HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2009 Board of AdjustmentI_[e] 4 ►1_17_0
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2009 — 5:00 PM
CITY HALL — EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the September 9, 2009 minutes
D. Special Exception
EXC09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by AT&T Mobility for a special
exception to allow a construction of a 100-foot cell phone tower in a Commercial (CC-
2) zone at 925 Highway 6 East. The tower would be located off Cross Park Avenue,
behind the building that houses Tuesday Morning.
EXC09-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc. for a special
exception for a drive -through facility located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial)
zone at 1720 Waterfront Drive.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the Veterans' Day holiday on Wednesday, November 11,
next month's Board of Adjustment meeting will be held Thursday, November 12.
The meeting location will also change for the November meeting. It will be held in
Meeting Room A, Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center,
220 S. Gilbert Street.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: 9 October 2009
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: New exhibits for consideration of the AT&T Mobility Cell tower proposal
At its September 9 meeting, the Board asked for additional materials regarding the
consideration of the proposed AT&T cell tower adjacent to Cross Park Avenue. Specifically
the Board requested that the applicant provide additional information on coverage from
potential co -location sites discussed at the meeting: the Mid -American and Kirkwood
towers north of Kirkwood Avenue and the U.S. Cellular tower located on Olympic Court.
The Board also requested that staff provide information on any additional tower locations
or other structures in the vicinity for potential co -location.
The applicant has provided a Powerpoint presentation demonstrating the feasibility and
coverage for potential co -location sites discussed at the September 9 meeting. The
applicant will provide comments on this presentation at the October 14 meeting. I have
attached copies of the Powerpoint slides for your review in advance of the meeting. In
addition, I have attached an e-mail from the applicant that summarizes all of the above
material.
In reviewing the application for the cell tower, the applicant is required to document
attempts to use existing structures or towers within one-half mile of the proposed site. The
towers at Mid -American and Kirkwood Community college are located beyond the half mile
radius of the proposed site, and staff is not aware of any other structure or tower within
one-half mile on which the provider could co -locate.
In 2007, the Board of Adjustment approved a 60-foot tower at Olympic Court for U.S.
Cellular service. The specific criteria for the special exception require only consideration of
existing towers or structures, not the extension or replacement of existing structures.
Neither the Board nor the City has the authority to mandate a taller tower at the Olympic
Court site.
Page 1 of 3
Sarah Walz
From: Brian Ramirez [bra mirez@wirelessllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:55 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: RE: AT&T pole at Pepperwood Plaza
Attachments: DESMIAC550 Rt 6 & Gilbert- Site Justification 2 with Kmart.pptx; DESMIAC550 Rt 6 & Gilbert-
Aerial- Airport view.jpg; US Cellular- 60' pole- TOWN at 125'.pdf
Sarah,
Attached is the revised Site Justification power point.
I don't know what the maximum tower height is for the US Cellular site without running an Extended Study w/
the FAA, which will take approx. 4 months. Also, since it is a US Cellular pole, AT&T wouldn't be able run an
Extended Study on US Cellular's behalf for them or us. All I can provide is a coordinate and elevation study from
the FCC webpage called TOWAIR (see attached). That location fails by 101', which means the pole would only be
allowed to be 24' (1 ran the study at 125'). All I can assume is US Cellular ran an Extended Study and received the
64' pole height, which currently exists. This is what I provided in an earlier email. Since US Cellular owns the
structure, we can't force them to do anything where they have no interest. AT&T hasn't applied to collocate on
the structure because as it sits today, it will not work for AT&T. My hands are tied here.
We have done everything possible to show the need and to collocate on an existing structure, if possible. I
believe we have the best possible solution to accomplish the coverage objectives, as well as meeting the Zoning
criteria.
The Mid -American tower(s) won't work because they're already too close to an existing AT&T site. Plus, we are
collocating on the Iowa City High School. The Iowa City School Corp. will receive monthly revenue from AT&T for
that collocation.
The US Cellular pole is just quite simply too short and at a lower elevation to accomplish anything. AT&T would
need at least 130' to make that site work. AT&T ran an Extended Study to receive a maximum height of 100' at
the proposed location. The reason AT&T received 100' because the proposed site is further away from the
runway and not directly in front of the runway (see attached Aerial).
Regarding the location right behind Kmart, that would work from an RF perspective, but in that location we
wouldn't be able to meet setbacks and would be more visible to the general public.
I hope all of this explains the reasoning behind the Site location.
Please call or email me with any question.
Thanks for all your diligence on this project.
Brian
From: Sarah Walz [mailto:Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Brian Ramirez
Subject: RE: AT&T pole at Pepperwood Plaza
10/9/2009
Vv
dim
i
> � >.a „ •s:'a :. ;" �k .. ��ro
a �, {� � � .� 1.�,°.d.� � '� � '� k,�',
or y
T"
If
TOWAIR Search Results Page I of 2
FCC Home [art, I l!pci�ap
F jLing I Lnitiatiyg5� I Fair j!nQgni inct e g� I E�ti�
11161 :-V
Antenna Structure Registration
rL > WT�B > AqP I > IL , > TOWAIR
FiQ
TOWAIR Determination Results M HELP
0', Ne LrifitqbIg Pane
This structure requires FAA notification and FCC registration, based on a check of the
coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided. As detailed below, one or more of the
determination results produced a "fall slope" result, which means registration is required.
