Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 06/09/2021 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JUNE 9, 2021 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. on June 9, 2021, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Chad Schneider, Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers, and Leila Ammar. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Victoria Feilmeyer and City Planner Benjamin Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Bowers, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 26, 2021. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 21-07 An appeal of a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer for 202 E. Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa City Planner Benjamin Campbell stated the property owner requested a Minor Site Development Plan for a food truck park at 202 E. Lincoln Way. The northern portion of the lot will have room for several food trucks with seating; the southern part of the lot will be car parking. The applicant proposed several features within the first 20 feet of the property along both E. Lincoln Way and Sumner Avenue, known as the front setback, as part of the Site Plan review of the project. During the review process, Staff determined that the vertical elements at the north end of the property along E. Lincoln Way were structures subject to setback regulations and did not qualify for a full setback projection as defined in Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(viii). The Site Plan does include planter boxes less than 4 feet in height that project into the setback as allowed by Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(xii). The Site Plan was approved on May 7, 2021 with certain allowed projections, but without the vertical elements. If you drive by today, you will notice construction has started. The appellant has submitted revisions to the minor site plan including the visual elements so that is the reason for the appeal. The issue is not the allowance of the food truck park, and not the site plan; they are approved. The issue is the vertical elements or structures qualify to fully project into the minimum front setbacks – that is the question. The relevant section of Code states: 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. 2 The key phrase is the “similar incidental landscape accents”. In staffs review, it was determined that the planter boxes and vertical elements are structures and thereby subject to minimum setbacks, Staff also determined that the proposed vertical structures are not: - An arbor - A fountain or statue - A pond or waterfall Further, staff could not identify a way in which the proposed vertical structures are a ‘landscape accent.’ While the code does not define a ‘landscape accent,’ it does define ‘landscape:’ Sec. 29.201 DEFINITIONS. (110) Landscape, Landscaped, Landscaping means the improvement of a lot, parcel, or tract of land with grass, shrubs, trees, flowers, and/or groundcovers. Landscaping may include incidental ornamental features such as fountains, statuary, boulders, sculptures, pedestrian paths, and other similar natural and artificial objects or improvements only when they are completely surrounded by adjacent plant material. Staff could not identify how the vertical structures qualify as a fountain, statue, boulder, or sculpture. In addition to not finding an appropriate classification for the vertical elements, staff did find that the vertical structures have “the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet fence standards,” which Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(viii) prohibits. City Planner Campbell stated the Code regulates fences and walls the same. The way these elements are lined up, they have the effect of enclosing the space around the park. The appellant asserted that the vertical structures should qualify as landscape accents under Section 29.402(2)(c)(viii) and that the purpose of the vertical structures is to form a fabric screen “to provide shade and… visual appeal.” The appellant also stated that, while the vertical elements are not flagpoles, they are like flagpoles, which are permitted to project into the setbacks under Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(xv). Furthermore, the appellant believes that setbacks should not apply to anything that is not a building. The closest comparison staff could find is canopies; they provide shade. This section of Code for full projection was revised in December 2020, and at that time, they specifically removed an allowance for canopies and instead allowed for covered walkways leading to a door. Canopy is a vague term, if staff defines canopy in their Code, it then conflicts with what the Building Code states. They specifically removed canopy from the Code and added the sentence “prohibiting anything that has the creation or effect of fencing in a space.” The appellant in his appeal stated he feels the vertical structures are like flag poles. The Code is very specific about what it allows to project into the setbacks; it is explicit in stating these things are allowed: flagpoles, mailboxes, little libraries, cluster box units and lamp poles. The Code does not allow for items “like” a flagpole or “like” the other items listed. The only space for interpretation is the section in question about incidental landscape accents. With regard to these elements being structures. The Code does define a structure as anything that occupies the physical space on the ground. We recognize it is not a building, but it is a structure as defined by Code, and therefore subject to all building setbacks. 