Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2004 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, December 8,2004 - 5:00 PM EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the November 10, 2004 Board Minutes D. Special Exceptions: 1. EXC04-00022 Reconsideration of an application submitted by Verizon Wireless for a special exception to permit installation of a telecommunications tower site for property located in the Interim Development Single-Family Residential (1_ DRS) zone at 637 Foster Road. 2. EXC04-00027 Discussion of an application submitted by First Presbyterian Church for a special exception to permit a 60' by 80' paved expansion of their current parking lot for the property in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue. E. Appeal: APL04-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by Wesley Foundation for an appeal of a decision of the Building Official that an auto and truck oriented use has lost its non-conforming status for property located in the Central Business Support (CB-5) zone at 130 N. Dubuque Street. F. Other: G. Board of Adjustment Information H. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - DECEMBER 8, 2004 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 10, 2004 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - IOWA CITY, CITY HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Keitel, Karen Leigh, Michael Wright. MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Alexander, Vincent Maurer STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: O'Donell Sara CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Keitel called the meeting to order at 5:02 CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 13. 2004 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes from October 13, 2004. Keitel seconded the motion. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC04-00025 Discussion of an application submitted by Gary Schooley for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 12 feet for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1817 Grantwood Drive. Yapp stated that the property is located at the corner of Grantwood Drive and the right-of-way of an un- named street. He said that when Mt. Prospect subdivision was originally platted the right-of-way was planned to extend to the south. However, when the Safety Village was established, the street configuration was redesigned and this right-of-way became a driveway to Safety Village. The area to the south was not developed with residential lots as originally conceived. Yapp said that because the area remains as street right-of-way, a 20-foot front yard set back is required on both Grantwood Drive and the un-named right-of-way. He added that the applicant would like to construct an 18-foot wide addition to the east side of the house. He said there is an existing accessory building, a storage shed, located in the required front yard adjacent to the un-named street right-of-way. If this special exception is approved staff recommends that it also apply to the accessory building. Yapp said that this is a peculiar situation. He said that the zoning ordinance requires a 20-foot set back from streets in the RS-5 zone to assure that homes have a minimum front yard for open space landscaping and stacking space in front of parking areas. In this case, however, the right-of-way functions as low-volume driveway, not a street that circulates traffic. Yapp said reducing the setback requirement from the unnamed street right-of-way would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, and it would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. He said that the property has adequate utilities and services. Yapp stated that Staff recommends that EXC04-00025 an application for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 12 feet to allow the construction of an addition, and the location of an accessory building for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1817 Grantwood Drive, be approved. Public Hearinq Opened NONE Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Wright moved for the approval of EXC04-00025 an application submitted by Gary Schooley for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 12 feet to allow Iowa City Bo~rd of Adjustment Minutes November 10, 2004 Page 2 the construction of an addition, and the location of an accessory building for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1817 Grantwood Drive, be approved. Leigh seconded the motion. Keitel asked if there is any chance that the street will ever be vacated as a public right-of-way. Yapp answered that the staff believes that it will not be vacated because the City wants to keep it as a right-of- way due to the utilities that utilize it. Keitel said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that there would be no infringement of other properties due this addition. Wright said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that this definitely meets the definition of a peculiar situation. He agrees that it meets the specific and general standards for a special exception. He said that it would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not affect property values in the neighborhood. Leigh said she would vote in favor of the application. The reduction of the setback in this case where the street is more like a driveway is a unique situation. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0. EXC04-00026 Discussion of an application submitted by Merle Miller for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow a parking space in the front yard for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1401 Ridge Street. Yapp said that the property is located at the corner of Highland Avenue and Ridge Street. He said that it is a narrow, substandard lot. He said that the property measures 5150 square feet, and is therefore substandard in the overall area for a RS-5 zone. Yapp added that the fact that the property is located on a corner complicates the size problem because there are two front yards, both which require 20-foot setbacks. Yapp said that the applicant would like to relocate the driveway and off street parking space from the Highland Avenue side of the property to the Ridge Street side of the property. He stated that the zoning ordinance does not allow a parking space to be located in a front yard in a residential zone unless it is a stacking space that is located in an aisle or driveway leading to a garage or parking space located outside of the front yard. Yapp said that there is a maple tree located on this lot which would have to be removed if a parking space was to be installed 20 feet back from Ridge Street property line so that it is located outside of the front yard. However, he said, the applicant is requesting a reduction of the front yard to allow the installation of one parking space within the first 20 feet of the lot. Yapp said that approval will allow for the location of a driveway and parking space on the less traveled of the two streets which provide access to this property, on a flatter portion of the lot and will allow a mature tree to remain in place. Staff recommends that EXC04-00026, an application submitted for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow thè installation of a driveway and one parking space for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1401 Ridge Street, be approved, subject to general conformance with the site plan submitted with the application. Wright asked if there is an intent to vacate the old driveway. Yapp answered that he believes so, but that the applicant would be able to clarify that. Keitel asked if there is enough room to construct a garage in the future. Yapp said there is 10 feet between the house and the south property line, therefore there is not enough room to construct even a one-car garage. O'Donnell, 2010 Keokuk Street, said that the maple tree would have to be removed in order to put a garage in there. Public Hearinq Opened Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 10, 2004 Page 3 O'Donell said that they had the goal of cleaning up the property. She mentioned that they spent a lot of time remodeling the interior, and when they got to the exterior, they found out that they need to comply with City requirements. She stated that she had a chance to discuss with the neighbors and they support the changes that they plan to do. O'Donell said that they plan to vacate the old driveway. She added that the pavement is removed already, and next spring they plan to seed it. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Leigh moved for the approval of EXC04-00026. an application submitted for a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow the installation of a driveway and one parking space for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1401 Ridge Street, subject to general conformance with the site plan submitted with the application. Wright seconded the motion. Wright said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that he visited the property and felt there is a practical difficulty in the way the lot is situated. Wright mentioned that it would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Leigh said that she would vote in favor. She said that the new parking site is an improvement compared to the previous one. Keitel would also vote in favor for the reasons previously mentioned. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0. APL04-00004 The applicant asked to defer the matter for the next Board of Adjustment meeting. MOTION: Leigh moved to defer. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0. OTHER Request from Verizon Wireless to reconsider the October 13, 2004 vote regarding the EXC04-00022, a request to locate a telecommunications tower in the Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone at 637 Foster Road. Yapp said the applicant has provided new information that the tower will not need to be lighted or marked. MOTION: Leigh moved to reconsider, at the December 8,2004 meeting, the request from Verizon Wireless to locate a telecommunications tower in the Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone at 637 Foster Road. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION NONE ADJOURNMENT Leigh moved to adjourn; Wright seconded. The meeting adjourned at 5:24 PM. Board Chairperson Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus s:/pcd/minuteslboaI2004/boa11-1 0-04 .doc .... ="'CI ~ """ ! 8 ~~ =6'~"'I:t' <~g ..~M Q"'CI "'CI = """ ~ ~t ~< QO 0 ....... M .-I 0 t:e t:e .-I ~ ~ ~ ....... .-I 0 0 .-I ('t'¡ .-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... 0 .-I QO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ....... 0\ 0 .-I .-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --- QO 0 ..,. .-I ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ t:: 0 0\ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-I --- If'¡ 0 ..,. t:e .-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... ..,. 0 0 0 .-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ 0 .-I ..... ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ....... M 0 ..,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-I ....... .-I 0 tn 00 o.n r--- 1,0 0\ 5 .~ S2 S2 S2 0 S2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0 S2 S2 S2 S2 ¡.... ~ ....... ~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0 0 0 0 0 ¡" .... ~ -= - ¡" ~ ~ -= = .... !c ~ ¡" ¡" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'CI ,.,;¡ .... - == ~ == ~ ~ - ~ ... == ~ ~ Q ~ == ~ CJ -= ¡" ~ == ¡" == CJ ð< ~ ~ > ~ z ~ ~ "c; Q) I-< tn Q) ;:j OJ)..o ~ .S 8 ~ 'Q) Q) EE~~~ Q) Q) Q) ,¿¡ t1:! á'3 CI) tn 0 ...... ~«Z~ II II II II II ~ ~ ~ : ~Þ<OOZ: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 1, 2004 To: Board of Adjustment From: John Yapp, Associate Planner 7 ~r ~ Re: EXC04-00022 637 Foster Road Attached are materials forwarded to us from Selective Sites Consultants, who are acting on behalf of Verizon Wireless. At your October 13 meeting, the Board failed to approve a special exception for a telecommunications tower at 637 Foster Road. Since that meeting, the applicant has obtained new information, specially a determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), that the proposed tower will not need to be lighted or marked. The applicant has also offered, in the attached letter, to reduce the height of the tower. At your November 10 meeting, the Board agreed to reconsider the application for a special exception to permit a telecommunications tower at 637 Foster Road (Elks Club property). The initial special exception application and materials are enclosed in your December Board information packets. Staff has sent notification letters to all property owners within 300 feet regarding the reconsideration of this item. Your decision regarding the telecommunications tower, should you conclude to approve this request, should specify the height of the tower you are approving, and that the proposed tower will not have lights or markings. At the request of the applicant, I have also attached an e-mail regarding the feasibility of moving the communications north toward Interstate-80; this question was raised during the October 13 Board of Adjustment meeting. Staff from Selective Site Consultants will be available at the December 8 Board of Adjustment meeting to answer additional questions. Page 1 of2 John Yapp From: Trevor Wood [Trevor.Wood@selectivesite.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1 :34 PM To: John-yapp@iowa-city.org Cc: Trevor Wood; Velton Viles Subject: FW: lAC-Underdog/Zoning Dear Mr. Yapp: I spoke with you the other day regarding this project and advised that I might get you some additional information responsive to one of the other adjoining property owner complaints, which is that Verizon's proposed communication tower site should be moved closer to the Interstate. Attached is an e-mail from Verizon's RF engineer in regard to whether this could be accomplished, along with a map showing where current Verizon sites in and within the vicinity of Iowa City are located. As shown on the map and stated by Mr. Pufahl below, Verizon already has a site at the NE corner of 1-80 and First Street, less than one mile from the proposed site. It has another site along 1-80 about two miles to the East. Moving the site further North does not further Verizon's network objectives as the call traffic problem Verizon has is predominantly to the South. Please give me a call with questions at (913)438-7700. I'll touch base with you early next week so that we can discuss any new issues that may arise. Thanks, Trevor Wood From: Brice. Pufahl@VerizonWireless.com [mailto: Brice. Pufahl@VerizonWireless.com] sent: Tuesday, November 09,20041:42 PM To: Trevor Wood; Cheri Hardee; edwa4an@GL.Verizonwireless.com Cc: Nancy.Fulks@VerizonWireless.com; Velton Viles Subject: RE: lAC-Underdog/Zoning Trevor, Moving the site closer to the interstate isn't an option. Since this is a capacity site, not a coverage site - I'm not sure that coverage plots will necessarily help our case. I would argue the need for the site at this particular location as follows: Background We serve the U of I campus with multiple sectors from 3 sites surrounding the campus. 2 of these sites are near 1-80 and 1 site is located downtown. Our coverage on the campus is already good. However, cell sites have limited capacity and can only handle a maximum number of calls. When a site has reached its maximum call limit, it will begin to deny access to the system. These are referred to as ineffective attempts (IAs). All 3 of our sites serving the U of I campus are maxed out on the number of calls they can handle and we are currently seeing increased IAs as a result. Justification The Underdog site is designed to provide capacity relief to the 3 sites currently serving the campus. By shifting some of the campus and downtown traffic to the Underdog site, we're able to shed a significant amount of traffic from the 3 existing sites. This will decrease IAs and allow for more efficient use of spectrum. In order for the Underdog site to accomplish this, it must a) cover a high traffic density area, and b) be spaced far enough from our existing sites to allow for minimal coverage overlap. The number locations that meet both of these criteria is 12/1/2004 Page 2 of2 minimal, with the proposed location perhaps being the only viable option. Can the site be moved North, towards 1-80? No, this would place the site too near our existing sites as well as reduce the amount of coverage the Underdog site has on campus. It must be the dominant server on campus for it to "soak up" the traffic. It's already further North than I was originally comfortable with. Attached is a map showing our existing sites along with the proposed location for Underdog. This may help in showing that to move further North would place the proposed tower "in the lap" of our existing towers (Quarry and Scott). Let me know if you need anything further from me. Thanks, Brice Pufahl RF Design Engineer Verizon Wireless 9725 Pflumm Rd Lenexa. KS 66215 office: 913.696.5973 mobile: 913.522.0010 fax: 913.696.5999 *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 12/1/2004 ~ .,~ ~~ ~ ~ ""'" ~4 , SELECTIVE SITE CONSULTANTS, INC. A Site Acquisition, Engineering, and Construction Quality Assurance Company November 1,2004 VIA FACSIMILE ((319) Mr. Robert Miklo Senior Planner City of Iowa City Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: EXC04-00022 - Special Exception Application for communication tower at 637 Foster Road, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Dear Mr. Miklo: I am writing in follow-up to our meeting on Thursday morning, October 14, in regard to the above application, which received a 2-2 vote by the Iowa City Board of Adjustment on the evening of October 13,2004. In our meeting, you indicated that the Board might be willing to reconsider its vote if new evidence was submitted indicating that no lighting scheme would be required on the tower. Verizon Wireless has retained an airspace consultant, and the consultant has determined that no lighting or marking will be required. The consultant's findings are attached to this letter for your review and were provided to John Yapp last week bye-mail. The consultant's findings are based upon a tower height of 140', which represents a revised tower height of 130' (down from ISO') and a 10' lightning rod. The revised height accommodates Verizon Wireless' RF engineering needs and will continue to allow collocation by two additional carriers at 120' and 110' (or lower) antenna centerlines. We have modified the tower's height in order to further reduce the visual impact of the tower on the properties to the South in the hope that this will provide further justification for the Board to reconsider the matter, since the main objection appears to have been the visual appearance of the tower. With the submission of this letter, we request that the Board reconsider its decision of October 13,2004. You also advised that the Board's final decision would be issued in writing pursuant to Section 14-6W-3 of the City of Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. It is my understanding that you were going to speak with Sarah Holecek, the Assistant City Attorney, regarding the timeframe for issuance of the written decision, which will trigger the time in which Verizon Wireless can appeal the Board's decision to the appropriate court. If you could advise us of how the City intends to proceed with issuance of the decision, I would appreciate it. Trevor Wood November I, 2004 Page 2 Cc: Nancy Fulks, Verizon Wireless Andrew G. Edwards, Verizon Wireless Velton Viles, Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Cheri Hardee, Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Sarah Holocek, Assistant City Attorney John Yapp, Associate Planner Sincerely, -:f~W~ J. Trevor Wood Federal Airways & Airspace 1423 South Patrick Drive Satellite Beach, FL 32937-1026 Phone: 321-777-1266 Fax: 321-777-8595 e-mail to:Airspace@AirspaceUSA.com October 15, 2004 Ref: 2004-FAA-262-CN Selective Sites Attn: Cheri Hardee 8500 W 11 Oth St, Suite 300 Overland Park, KS 66210 Proposal: Antenna Tower Lat: N41 ° -40'-43.66" Lon: W91°-32'-52.86" Height: 140 ft AGL 878 ft AMSL Subject: Airspace Analysis: 2004-FAA-0170-0E Site Name: UnderDog Dear Ms. Hardee, We have completed our analysis of your proposed communications tower. The subject tower exceeds FAR Part 77.13 Notice Criteria and will require notification to the FAA. Our analysis did not discover any mitigating aviation factors that will prevent construction at the requested height. The proposed structure is located within the Conical Surface, FAR 77.25(b), for Iowa City Municipal (lOW). The height of the conical surface for lOW at the specified location is 940 feet AMSL. The proposed height is 62 feet below this surface. Any height exceeding the conical surface will receive a "Presumed Hazard" from the FAA. However, the maximum height the FAA is likely to permit at the requested location is 1113 feet AMSL. This is based upon the specified 250 feet per nautical mile departure climb gradient for Runway 36. MarkinQ and lightinQ are not reauired at the proposed heiaht. The controlling obstacle (trees) for this area only permit a clear 24: 1 slope to Runway 18. The proposed structure is below the controlling obstacle slope by 374 feet. The proposed site is located 1,002 meters from AM radio station KXIC. Proof-of- Performance study is required. If you have any questions, please call; (321) 777-1266. n, Aerospace Engineer 1mj/ enclosure 1423 S. Patrick Drive, Satellite Beach, FL 32937; Phone: 32]-777-1266; Fax 32]-777-8595; E-mail: Airspace@AirspaceUSA.com ******************************************** * Federal Airways & Airspace * * Summary Report * ******************************************** File: UNDERDOG Location: Iowa City, IA Distance: 1.6 Statute Miles Direction: 154° (true bearing) Latitude: 41°-40'-43.66" Longitude: 091°-32'-52.86" SITE ELEVATION AMSL......738 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT.........140 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL... ...878 ft. NOTICE CRITERIA FAR 77.13 (a) (1): NNR (DNE 200 ft AGL) FAR 77.13 (a) (2): NR (Exceeds Runway Slope, Maximum: 780 ft.) FAR 77.13(a) (3): NNR (Not a Traverse Way) FAR 77.13(a) (4): PNR (Circling Approach Area) FAR 77.13(a) (4): PNR (Straight-In Procedure. Possible TERPS® impact. lOW) FAR 77.13(a) (4): NNR (No Expected TERPS® impact CID) FAR 77.13 (a) (5): NNR (Off Airport Construction) NR Notice Required NNR Notice Not Required PNR Possible Notice Required OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS FAR 77.23 (a) (1): DNE 500 ft AGL FAR 77.23 (a) (2): ONE - Airport Surface FAR 77.25(a): DNE - Horizontal Surface FAR 77.25(b): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.25(c): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.25(d): DNE - Transitional Surface FAR 77.25(e): DNE - Primary Surface VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: lOW: IOWA CITY MUNI Type: AIR RD: 12649 RB: 178.24 RE: 654 FAR 77.23 (a) (1): ONE FAR 77.23 (a) (2) : DNE - Height Less Than 200 feet AGL. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE The structure is within VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Structures exceeding the greater of 350' AGL, 77.23(a) (2), or VFR horizontal and conical surfaces will receive a hazard determination from the FAA. Maximum AMSL of Climb/Descent Area is 1018 feet. VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: CID: THE EASTERN IOWA Type: AIR RD: 83782 RB: 329.45 RE: 847 FAR 77.23 (a) (1) : DNE FAR 77.23 (a) (2): DNE - Greater Than 6 NM. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) FAR 77.23(a) (4) MOCA Altitude Enroute Criteria The Maximum Height Permitted is 2691ft AMSL PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES FACIL IDENT TYP NAME ----------------------------- BEARING DISTANCE DELTA ARP To FACIL IN N.M. ELEVATION -------- -------- --------- 253.89 2.441 +88 IA92 HEL UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS & No Impact to Private Landing Facility Structure is beyond notice limit by 9832 feet. IA16 AIR PICAYUNE No Impact to Private Landing Facility. DNE 200 ft AGL within 3 NM of Airport. 50.49 2.787 +78 AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES No Electronic Facilities Are Within 25,000 ft FCC AM PROOF-OF-PERFORMANCE REQUIRED: Structure is near a FCC licensed AM radio station Proof-of-Performance is required. Please review AM Station Report for details. Nearest AM Station: KXIC @ 1002 meters. Airspace® Summary Version 10.0.28 AIRSPACE® and TERPS® are registered ® trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace® Copyright © 1989 - 2004 10-14-2004 16:28:23 '<t o o N Ù') ...... ð ...... Qj 1ií CI ~ (!) o o a:: w o z ::> cð w a:: ::> ~ a:: « a. w o CD C") ~ a:: z ::> ~ ~ () ~ º ~ º ~ <i:: ¡¡¡ c:: o ïii UI ~ .. 0.. t .. CD I- ~ . ~ ~ ~ " .. g, f ;;¡: oð ~ ~ ;;¡: f! " ." " IL To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC04-00022 637 Foster Road GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Tower Site Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Code Requirements: File Date: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Yapp Date: October 13, 2004 Verizon Wireless C/o Selective Site Consultants 10740 Nail Avenue, Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66211 Phone: 913-344-2800 Velton Viles 8500 W. 11 Oth Street, Suite 300 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: 913-438-7700 Benevolent Protective Order of Elks Lodge #590 637 Foster Road Iowa City, IA 52245 Approval of a special exception to allow a communication tower in the Interim Development Residential (lD-RS) zone To allow a communication tower on the Elks Club property 637 Foster Road Approximately 0.1 acre Private Golf Course, ID-RS North: South: East: West: Private Golf Course, ID-RS Private Golf Course, ID-RS Private Golf Course, ID-RS Private Golf Course, ID-RS The North District Plan identifies the property as public/private open space 14-6C-4A, Communication Towers in the ID zone; 14-6W-2B, special exception review standards September 15, 2004 2 Backoround Information: Selective Site Consultants, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, has applied for a special exception for a communication tower on the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks ("Elks Club") property at 637 Foster Road. The proposal is for a 150-foot tall monopole style tower, with an antenna array mounted at 130 feet. The additional height of the tower above the antenna array is to accommodate co-location of other communication providers. Communication towers are permitted by special exception in the Interim Development, ID zones. Analvsis: The purpose of the zoning chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare; to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the chapter to permit the full enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent properties. The Board of Adjustment may grant relief from the requirements of the zoning chapter through special exceptions if the action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the zoning chapter. Specific Standards: 14-6c-4A, Communication Towers in the ID-RS zone Communication towers and satellite receiving devices are permitted by special exception in the ID-RS zone, provided the distance of the tower or receiving device from the property line is equal to or greater than its height above grade. No other standards are given for communication towers in the ID zone. The proposed tower appears to easily meet the setback standard. The tower is proposed to be located behind (east of) the storage garages for golf carts on the Elks Club property at 637 Foster Road, approximately 400' from the Foster Road right-of-way and 1,500' from the Iowa River. The base of the tower and the first 80 to 100 feet of the tower will be obscured by the trees in the area. The applicant has provided a narrative statement detailing how this location was chosen for the proposed tower. The ID-RS zone is one of the few zones that allows communication towers; communication towers are not permitted in any other residential or commercial zone. According to the applicant, the proposed tower will have capacity for three additional wireless providers, and has provided an affidavit that Verizon Wireless has a policy of allowing co-location on their towers. Co-location, while increasing the height of a tower, minimizes the number of future towers that will 'be necessary to serve the area. The North District Plan identifies the Elks Club property as public/private open space. Communication towers do not necessarily conflict with open space if they are appropriately located, and placing a tower behind the golf cart storage area should not detract from the use of the property as a golf course. If the property ever redevelops as a residential use, however, the existence of the tower will place limitations on the placement of residences, at least within 150' of the tower. General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Standards The applicant's statements regarding each of the seven general standards are included within the attached application. Staff comments are summarized below. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The setback requirement is meant to address safety (and aesthetic) concerns with the tower falling in high-wind event. These types of towers are designed to fold in on themselves if they become unstable. 3 Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) preempts local government on regulating radio frequency emissions of telecommunications facilities. Because the FCC regulates radio frequency emissions, a local government may not deny a request to construct a facility based on perceptions that the tower may harm the health of area residents or the environment. Because the Board of Adjustment rarely considers communications towers requests, staff has attached a short primer entitled Local Zoning Authority over Cellular Antennas and Towers. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. While the tower will be visible from residential properties on the north side of Foster Road and the other side of the Iowa River, it will not impede their use or their further development. The main impact of the tower will be visual, in that it will be visible from many residences in the area. As the use of wireless communication devices becomes more prevalent, communication towers are becoming increasingly common in urban and suburban areas. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. As noted above, the tower may impede redevelopment of the Elks Club property, but it is unknown if and when this property may redevelop. The tower will not affect development or redevelopment of other area properties. The tower does not conflict with the use of the Elks Club property as a private golf course, nor would it conflict with the use of the property as public or private open space as is depicted in the North District Plan. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The applicant intends to construct a 150' communication tower with space for four carriers and associated equipment shelters. The 50' by 50' parcel is proposed to be surrounded by a 6' tall fence. The site would be accessed via the Elks Club driveway and parking lot. The applicant notes they intend to obtain all necessary permits/approvals should this special exception be approved. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The applicant notes the site will generate two to four vehicle trips per month per carrier. The existing access to Foster Road will be used. This use will not contribute to congestion on area public streets. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The use of a communication tower should not conflict with other permitted uses in the Interim Development zone. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed communication tower does not conflict with the use of the property as private open space. In the Economic Well-Being Goals and Strategies section, the Comprehensive Plan states the City should "encourage the development and expansion of businesses which use information technologies by making public right-of-way and land available for infrastructure such as fiber optics lines and wireless communication facilities." 4 Summary The main impact of a communication tower in this location is visual. The top of the tower will be visible from properties in this neighborhood and from properties on the other side of the Iowa River. The applicant has provided justification for a tower in this area based on wireless service demand, and has stated the tower will have enough area for four carriers, thus minimizing the chance that additional towers will locate in this area in the future. Given the growth in the use of wireless devices, communication towers are becoming a more common feature of urban and suburban areas. Staff finds that the application for a communication tower on the Elks Club property at 637 Foster Road meets the general and specific standards for a special exception. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC04-00022, a special exception to require a communication tower on the property at 637 Foster Road, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Special exception application 3. Article entitled Local Zoning Authority over Cellular Antennas and Towers 4. Letter from Drew Dillman, M.D. Approved by: ~~L Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadmlstfreplexc04-00022.doc ,f 2 Ù r~" , ) ',---",,' ' '\ 0.. CJ ~ tj r) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m tj ~ o ~'t> ;:¡ t:: '" C) .!;:::;C c '- ~,f \ 0.. - ---- C\J C\J o o o I V o ~ Q 'tJ «S ~ .... jB ~ u.. I"- ~ Z o 1-4 5 s ~ t:: Cfj LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY OVER CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS Local governments exercise zoning authority to protect the health and safety of residents and to ensure orderly land use development. Local officials also use zoning to preserve the aesthetic character of the community and guard against new land uses that clutter up neighborhoods with unsightly facilities. To a great extent, the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifically protects local zoning authority over the placement of cellular towers. At the same time, however, the law places some new federal restrictions on that authority. The Act addresses the issue of local zoning authority over wireless telecommunications facilities in three ways. First, it establishes a general principle that local zoning authority is preserved, subject to certain conditions. Second, it lists the conditions that local zoning requirements must satisfy. Third, it identifies which disputes will be handled by the courts and which will be handled by the FCC. FIVe Conditions Affecting Local Zoning Authority If local zoning requirements satisfy certain conditions, nothing in the 1996 Telecommunications Act limits or affects the zoning authority of local governments over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities. In order to maintain their zoning authority over wireless telecommunications facilities, local governments must satisfy five conditions. 1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another. This requirement does not mean that local governments must treat competitive providers in exactly the same way if their proposed facilities present different zoning concerns. Congress intended to give local governments flexibility in this area. The law recognizes, for example, that a proposed 50-foot tower in a residential district presents different concerns than a 50-foot tower in a commercial district, even if the two towers are going to offer services that compete with one another. As a result, applications to site these facilities may be treated differently. Another defensible difference in treatment of providers interested in siting facilities might be the order or timing of a particular request if it is for use on a limited capacity tower site. As a general rule, however, local governments should avoid making zoning decisions that give one provider of wireless service a competitive advantage over another. Under the law, if a local government has no rational basis for making a distinction between providers whose facilities have identical characteristics, differential treatment of those providers is prohibited. For example, a zoning ordinance that permits one provider of wireless services to construct a tower in a commercial district, but prohibits the construction of a similarly sized tower by another provider in that same commercial district with no other distinguishable differences in impact, is probably inviting a challenge based upon unreasonable discrimination. 2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. This requirement is designed to prevent local governments from imposing outright bans on wireless telecommunications services. However, local ordinances may limit the number and placement of facilities so long as those limits do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting a wireless telecommunications 5 Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do provider's ability to offer service. An ordinance might include such severe restrictions on the placement and number of towers in a community that they interfere with the reception of a signal and make it impossible to deliver service. In such a case, the fact that a local government ordinance permits the siting of cellular towers is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Act if the community remains unable to receive satisfactory service. There is no requirement that every local community have a cellular tower. The Act says that there should be no prohibition on the service; it says nothing about the specific facilities. Therefore, a community of small geographic size might be able to limit the number of towers, or avoid a cellular tower completely, if it can demonstrate that subscribers can receive adequate service from towers located outside the jurisdiction's corporate boundaries. Some local governments have instituted temporary freezes or moratoria on the granting of facility siting permits in order to review the requirements of the 1996 Act, develop relevant ordinances, and make long-term land use assessments. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has challenged such moratoria before the FCC, claiming that they are a barrier to market entry and violate the Act. At least one court has determined that a short moratorium is not a "prohibition on wireless facilities, nor does it have a prohibitory effect. It is, rather, a short term suspension of permit issuing while the city gathers information and processes applications." Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Medina , Washington. Instituting moratoria on the processing of applications and the granting of tower siting permits should not become a regular practice by local governments. If a locality determines that a brief moratorium is necessary in order to develop a procedure for the effective handling of siting requests, the FCC (in its Fact Sheet on National Wireless Facilities Siting policies) recommends that the locality communicate with wireless service providers about the intended duration of the moratorium, the tasks the locality wishes to accomplish during the moratorium, and the ways - such as by providing additional information about facilities and services - in which the providers can assist the locality in ending the moratorium. There is no requirement that every local community have a cellular tower. 3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for pennission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities. The time taken to act on an application will be considered reasonable if it is no longer than the time the local government usually takes to act on other requests - such as zoning variances - of comparable magnitude that have nothing to do with telecommunications facilities. The Act does not require local governments to give preferential treatment to zoning requests involving telecommunications facilities - such requests can wait their turn. The request should not be moved down the list, but it does not have to be moved up the list. 4. Any city or county councilor zoning board decision denying a request for pennission to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must be based on evidence in a written record before the councilor board. This requirement may necessitate a considerable change in practice for some local governments, since it means that written proceedings on a zoning application must be produced. This can be done by having the proceedings transcribed and by requiring the applicant, the city or county staff, and any interested members of the public to submit their comments and arguments in writing to the councilor board. Local government staff must ensure that any facts or arguments on which the council or board may rely in denying a request are included in the transcribed hearing or written filings submitted to the councilor board before its decision is made. The decision itself also must be in writing and contain reasons that are consistent with the Act's requirements. Localities should consult extensively with city or county attorneys to implement this requirement. 5. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the FCC, it is presumed safe. A local government may not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that its radiofrequency emissions would be hannful to the environment or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards. The Act gives the FCC, not local governments, the sole authority to determine what standards wireless facilities must meet to ensure that their radiofrequency emissions do not harm humans or the environment. While local governments can require facilities to comply with the FCC emissions standards, they may not adopt their own standards. If the facilities meet FCC emissions standards, concern about the effects of 6 LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY OVER CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS emissions from cellular towers on the health of nearby residents is not a permissible reason for making zoning decisions about the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities. The Act does not require local governments to give preferential treatment to zoning requests involving telecommunications facilities. On August 6, 1996, the FCC adopted revised guidelines (Report and Order, FCC 96-326) for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions. Copies of the FCC's Report and Order adopting these guidelines can be obtained from the FCC's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037,202-857-3800. Localities can require providers to comply with other federal regulations prior to issuing a tower construction or modification permit. For example, towers taller than 200 feet and located within a certain distance of airport runways must be registered with the FCC. The FCC works with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that such towers are appropriately constructed, marked, painted, and lighted so that they do not create a hazard to air navigation. Towers also must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements of those regulations implementing NEPA affecting wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, endangered species, historical sites, Indian religious sites, floodplains, wetlands, high intensity white lights in residential neighborhoods, and radiofrequency emissions in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Dispute Resolution If a wireless provider claims that a local government has violated any of the first four conditions above, that provider must seek relief in a state or federal court, not from the FCC. This provision in the Telecommunications Act was a victory for local governments. State and federal courts provide a more neutral and much less costly arena for parties to resolve disputes than the FCC, where industry attorneys have a decided financial and practical advantage over city and county attorneys. A disappointed applicant may go to the FCC only if it claims that the locality improperly based its adverse siting decision on the harmful effects of radiofrequency emissions from the proposed facility. 7 Drew B. Dillman, MD, MPH 845 Normandy Drive Iowa City, IA 52246-2932 Phone: 319-358-7925 drewdillman 1@yahoo.com October 6, 2004 Iowa City Board of Adjustment 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Dear Members of the City Planning Board: We oppose the proposed location of a Verizon telecommunications tower visually near the Iowa River. In this location, the tower will detract from the presendy beautiful view of wooded hills from the River. My neighbors and I presendy enjoy the river from our back yards. I believe that I can safely say that it is one of the main reasons that each of us chose to purchase homes that abut the Iowa River. These lots are special in spite of the extra insurance expense and flooding risk associated with such a location. Building the tower in the presendy planned location will detract from our enjoyment of our property at all seasons and hours, but it will be especially distracting during the night, when the constellations to our North still are enjoyably bright in spite of the City Lights to our South. The flashing light that is placed on towers for safety reasons is obtrusive and obnoxious. The River enjoys increasingly heavy use during the warm months by fishermen, canoe and kayak users, university and other crew teams, and pontoon pleasure boaters. All of these uses will be negatively impacted by a highly visible tower near the river. I believe the tower will be negatively visible, especially at night, from the new highly successful walking paths along the river in City Park. Towers such as this also constitute a significant and well known hazard to migrating song birds. The river presendy acts a corridor funneling birds of many species through the center of our city. Every effort should be taken to protect and even expand the wild habitat immediately surrounding the river. The site proposed is near the home of a local Barred Owl and I have seen Pileated Woodpeckers on the river side of the proposed location. Placing an ugly tower near a riparian habitat will decrease the number of such wild creatures in our town. The tower should be placed further to the North, closer to the freeway. There are already numerous towers located along the freeway and at that location, it would be much less harmful. Sincerely, 1)trhJ 7)~ Drew Dillman, M.D. STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: John Yapp Item: EXC04-00027 2701 Rochester Avenue Date: December 8, 2004 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: First Presbyterian Church 2701 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Requested Action: Approval of a special exception to permit the expansion of a religious institution in an RS-5 zone. Purpose: To permit a 60-foot by 81-foot parking lot expansion Location: 2701 Rochester Avenue Property Size: Property size: 1.96 acres Proposed parking area expansion size: 60 feet by 81 feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Religious Institution; RS-5 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residentiàl; RS-5, OPDH-5 South: Residential; RS-5 East: Residential; OSA/RS-5 West: Residential; RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Institutional Applicable Code Requirements: 14-6D-2D, religious institutions by special exception in the RS-5 zone; 14-6L-10, additional regulations for religious institutions; 14-6N, Off-street parking and loading; 14-6W-2B, general standards for special exceptions File date: November 9, 2004 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The First Presbyterian Church was constructed in 1974 when this property was zoned R1A, Single Family Residence Zone. Religious institutions were a permitted use in the R1A zone at that time. In 1983 as part of a citywide rezoning, the City designated this property as RS- 5, Low Density Single-Family. Religious institutions require a special exception in the RS-5 zone. Any expansion of the existing facility on this property requires approval of a special exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to enlarge the parking area. This came to the City's attention when a nearby resident complained about work being done on the property and wondered what it was for. The City does not require a permit for paving, but does require a special exception for enlargement of a religious institution in the RS-5 zone, and also has specific parking area tree and screening regulations. The proposed parking area would provide an additional 14 parking spaces. ANAL YSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare to conserve and protect the value of the property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Chapter to permit the full enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent properties. The Board of Adjustment may grant relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through special exceptions if the action is found to be in accordance with the regulations found in 14-6L-10, pertaining to religious institutions in the RS-5 zone, and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B. Specific Standards: 14-6L-10, Special Exceptions: Religious Institutions This section requires that religious institutions have access to a collector or arterial street, have a lot area at least 40,000 square feet in size, and have buildings set back at least two feet for every one foot in height. The existing religious institution complies with all of these regulations. The proposed parking area also would comply, as it has access via existing driveways either to Rochester Avenue (arterial street) or Mt. Vernon Drive (collector street). Specific Standards: 14-6N, Off-Street Parking and Loading Because this is a new parking area, the regulations for off-street parking and loading will apply. This section requires that parking areas be hard-surfaced, provides dimensions for parking aisles and spaces, and references screening and parking lot tree requirements. Section 14-6N-1 D states that where a parking area is provided on a lot within fifty feet (50') of an abutting lot with a residential use (that requires four or fewer parking spaces), the portion of the parking area within fifty feet of the residential lot shall be screened from view according to the Screening section of the City Code (14-6S-11). This section states a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitae (at least three feet high spaced four feet apart upon planting) may be used, or other evergreen varieties may be used if approved by and spaced according to the City Forester. The planting bed must be separated from the parking area by a curb or barrier such that sand and saltwater runoff will not damage the screening. C:IDOCUME-1IBMikloILOCALS-1ITempIEXC04-00027 First Presb Church.doc 3 Section 14-6R-7 A(2b) states that if an existing parking area which provides more than 18 parking spaces is increased in area, the additional parking spaces shall comply with the requirements of the parking area tree requirements. This section requires that every parking space be within 60 feet of a 'large' tree or within 40 feet of a 'small' tree. The list of large and small trees may be obtained from the City. The applicant has submitted a site plan that shows compliance with the City's screening and parking lot tree standards (attached). Evergreen shrubs are proposed around the perimeter of the area, and along the existing access drive to a rear garage. Two parking lot trees are proposed, one at the north and one at the south end of the parking area. The site plan appears to comply with the city's requirements. The applicant intends to finish grading the site yet this fall, and pave and landscape the site in the spring. General Standards: 14-4B-4B, Special Exception Review Requirements The applicant's statements regarding each of the seven general standards are included within the attached application. Staff comments are listed below, and correspond to the standards as listed in the zoning ordinance. a. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In staff's view, with the proposed parking area properly screened from view and with appropriate parking area trees being planted, there should be minimal if any visual effect on public health, safety or general welfare. The parking area will produce slightly more stormwater runoff due to the impervious surface (paving) being added, however, the existing drainage patterns are not proposed to change. An analysis of the stormwater output by Iowa City Engineering staff is attached; the conclusion is that the pavement will not result in a significant increase of stormwater from this location. b. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. With the landscaping around the parking area, property values should not be affected. The proposed parking area is an expansion of an already existing parking area used by the First Presbyterian Church for 30 years. One issue that staff has been made aware of by a neighboring property owner is the existing parking lot lights do not comply with the City's current lighting standards, which require lights to be downcast and shielded from shining directly onto adjacent residential properties. While the applicant is not adding any additional lights, the existing southern light pole will remain. Staff has asked the applicant to look into retrofitting this light with a downward-casting light fixture, or with shields, to minimize its impact to adjacent residential properties. c. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The proposed paved parking area will not affect development of surrounding properties. C:IDOCUME-1IBMikloILOCALS-1ITempIEXC04-00027 First Presb Church,doc 4 d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All are existing. e. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Church has existing driveways onto Rochester Avenue and Mount Vernon Drive; no new driveways are proposed. From discussions with the applicant, the purpose of the additional parking area paving is to allow more vehicles to park off-street, thereby minimizing congestion on the public streets. f. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. With implementation of the site plan dated December 1, 2004, including the landscaping and tree requirements, all other city codes will be met. g. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for institutional uses, which would include religious institutions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC04-00027, an application for a special exception to allow an approximate 60' by 81' expansion of the parking area for the religious institution in the Low Density Single Family, RS-5 Zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue, be approved, subject to conformance with parking area site plan dated December 1, 2004. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Location map 2. Special Exception application 3. December 1,2004 parking area site plan Approved by: /~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development C:\DOCUME-1\BMiklo\LOCALS-1\Temp\EXC04-00027 First Presb Church.doc ~ CJ) a: I c - ~ t3 ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 It) :I: C D. o fu - ~~'t?: fl[ = / '- r- :..\.."*' º \\ ) Ú g -- :)-.J oQ. :) <{ ct: o c:( CD ~ :) -J o U " C\J o o o I ..q o Ü x w Q) ::J C Q) ~ r- Q) +-' en Q) ..c o o a: ~ o " C\J ~ Þ-I ~ U S ~ t: en FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT November 2004 Construction Plan Notes: 1. Strip all sod and topsoil from the proposed parking lot area. 2. Grade and shape parking lot subgrade to provide cross slope grades between 1% to 5%. Proposed grade to match existing grade at existing curb line which remains. 3. Roll and compact subgrade soils prior to placing subbase rock or pavement. 4. Furnish and install subbase rock and Asphaltic Cement Concrete (ACC) paving, as approved by Owner, and in conformance with applicable City Ordinances. 5. Proposed parking lot will have not curbing, so final parking lot grades shall be laid to sheet stormwater runoff uniformly onto surrounding turf rather than concentrating the flows. 6. To comply with Iowa City Tree Planting Ordinance, two (2) large shade trees shall be furnished and installed with project; one on the east end and one on the west end of the new parking lot at a spacing of no more than 120 feet between the trees. If the 120 feet spacing must be exceeded, then a third large shade tree shall be planted along the south side of the new lot at the mid point. The species of the large shade trees shall be selected ftom the list of those approved by the City. 7. To comply with the Iowa City Off-Street Parking Ordinance, the east, south and west sides of the new lot shall be screened with new shrub plantings, furnished, spaced and installed in conformance with Section 14-6S-11 of Chapter 6 of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance and in the locations generally shown on the attached plan. Page 2 of2 ~ ',' ~~ ~ ' r'~ '"'~''''' "---------" I '. ------ ,I' t ~" t :, E I . Ii t ~~ !~ r I . I'~ r .,";W..~IOII- .,....-...t . ~ ~ _ ! >J. .'" !'D~ \II ::- ) \11 .!J ~ .- , OS. t ~-_.- ti 'n-,~:>,- I I -.-- '-~' , " --.. .. : ; ,5"Z1 l ~ .. ~: VI rJ. ~ ~ J\ 7- -~ ~ ? 2 "" ~ '" :¡: t) ~ .~ ]'.1 å -I ~' ~ 0 W 9 -~ ~ . iII:¡ 1~ ~ ~1 v z .{ ~ 4: - jl-~ a. ø :r: J}- 'i W\!l~ t1", V)l~ \II <, ~ t>-~ --------- c:::::J ~ . .,. I~ ~ ~ = I!n!I I © f¡3 fill!I c ~ b--X.CLlY-f - ~7 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION *8~nL LaI9<-- ma.p to pc.ø TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W (YJLj' DATE: 11/09/2004 1012279001 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: R55 2701 Rochester Ave. 1. 96 AC APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 85378 sq. ft. ", APPLICANT: ,. Name: First Presbyterian Charch , Address: 2701 Rochester Ave. Phone: 351-2660 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Dick Btown Address: 2905 Saddle Club Rd. NE C) Phone: 351-5408 331-7088 f~~h . I) /""''''',\ .,..., " " - _. ( tC .,.- , '" -.,~ , í- ~1 Presbyterian Church -'-" PROPERTY OWNER:Name: First :~5 Address: 2701 Rochester Ave. S> 351-2660 Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section{s) of the Z.oning Chapter: -..,.., I I , \,0 '=' =~ (,,) N N Purpose for special exception: Ex¡;>and parki nq lot. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -2- INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Leaal description of property: W 1 96 A C 0 f E 8. 48 A C S E NW 1/4 12-79-6 Lots 150-1 A Washinqton Park add. part 7. B. "'Plot plan drawn to scale showing: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, Including the location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property In question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. rSubmlsslon of an 82" x 11" bold print plot plan Is preferred.] C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, existing and proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, driveway locations, highway and street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, sanitary sewer and water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2B1, City Code). In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative statement, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. See plat for Bldq and lot. Also parkina and street. D. The applicant is required to present specific Information, not just opinions, that the aeneral standards for the arantlna of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2B2, City Code), enumerated below, will be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. ....'0.,..., c:,:::, ,,,.,,..,,~ Sd ::'·~O ß;~ ---: .' r\ .. .... ~ ---¡ !--" ...h. ...,.,~'... I U) ~-,. 1·"""- r· -0 -'¡"~ -..1-'.'Iloo ~T1 ,.-,-.,. ¡"__~ ~,.,.,í Q7"~ ........ :Þ N N -3- 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish al1d impair property values in the neighborhood. See pictures. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. This is co~pletly surronded by church property and all surronding property ~s developed. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Nothing needs to be changed. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Ingress and egress are already in place. o ::~º ~. ~_....! " ) C;"~~:, c=, ...".~ ...1"0..._ C..ì -n ~' ...r,~ \D -ry !--n ~k,. (..) .. N N -4- 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, In all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone In which It Is to be located. [Depending on the type of exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use, as provided In City Code Section 14-6L-1, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section 14-6N-1, Off-Street Parking Requirements; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property Involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS ~ .i3I c.::"::;. C;':".-::;l o <,'.... -..:::C) ).> ='1 CJ -.,: ~,.- C:l Tl -- ...or:;:: , .....-~~ ......'·"·"'1 l,,~ ) I \..0 ".~~- .C·', f I ; ¡ c~ 5~} ~ 0,) -u . ¡ ¡ ......-1- \..j N þ,J -5- NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may Impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, Including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, Improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, Increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and Intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-6W-2B3, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-6W-3E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorarI. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision Is Illegal, in whole or In part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-6W-7, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision In the office of the City Clerk. Date: //- 'T ,2~ Date: ,20_ Slgnature(s) of Property Owner(s) If Different than Appllcant(s) ppdadmln\appboase.doc 9 ~~ J;1> -..-...." I I I..D ,., ....... (..) N N _'__"~__~'^~W - --,--,_.,," ---.- ~, _ , 'N. ",~, " '_"w~w'''''", , '''' '=""::>W~MI-"-" 'ili""__"', w,":,""",""__.,, ,_ . , " ,,:~O' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Yapp Brian Boelk November 24, 2004 2701 Rochester - First Presbyterian Church As requested, I have reviewed the stormwater concerns in conjunction with the proposed parking lot addition for the above referenced property. In doing so, I have taken into consideration the addition of 4,800 square feet of impervious (paved) area that is to drain southerly into the existing overland drainage route running in the back of 404 Mount Vernon Drive. Due to the minimal amount of area to be paved, my calculations show that this change will have very little affect on the residential properties tothe south. The stormwater outflow from this 4,800 square feet will result in an increase of 0.43 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 5-year storm, and 0.79 cfs for the 100-year storm. This additional flow is not a significant change for the downstream properties. In addition, the stormwater will sheet flow off the length of the lot and into landscaping and vegetation; therefore, there is no point source of concern in terms of erosion or stormwater quantity. In summary, it is my opinion that the proposed parking lot expansion will not disturb the residents to the south with regards to stormwater flow. Existing grading slopes away to the south and east from 404 Mount Vernon Drive, and the little increase there is in that stormwater outflow will not affect these properties as it will be contained within the overland drainage route. Cc: Ron Knoche December 3, 2004 To the Iowa City Board of Adjustment and the Department of Planning and Community Development: I am writing in reference to the application from the First Presbyterian Church for a special exception (EXC04-00027) for an expansion of a parking lot at 2701 Rochester Ave. After a review of the location map and the sketch submitted by the applicant we have several concerns and questions. These are as follows: 1. This proposed parking lot will back up to our lot and the applicant has not addressed the issue of any type of screening which I believe is required in a residential zone. 2. We have a garden area at the back of our lot and after a typical "Iowa" rain this area is quite swampy and takes a while to drain. With the additional pavement area so close to our lot, we would like to know if this proposed parking lot will have a curb or some type of system to prevent additional and/or faster storm water run off in this area. 3. There is a steep slope adjacent to the southeast comer of this proposed parking lot that drains directly onto homes located on Mt. Vernon Drive. I have been a Realtor in Iowa City since 1982 and am familiar with homes in this area. I am aware of several homes in the neighborhood that have had basement water issue problems and one home, if not several that have two sump pumps to deal with the storm water run off as it now exists. Changing the storm water run off pattern in any way could worsen the current situation. 4. We would like assurance that in the event this parking lot is approved, there will not be any additional lighting. We would like these issues addressed prior to your making a decision in regard to this application. Thank you. Sincerely, ~l.LL~ Mary Lee Dixon 241 Green Mountain Drive Iowa City, Iowa 338-9570 (home) 351-3355 (work) City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 3, 2004 To: Board of Adjustment From: John Yapp, Associate Planner /~/,.,.., Re: APL04-00004 130 N Dubuque Street The applicant, the Wesley Foundation, has submitted an appeal of a decision of the Building Official regarding the reestablishment of a non-conforming use in the CB-5 zone. The applicant's attorney has requested deferral of this item to the December 8 Board meeting. The staff report and application materials were distributed in both the October 13 and November 10 Board of Adjustment information packets. If you need additional copies of these materials, please contact Janet Dvorsky, 356-5230 I ianet-dvorsky(ã>.iowa-city.ora and we will mail you the staff report and application materials. To date, no additional information has been submitted regarding this application.