*** NOTICE ***
TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in
TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ
from application of the criteria set out In 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77,13. A
positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On
the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not
conclusive. It Is the responsibility of each ASP, participant to exercise due diligence to determine
if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR
participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to
determine If FAA coordination Is appropriate.
DETERMINATION Results
FAIL SLOPE (100:1)FAA REQ -
1225.0 Metem(4018.98 Feet) away & exceeds
by 31.0 Meters (101.7 Feet)
Lowest
Elevation Runway
Type C/R Latitude Longitude
Name
Address
(m) Length (m)
AIRP R 41-38- 091-32-
IOWA
JOHNSON
197.8 1525.2
33.00N 26.00W
CITY
IOWA
MUNI
CITY, IA
FAIL SLOPE (100:1)FAA REQ - 1440.0 Meters(4724.35 Feet) away & exceeds
by 29.0 Meters (95.1400 Feet)
Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address
AIRP R 41-38- 091-32- IOWA JOHNSON
8.00N 28.00W CITY IOWA
MUNI CITY, IA
Your Specifications
NAD83 Coordinates
Latitude
Lowest
Elevation Runway
(m) Length (m)
197.8 1525.2
41-38-30.1 north
Longitude
Measurements (Meters)
091-31-33.2 west
C%4
4-4
Q
to
03
0.4
Ch
(U
C4
V)
to
L:
0
0-
m
0
0
E
ON
co
m
0
rq
E
0
u
t.
1012
0
"a
0
:3
0
0
o o M
fn
in
4-J
o vi
<
.W
:3
'd
C:
2
4.j
(n
.0—
4,J
m
(n
w
0.0
,
Lo
>
ice..
u
0
uj
IMP
>
0.
4w
0
0
V)
(A
ZO
CD N
0 co
00 rv)
"t r.
co f',
ro
Q)
V)
dii
0
rL
ro
U)
2
E
ce
<
LIL
C)
0
ry�
JO
Ln
<1
<1
Ui
<
V)
E
0
GI
F
0
Ul)
CL
c
son
(A
c E
0
o LA o
09
09
u
M
-got
ul
"0
U-1,
U-
W
L
W
4-j
W
r4-j
a �
V J
F-
co
F-
W
O
CL
O
^L
CL.
W
X
to
O
4�
mi
V)
A
a�
0
V
0
z
0 (3)
0 aA
i >
4� 0
> V
a)
to
�a
a�
0
V
L.
0
0
0-
I I
v
0
a
0
L
10.
I.,
0
min
O
J
v
0
a.
0
L
d
4�
cn
O
c.
O
L.
CL ctf
O
Jc O
4-J r-j
4-J
O ca
O �
LL. 4-1
� •V
L
4�
a-J L
V �
L
Q 4-J
m
buo 4-J
ca C:
4> >
O bn
V c
O
N •-
4� 4-'
•— O
N
E
-
• C
O
O �
s
cn >
N O
Q �
La,
LL
L.fi
m
rc�
U
0
U
O
ow
:F��
(1)
u
N
a�
a�
LL
DC
L.
O
3:
O
O
.V
cm
V)
Jc
Cho
a,
a�
ma
c�
Q
06
Jc
qtf
(10
a�
O
C.
ato
c
.—
V)
._
X
w
.
O
ca
V
O
:E
cu
4-
O
m
r-I
LL
a�
a,
a)
ao
c�
L
a�
O
V
L
O
a)
a)
E
4- j
O
C:
a)
O
C:
�a
+-j
ca
V
O
W
bn
L
O
V
L
O
O
CL
I �
L.L
L!i
M
(1)
u
N
(3)
4�
w O
GC :-,
O V
O
V)
o •-
o
� o
V M
• — rl
� � a
,O
4
Co V M LL
_O •N �
L 4-J V;
D ca
4—' c� >
> O
Q V
> c
,T O
E 4-j
V
E
O +,
k.O O
4� , cn �
O 4� N
_ v
V O
cn 70
O C: O
L
w 'x — V
-0O
w w
Ln
to
O
U
O
O
CL
a- J
LL
0
m
rml
a)
u
N
m
U
•
U
v
u
N
:D
m
'i'
u
•
L•j
Ln
Ln
O
x '—
O N
L
Q„ L
0
E
,N L
O
•U �
�O
O
O
O +-+
O cn
s �
U },
�A E
N •- O
= L
_ Q
E
(1D U
� m O
o 3: 3
O -C
x — U
O = •—
Q 4-1 3
Q C
Q O
� L
+J O
4-J -C
4"'
co O c
r-
Q O
C 10- 0
'— o?S
x Q aA
O a� a�
a 0 0
N CO. U
OL a)
U 0 >
0 O a�
O 5
,O v O
4-J 3
V i �
O O +-+
--� > v�
r
k
0
rn
t
en
s
Ln
Ln
._
oej
(""A
z
0
a
0
0
U
O
J
m
N
O
CL
O
Ln
ca
+-J
a�
a�
a�
ca
f�
O
CL
LIO
U.
E
O
le
O
C:
4-j
O
•
a�
.N
V)
0 F
4-j
0
c�
a
N fa N (j 0
O � ' fB aJ
(1) E
� 0 v
Co 4-J
O �� 0� N O C O O
U y_
4=J alk 0
Ooa ; min 0
• V% f0 4J � V i a'' aJ cr
o Oo >
4� 0
U 0 0 —� Co L.^_� cooZS
Oco 4mJ 0 a.J 4mJcv
7n u 4=J
V)
U Q � Q� ��—}�, o4.
v
c � (3) +, v
++ � +-' to � O(3)
N
w� Q�
a
0
0
L
0
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC09-00006 Date: October 14, 2009
Waterfront Hy-Vee
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Hy-Vee, Inc.
5820 Westown Parkway
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Contact:
Kelly J. Beckler
MMS Engineering
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA
319-0351-8282
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow a drive -through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
Purpose:
To allow a drive -through facility for pharmacy and
grocery service.
Location:
1720 Waterfront Drive
Size:
8.61 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial Retail development (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial (CC-2)
South: Commercial (CI-1)
East: Commercial (CC-2)
West: Commercial (CI-1 and CC-2)
Applicable code sections: 14-4C-2K, Specific criteria for drive -through facilities;
14-413-3A, General approval criteria for special
exceptions.
File Date: September 10, 2009
BACKGROUND
As part of a planned expansion and remodel of the Waterfront Hy-Vee Store, the applicant is
proposing to build a new combined grocery pick-up lane and drive -through pharmacy facility. Hy-Vee
has acquired properties along Boyrum Street that formerly contained Yen Ching restaurant and the
Goodwill store. The now vacant properties will be cleared to allow expansion of the Hy-Vee building
and its parking lot. Six existing curb cuts along Boyrum Streem (3 for Yen CHing, 2 for Goodwill, and
1 for Hy-Vee) will be consolidated to a maximum of three, all providing access to the expanded Hy-
Vee parking area. Presently, the Hy-Vee lot has only one access point to Boyrum Street —the drive
located just south of the Zephyr building.
A pharmacy window will be located at the front of the building with the pharmacy drive -through
service provided via pneumatic tubes to the outside lane. Grocery pick-up service will be located in
the lane nearest the store. Vehicles will enter the drive -through and pick-up lanes from the west
along a drive that, under the proposed expansion, will carry traffic across the entire site, to and from
Boyrum Street and Waterfront Drive.
Please note that a grocery pick-up lane does not require a special exception; only the drive -through
pharmacy service requires a special exception. However, since the two uses will be combined in one
location, the board should consider how the two uses effect or relate to each other in terms of
function and safety.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance 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 Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included for Section 14-4C-2K-2 pertaining to drive -through facilities in addition to the
general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the
attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set
forth below.
Specific approval criteria for drive -through facilities (14-4C-2K-2).
a. The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary for the drive -
through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or
unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area where it is
located. To promote compatibility with surrounding development, safe pedestrian access, and
efficient and safe vehicular circulation on the site, the Board of Adjustment may require certain
conditions, including, but not limited to, restricting the location of the drive -through to rear or
side access, requiring directional signage, limiting the number of lanes and/or amount of paving,
and limiting or prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems.
The subject property is surrounded on all sides by commercial development such that it is not visible
from any residential zones. The proposed site plan shows pedestrian connections between this
portion of the Hy-Vee building to Boyrum Street on the east and to the commercial building that
houses Zephyr Copies on the north. Pedestrian walkways are located in front of all entrances to the
store and will be marked with pavers or striping as required by code. This includes the entrances to
the pharmacy and liquor department located just before and after the drive -through and pick-up
area.
The proposed site plan shows space for up to seven cars to access the grocery pick-up lane at one
time before stacking onto the drive. There is space for three cars to access the pharmacy pick-up
service before stacking onto the private drive. Given the anticipated levels of service for these uses,
staff believes that adequate stacking spaces are provided and will not interrupt pedestrian
circulation or vehicle traffic along the 28-foot drive in front of the store.
The proposed site plan shows a 10-20 foot sidewalk area extending along the entire front of the
building with an additional 1-2 feet of space for the placement of bollards along the main drive. The
only area of the development where the sidewalk is reduced to less than 10 feet is along the drive
3
through/pick-up area. Here the sidewalk measures approximately 5 feet with an additional 1-2 feet
of space for bollards to separate the lanes from the sidewalk.
Staff has observed that other Hy-Vee stores in Iowa City
sidewalk areas are reduced by outdoor storage of
products such as seasonal plants, propane tanks,
recycling carts, etc. Both the Waterfront Hy-Vee and the
First Avenue Hy-Vee use the area under the grocery
pick-up canopy for storage for firewood bundles, bags of
salt, and other supplies that need protection form the
weather (see photos). These supplies are sometimes
stored on the median -island on the outside of the lanes.
The median for the proposed drive -through is
significantly reduced in size from what exists on the site
at this time. Presently the median is 90 feet long and
ranges from 10-20 feet in depth. The proposed redesign
provides a median -island that is approximately 45 feet
long and less than 10 feet wide. With the proposed
special exception this space will be occupied by the
pneumatic tube service for the pharmacy drive -through.
Therefore, supplies are likely to be stored on the
sidewalk along the building, further reducing the
amount of sidewalk that is clear and unimpeded.
The Commercial Site Development Standards in the
zoning code call for pedestrian routes that are
"continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily
identifiable as protected pedestrian routes" (Section 14-
2C-6F-4); and restrict the outdoor storage and display
materials in the CC-2 zone to areas "immiediately
adjacent to a principal building. . . " provided that
displays are not located "in a manner that obstructs
building entrances and exits, sidewalks, bicycle parking
areas, pedestrian routes or vehicle use areas" (Section
14-2C-61-1a). In Staff's view, the proposed pedestrian
route does not satisfy these requirements. The site plan
must demonstrate compliance with these standards as
part of the Building Official's design review for the
overall expansion and redesign of the store.
Staff has also observed that the Hy-Vee in this particular
neighborhood generates a considerable level of
pedestrian traffic. Further, some customers
approaching the store from the east may choose not to enter or exit the Hy-Vee through the liquor
department, and may instead rely on the walkway that passes through the drive-through/pick-up
area in order to access one of main building entrances. For all of the above reasons, Staff believes
that sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities should be given careful consideration.
In order to accommodate all the activities that will go on in this area of the commercial site, including
the movement of grocery carts to and from the drive -through pick-up, Staff recommends a minimum
10-12-foot wide sidewalk across this portion of the building. This may require some reconfiguration
of the terminal islands that mark the south ends of the parking rows adjacent to the drive -through.
Staff estimates that no more than six parking spaces would be sacrificed to accommodate a 10-12
foot sidewalk. The proposed expansion of the parking area provides more than the number of
parking spaces required by code. An alternative would move the pharmacy drive -through to the east
side of the building and away from the drive that provides access to and from Boyrum Street.
b. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the
existing uses In the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level or service, effects
on traffic circulation, access requirements, and pedestrian safety. An adequate number of
stacking spaces must be provided to ensure that traffic safety Is not compromised.
Boyrum Street is a collector street designed to support the level of commercial development in the
area. Traffic from the drive -through will not stack onto public streets or neighboring properties.
Furthermore, by providing an additional access point to Hy-Vee from Boyrum Street, traffic will have
more opportunity to disperse, potentially reducing congestion in the area adjacent to the intersection
with Highway 6. Given the distance that the proposed drive -through is set back from Boyrum and
other streets, there is little if any chance that vehicles stacking along the drive -through will effect the
public street.
As stated above, Staff believes that the pedestrian route from Boyrum Street to the main entrance of
the store is not adequate in width in the area adjacent to the drive -through and pick-up area. For this
reason, staff believes that pedestrian circulation would be compromised.
c. The drive -through lanes must be setback at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public
rights -of -way and screened from view to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adjacent
to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these
properties to at least the S3 standard. The Board of Adjustment may increase or reduce these
standards according to the specific circumstances affecting the site.
As stated above, the proposed drive -through pharmacy facility is set back well in excess of the
required 10 feet from all adjacent lot lines and streets. The subject property is surrounded by other
properties zoned for commercial uses. The expanded portion of the parking area will be screened
from Boyrum Street with low shrubs as required by code.
d. Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set forth
in Article 14-5G and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring
properties.
The applicant has indicated that lighting for the drive -through canopy is being reviewed by the
Building Official. All outdoor lighting for the commercial development must be reviewed and
approved by the Building Official as part of the building permit process.
General Standards (14-46-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the proposed special exception does not provide
for the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Staff believes that in order to safely support
the pharmacy drive -through and pedestrian access across the front of the building, the sidewalk area
in front of the pharmacy window should be a minimum of 10-feet wide. An alternative would be to
move the pharmacy service window to the east side of the building and away from a main pedestrian
route and vehicle drive that provides access to and from Boyrum Street. Pharmacy drive-throughs are
separated from grocery pick-up at the North Dodge and First Avenue Hy-Vee stores.
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. Because the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses and because the
public roads that provide access to the property are designed to accommodate the levels of traffic
generated by commercial uses, staff finds that the proposed drive -through 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.
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. For the reasons site above (criteria 2), and because the expansion of the Hy-
Vee facility will provide additional drives for dispersing traffic from the Hy-Vee lot while at the same
time reducing the overall number or curb cuts along Boyrum Street, staff believes that the proposed
exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property for uses permitted in the CC-2 zone.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. Boyrum Street, Waterfront Drive, and Stevens Drive are all designed to support the levels
of traffic generated by the commercial development in this area. As part of the building permit
process, the Building Official is reviewing the site plan to ensure that all other necessary facilities are
in place. This includes review of curb cuts and drainage systems.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. With the Hy-Vee expansion onto property formerly
owned by Yen Ching and Goodwill, the number of total curb cuts along Boyrum Street will be
consolidated from 6 down to a maximum of 3. All drives will provide direct access to the Hy-Vee
property. Presently, the Hy-Vee lot has only 1 access point on Boyrum Street —the drive located just
south of the Zephyr building. At peak hours traffic stacks at the Boyrum and Highway 6 intersection
making it difficult for left turning vehicles to enter or exit the drive. With an additional access point
along Boyrum, the traffic generated by this large commercial use will have a better opportunity to
disperse and thereby reduce conditions that may contribute to congestion on the public street.
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 site plan for the proposed
expansion of Hy-Vee is currently under review by the Building Official to ensure compliance with all
requirements of the zoning code. The proposed pedestrian route/sidewalk in the area of the drive-
through/pick-up area does not meet the code standard requiring "continuous, clear of obstructions,
and easily identifiable as protected pedestrian routes." In addition, the pedestrian route connecting
this portion of the Hy-Vee building to the development to the north is also deficient, as it does not
contain required landscape separation between the sidewalk and the parking area. This deficiency will
need to be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The South
District Plan shows this area as appropriate for general commercial uses. The transportation goals
and strategies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage walking and bicycling and also seek to
maximize mobility for persons with disabilities. Thus the Commercial Site Development Standards in
the zoning code call for pedestrian routes that are "continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily
identifiable as protected pedestrian routes." In staff's opinion, this property is an appropriate
location for a drive -through pharmacy, however the proposed site plan is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plans policy to encourage safe pedestrian routes.
SUMMARY
The planned expansion and redesign of the Hy-Vee site, creates a continuous drive across the front
of the building from Stevens and Waterfront Drive to Boyrum Street. The proposed plan reduces by
half the size of the existing median/island that separates the grocery pick-up lanes from the main
drive and reduces the grocery pick-up area to one lane while adding the additional use of the
pharmacy service. In short, it is proposing an expanded use in a space that is significantly reduced
from what is present on the site at this time. Given the intensity of the proposed use and the code
requirements for pedestrian routes that are "continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily identifiable
as protected pedestrian routes," Staff believes that additional unimpeded sidewalk space is
necessary to accommodate the pedestrian route adjacent to the proposed drive -through, and would
recommend approval of a plan that provided a minimum of 10-12 feet of sidewalk space. Staff has
advised the applicant of this concern; the applicant has chosen to proceed with the current site plan.
Staff finds the current plan does not meet the specific standard 14-4C-2K-2 a. "...will not ...detract
from or unduly interrupting pedestrian circulation...", and the general standards 14-413-3 1. "...will
not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare." and 7. "...will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan..."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of EXC09-00006, a special exception to allow a drive -through facility for
pharmacy and grocery pick-up in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1720 Waterfront Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the location
3. Site plans (exisiting and proposed)
4. Elevations
5. Application materials
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
is
CO)
CM
Ld
C)
a_
CL
LLJ
is >1n>103A
LJ
LJ
TM
57
Pr
i/J � •
F,.
f
r
ION �1
,
MIN
i
>
4,4"- --
.. Y,
t�
�e I
a °
' u
• .fir +, �,'� 1i ���i�
a:
f
ax ,
t '
rt
ai
`N! � +,+.. * , nh.-MMe.,aN.w WEw:tH^ J# y, :':... 9q WE -- .,. ,rr+•—• -'u
•r
: W
}
7-4
aNIS
f
r!
-- -
IP
ARN
+► �- �.,
',N1•• .., '� \'Tvi-.°,x.. �. `.< ,:.,aam .'^' .r-'07.uvfiA'k�,..p:^R� �...T?a! l:. "—� ..°� ti �:.
f �
tlMOI AlIJ tlMOI NI10A J.21dd NOISIAIQ9(IS YMC IAOB ' IJ
JNI 'S,LNtll'IfISNO� SI'cI{'�1NdZd �ZIS 1nx o
s
RI CCdI U},1 gRE
` o
e
I�
0
z
w
3 4
o �
00
a _'L
�.
// CENTERLINE CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND, PACIFI=
/ St NOI1O3SdO 61671N3WNd3AOJ
-40 NOIldOd H 30 N01333IhM681733d - —
9
m
4
o
'4I •�
\
3N
U •
Y
Z �
z
a
t
a; !
/•
v R
I
�Y
A
f
6t
to
oN
as
LAI,C
Z
U�
Q�.
rc
L
,16
still
& X�
A
A
DAY
C✓
i
F �g� �
jR#jF pLYg�I YES
y..
W
J
�
3
a>W y
9s�
9 g�
CuOj
�2COW R°��9t
�r :l !
I
1
amnI
Un IBM
1 92 ENE
� ENE
�■ Mot!