3 Board Chair Schoeneman asked if there were any questions for staff. Board Member Schneider asked for clarification on the planter box and the vertical element. City Planner Campbell said for the planter box to qualify for setback, it cannot be taller than four feet. With the vertical element, it is taller than four feet and does not qualify. Staff approved the planter box, but did not approve the vertical elements. The issue is the canopies. There was discussion around fence height, landscaping and the planter boxes. The question is if there are the projections going up above “incidental.” Board Member Bowers stated that landscape accents include but are not limited to arbors. He stated staff is interpreting Code much stricter than how it is written. Andrew Tulp, 2753 Cleveland Drive, representing Community Choice Credit Union, was sworn in. Mr. Tulp explained the history of the inception of the food truck park. The property is owned by Community Choice Credit Union. The park would not only advertise for Community Choice Credit Union, but also would add value to the City. The food truck park would be located on Lincoln Way where traffic is fast. The park is needed to stand out to catch people’s attention and to be visible from the street. He believed the vertical elements would be something like a flagpole and with the lighting elements would draw attention to the park. Mr. Schappaugh asked applicant if the vertical elements would be considered temporary. Would they be there all year round. Mr. Tulp answered the vertical elements are bolted down and they plan to be there year-round. Mr. Tulp stated the vertical elements are not considered shade elements, but more of a landscape accent. Chair Schoeneman asked if Mr. Tulp if they had considered alternatives like making parking spaces less long, moving things in ten feet or diagonal parking. Technically parking is not needed, but for practical purposes, it is needed. Discussion incurred around alternatives to placing planter boxes in the setback. Board Chair Schoeneman opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and the hearing was closed. Board Member Ammar asked staff, whether removing the canvas on the vertical element and attaching a piece of cloth that did not attach to next pole would that be considered a flag and then allowable. Mr. Campbell said flagpoles are allowed because Code allows for flagpoles to float into projection. Mr. Schappaugh asked what would be the simplest thing the owner could do to bring this into compliance. Mr. Campbell said to remove them or move them back from the setbacks. Mr. Schneider asked what the rules are regarding signage in the setback area. Mr. Campbell did not have the sign code with him. The appellant did meet all parking requirements. Mr. Bowers took issue with staff’s narrow interpretation of the Code. He stated that the City needed to celebrate things being done to draw people to the City of Ames, not put-up obstacles. Mr. Schappaugh also stated it could be considered like an arbor as well. Board Member Ammar agreed that the City should celebrate new things if they conform to Code. She stated this is not a fence; the vertical element is placed inside the planter as a feature so that makes it a landscape accent. Chair Schoeneman said identify what this is and what exception it would fall under. Ms. Ammar stated we can state that it is a landscape accent that include but are not limited too. We 4 can state it’s a landscape accent. It is up to us to define “landscape accent”. Mr. Schneider stated we have to determine if it is similar to items mentioned in vii. Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Ammar, to approve Alternative 2: The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Planning Director incorrectly determined that the proposed vertical elements do not qualify to project into the required minimum setbacks. Chair Schoeneman stated for the record, the Board has found that the language including landscape accents provides enough leeway to allow these vertical elements; and further the definition of landscape and landscaping was reviewed, and the Board found similar “may” language where landscaping may include incidental ornamental features surrounded by adjacent plant materials, which the planter boxes may apply. This interpretation is only for this landscaping accent at 202 E Lincoln Way. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. City Planner Campbell stated he was fine with the geographical location identified. Mr. Bowers asked Assistant City Attorney Feilmeyer if another applicant wanted to do something similar based on this motion would they have to come before the Board. Ms. Feilmeyer stated similar does not mean the same thing as same so yes, they may have to come before the Board. Assistant City Attorney Feilmeyer stated the Board has provided an interpretation of part of the Code. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schneider, seconded by Ammar, to adjourn the meeting at 6:51 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Renee Hall, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair