i Planning and Housing Department 515.239.6490 .,d. 6/s Clark Ave.P.O,B=n111
515.239.6404 f- Ames,W 69910
vmw.ClryotAmes.w0 i
9
Applicant's 3-D Renderings of the Proposed Project
Attachment D
_�{;,,� ,,i _ Ip,• - �� .�^ � `,..,ter ��h �..�.
i
4;YSketchU•
� .
Attachment E
Appellant's Description
(from the Certificate of Appropriateness Application)
Contact Dan Kolz(507) 398-5648 dpkolz@RmaII.corn
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:
o Bricks salvaged while demolishing the original 1910-porch will be the primary material
of construction for the brick wall and grill.
o 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.
o The trellis piers will be constructed of the same materials as the porch's brick piers.
o Patio laid on ground surface will be natural stone.
a Dimensions of proposed alterations and new construction:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
11
Attachment E
Appellant's Description, continued
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,
r• � �
zc
i. i.Q ' i - r._t"t' ..__ ;�P wnl fyP„-� 1'>;•�G�df Y,� '�,
& •.� s � 1 it�` C 1f G ®� ` '
�A�S ���i_rrti �/�-••w» ti2�+�'"�i�rsa tk �, r i � �4� ;tl � t� ,, �# ��ti o Sy`T�
M s ���8 �t� �}sYr •A ��� \dt.{���-L r t •
s-7,d. �Y ►1� � •' ,,. ��, } •�-��°r'+�.. r r r � t�-r^ r h � .y''g✓ ��-Je }»� _J
t'tt�Ci +/- �•r rf �4a r.Y'n�r� +! t �'.'7,`7 ' + 'r '�`',
J� .r
Jr
Y'���# 7�Y,''+. � •' �r4 .jr
,cF'Ci�'`�*= __
; {
4 +1 ; J +r
/;`r'� Ulm
J4J1 ,.y
fvt �Y.�*`"+� �S► r,' ltt
Figure 1 Photo of exlsting conditions-southeast view
12