:E
io ,! 11K
■� I,ium
I N
■
■.;. ,
:E�!��
• ome
in to
INS
:0 ��
an won
■
October 1, 2009
Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development
400 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: Application for Special Exception, Drive Up Facilities at 1720 Waterfront Drive
Dear Sarah:
Enclosed are supporting documents for review by the Board of Adjustment to review our
proposed expansion project at 1720 Waterfront Drive. We are applying for a Special Exception
to allow drive through facilities.
We anticipate the drive up area to operate in the same fashion as the existing facility and similar
facilities at our stores across Iowa. Grocery carts belonging to customers requesting drive up
service will be queued nip inside the store or vestibule to the west of the drive up lanes. As
customers drive in to pick up groceries, an employee will bring out their cart and load the vehicle
from the drive up lane, off the pedestrian path. Customers utilizing the pharmacy pick up lane
will pull up in the outside lane and use the tube system to conduct their transactions. Pedestrians
will have at least five feet clear to maneuver along the building out of the path of vehicle traffic
tinder the canopy. A system of architectural bollards and colored concrete band clearly delineates
where pedestrians and vehicles belong.
We look forward to continuing work with City staff on this project. If you need additional
information or have any questions, please write or call.
Resoect.4►4
ihn Brehm
irector, Site Planning
Enclosures
Cc: Dan Willrich, Hy-Vee, Inc.
Kelly Beckler, MMS Consulting
Hy-Vee, Inc. — Employee -Owned
5820 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266
Phone: (515) 267-2800
P C_D
ChC 09o000 6
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
-SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: d PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 112,0 (,k) 4etrP c nA yiv�
PROPERTY ZONE: C
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: L ud L.
APPLICANT: Name: � \,E -yee Inc .
Address: 54)ZO u)cs (-xon Pad(wa(-)
Phone: 11 k.<J DeS nq6 w-,T/1 ` (,) oto
CONTACT PERSON: Name: i<e.l1� .i .
(if other than applicant)
Address: �� 1 S . C7 r 4 he r4 S�
Phone: 'Y' 35U?,?2
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: _
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-6239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: Nl ve -i Vnr-u { ivy o�'c_eila S '
a) ci
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
1A
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 14.8C-2C-4, 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 14-8C-1 E, 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
14-8C4F, 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, Cl".
Date: J 9 4 / " , 20 0
Date:
ppdadmhappiication-boase.doe
20
L. viim 81paq
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
C
00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 1 THROUGH 13 OF BOYRUM SUBDIVISION PART 2, AND LOT 3 OF
BOYRUM SUBDIVISION -- PART 4, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED
PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 3 of Boyrum Subdivision — Part
4, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 35, at Page
264, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
N08'55'45"W, along the West Line of said Lot 3, a distance of 172.00 feet;
Thence N05'54'06"E, along said West Line, 22.40 feet; Thence
Northwesterly, 105.89 feet along said West Line and arc of a 105.22 foot
radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 149.19 foot chord bears
N39'11'56"W; Thence N04'00'10"W, along said West Line, 100.78 feet;
Thence NO3'37'41"W, along said West Line, 84.98 feet; Thence NO3'51'00"W,
along said West Line, 172.75 feet, to the Northwest Corner thereof; Thence
S81'55'37"E, along the North Line of said Lot 3, a distance of 17.57 feet;
Thence Southeasterly, 87.00 feet, along said North Line and an arc of a
3260.94 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 87.00 foot chord
bears S82'41'28"E; Thence Southeasterly, 95.54 feet, along said North Line
and an arc of a 429.91 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose
95.34 foot chord bears S77'05'20"E; Thence S70'4321"E, along said North
Line, 284.25 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 51.23 feet along said North Line
and an arc of a 149.81 foot radius curve,-. concave Northeasterly, whose
50.98 foot chord bears S80'31'10"E; Thence N89'41'00"E, along said North
Line, 120.16 feet; Thence Northeasterly 35.34 feet along said North Line
and an arc of a 136.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose
35.24 foot chord bears N82'15'57"E; Thence Northeasterly 42.33 feet along
said North Line and an arc of a 163.50 foot radius curve, concave
Southeasterly, whose 42.22 foot chord bears N82'15'57"E; Thence
N89'41'00"E, along said North Line, 9.19 feet, to the Northeast Corner
thereof; Thence Southeasterly 37.61 feet along the East Line of said Lot 3
and an arc of a 467.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose
37.60 foot chord bears S02'35'26"E; Thence S00'17'00"E, along said East
Line and the East Line of Boyrum Subdivision Part 2, in accordance with
the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 24, at Page 12, of the Records of
the Johnson County Recorder's Office, a distance of 105.11 feet; Thence
S00'05'18"W, along the East Line of said Boyrum Subdivision Part 2, a
distance of 120.93 feet; Thence S00'21'00"E, along said East Line, 250.75
feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence S87'29'40"W, along the
South Line of said Boyrum Subdivision Part 2, and the South Line of Lot 3
of said Boyrurn Subdivision — Part 4, a distance of 582.55 feet, �Q the a
Point of Beginning. Said Parcel of Land contains 8.60 acres, and is s6bject
to easements and restrictions of record.
C. Specific Approval Criteria
14-4C-K-1
Drive through facilities are permitted in the existing CC-2 Zoning by Special Exception.
14-4C-K-2
a. The proposed drive through is centrally located on the site with approximately
340' of stacking length and will not affect pedestrian circulation of the
surrounding commercial neighborhood.
b. The proposed drive through and site are similar to the existing use. The proposed
site improves both the vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site with additional
access points for both.
C. The proposed drive through lanes are not located adjacent to residential zoning.
The proposed site complies with the city screening requirements.
d. The site photometric plan complies with City's Ordinance and is currently under
staff review.
D. General Approval Criteria
1. Hy-Vee Inc. proposes to add on the existing grocery store Iocated at 1720 �1
Waterfiont Drive. With this addition, the existing grocery -and pharma dickWIP
lanes are proposed to be relocated. The site is proposed with minimum 12-feet
wide drive aisles, sidewalks and crosswalks to promote safe access to the Wte.
2. The proposed pick up lanes are centrally located on the site and will hate minirml
effect on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood as a whole.
3. The proposed pick up lanes are centrally located on the site and will not impede
the development and improvement of the surrounding property uses.
4. One site utilities, access roads and drainage facilities are included with the site
plan submittal for the proposed building addition.
5. The proposed site contains six access points to public streets to minimize traffic
congestion. Three access points are provided on the east side and three on the
west side.
6. The proposed site is designed in according to the current City Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed site plan is currently under review by City Staff.
7. The proposed use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, Terry Hora,
Will Jennings
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ramirez
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:02 p.m.
An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Sheerin, Jennings, and Hora were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 10T" 2009:
Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Hora seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Thornton excused).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 2 of 11
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by AT&T Mobility for a special
exception to allow construction of a 100-foot cell phone tower in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 925 Highway 6 East. The tower would be located off Cross
Park Avenue, behind the building that houses Tuesday Morning.
Walz pointed out on the map where the CC-2 zone was located, explaining that it included the
entire Pepperwood Plaza area. She noted that the tower would be across the street from a
multi -family zone on the north side of Cross Park Avenue.
Walz explained that the applicant wishes to put up a 100-foot tall tower located approximately
102 feet from the south property line (the property line of the commercial property). The multi-
family zone begins in the middle of Cross Park Avenue, so the tower would be more than 100
feet from the residential zone as required by the zoning ordinance. The lease area for the tower
is an area of approximately 10 x 20 feet. The space will include some condensers and will be
surrounded by a privacy fence. All other equipment associated with the cell phone tower will be
housed inside the commercial building. Walz noted that in addition to the privacy fence, the
area would be screened from the residential zone by the tall (10-15 feet high) shrubs along the
south property line.
Walz said that the specific standards require that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot
be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing
structures in the area. Walz said that the applicant must document attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, or industrial properties within a one-half mile radius. Walz noted that there
are not very many tall buildings in the area, and there are none tall enough to mount antennas
on. Walz pointed out a cell phone tower on Olympic Court, a 60-foot monopole structure, and
explained that the tower is not tall enough for AT&T to co -locate its cell phone tower there. She
noted that the area served by that tower is also slightly different than the area AT&T is
attempting to serve. Walz noted that AT&T would actually like to have a 150 foot tall tower, but
that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations limit them to 100 feet.
Walz stated that the second specific criterion requires that the tower will be constructed in a
manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area.
Walz noted that some communities go to great lengths to disguise cell phone towers as flag
poles or trees. Walz said that Iowa City encourages providers to simply make the poles as
unobtrusive as possible: no guy -wires, no trusses, no lighting, no strobe lighting, etc. Walz said
that such a structure has been proposed by the applicant. All antennas will be located inside of
the pole structure. Walz noted that the applicant has suggested providing some parking lot
lighting on the pole, but Staff does not think additional lighting is necessary. If the Board sees a
public benefit from additional lighting, Staff recommends that the lighting be kept lower than 35
feet so that it does not shine over the landscape screening into the residential neighborhood.
A third specific criterion requires that the proposed tower is no taller than is necessary to
provide the service intended. Walz noted that as this is a communication tower it is exempt
from the maximum height standards in the base zone, and is an allowable height (100 feet).
Walz explained that the service area that AT&T is trying to reach includes areas north of Lower
Muscatine and south of Wetherby Park. The applicant provided coverage maps demonstrating
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 3 of 11
the different levels of coverage provided by a cell phone tower of varying heights at the
proposed location.
Walz shared several photo simulations showing varying viewpoints to demonstrate the
unobtrusiveness of the proposed tower. Each viewpoint was shown both as it presently looks
and how it would look with the tower in place.
Walz noted that the application meets the remaining specific criteria, which are straightforward
in nature: it meets the required setbacks; associated equipment will be properly screened; the
tower will not utilize a back-up generator; there is no strobe lighting proposed; there will be
capacity for two additional users built into the tower to allow for co -location; and the applicant
would have to remove the tower from the site if its use was discontinued.
Walz reviewed the first general standard, explaining that the proposed exception would not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because it is
setback more than the required 100 feet from the nearby residential zone, as well as 100 feet
from the property line, and will be surrounded by tall landscape screening and a privacy fence.
This 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, Walz explained, because of the setback and screening as well as the
unobtrusive design of the pole.
The third general standard requires that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
zone in which the property is located. For the same reasons previously given, Walz said, Staff
feels that this standard is satisfied.
Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place for this use, and the tower will have no impact on ingress or egress from the
property.
Walz noted that if there is to be lighting on the pole, it would have to be reviewed by the building
official to ensure that it meets all lighting standards. In all other ways, the proposal conforms to
the regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
Walz said that the proposed structure will not detract from the commercial uses in the area that
are contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that EXC07-00005 be approved subject to the following conditions:
• compliance with the site plan and all specifications regarding the tower design and
enclosure submitted as part of the application, including;
• the cell tower will have no strobe lighting;
• the cell tower will be finished in dark brown to match other light poles in the area, or in
another color to be approved by Staff;
• any lighting of the pole will be mounted at the same height as the parking area lighting
on this portion of the property (approximately 15 feet); and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 4 of 11
• the maintenance of the landscape screening or equivalent S3 screening along the south
property line.
Walz offered to answer questions from the Board.
Eckstein asked if it was truly necessary for the proposed pole to be in that neighborhood in
order to get the service desired by AT&T. She said that given the nearby Olympic Court tower,
she worried somewhat about the accumulation of these towers in a neighborhood that might be
viewed as perhaps less resistant to these kinds of things than another neighborhood might be.
Eckstein said that if the coverage requires this specific site she would like to know that for sure.
Walz replied that there is currently a limitation on the zones where cell phone towers can be
placed. Walz said that presently they are limited to public zones (such as parks), certain
commercial zones, and industrial zones. Walz said it has proven to be difficult to get towers in
public zones because they are generally school or park sites, which often meet with opposition
because the towers are perceived to violate the visual sense of open space. Walz pointed out
the areas on the map where the cell phone tower could be allowed, and said that the applicant
could speak in detail about other areas that were considered to achieve the same coverage.
Walz noted that terrain issues have an effect on coverage and the chosen location of towers.
She said that another site, closer to K-Mart, had been investigated by the applicant but that the
site would have required equipment to be located outside the building and was at a lower
elevation that the site under consideration.
Sheerin said it seemed as though the problem was that AT&T could not locate their antennas in
the Olympic Court tower because it is only 60 feet high and therefore not high enough for their
needs. Sheerin asked if it would be possible to have U.S. Cellular move from the Olympic Court
tower to the proposed AT&T tower to eliminate the need for both towers. Walz said that the City
could not retroactively require U.S. Cellular to do that, and that she believed that the coverage
area the two towers served was different.
Eckstein asked where the two towers were in relation to one another and Walz said they were
about three and a half blocks apart.
Eckstein asked if there were any health effects from emissions to be concerned about with the
proposed tower. Walz said she was not aware of any, but that Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the Board of Adjustment from considering that. Holecek
added that the Telecommunications Act limits what local governments can do in regards to the
location of these facilities.
Eckstein asked if the location of the tower would create any nuisance or interference that would
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Walz said she was not aware
of any. Holecek said that this would probably be an appropriate question for the applicant.
Eckstein said she applauds the City's efforts to make the towers unobtrusive; however, the lack
of trusses does make her question the susceptibility of the towers to strong winds. Walz stated
that the towers would have to meet engineering standards that are reviewed by the building
official, but advised Eckstein that the applicant could speak more to the issue. Walz said that
some of the cell towers approved in the past were designed so that in a strong wind they would
fold over. Walz said that the setback provides additional protection in that if a tower
catastrophically fails, it would fall on the property and not in the right of way or into the
residential area.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 5 of 11
Eckstein asked for clarification on Staffs recommendation that the tower be removed if it is not
in use for one year. She asked why the City would want to wait such a long time before
removing an unused tower. Walz said that the idea was to give companies up to a year to
remove them. Holecek said the reasoning may be because "abandonment of a use" is defined
as using a facility for its intended use for a period of at least a year. She said that because the
tower would be on leased land, the property owner would likely make sure it is removed.
Holoecek noted that it may be a good idea to add as a condition that the tower must be
removed if it ceases to be used.
Sheerin asked what the enforcement would be if a year went by and the tower was not
removed. Holecek said it would be enforced as a municipal infraction; she said she believed
that the market forces between the lessor and the lessee would likely take care of it before it
reached that point. Sheerin said she was just making sure that the City would not be held liable
for the costs of tower removal if it were not removed within the required timeframe and Holecek
said that it would not. Jennings asked what starts the clock ticking for a "one year" time period
such as the one being discussed. Holecek said the City would try to determine when it ceased
to be used for that purpose by examining FCC filings, rent records, utility records, etc. Jennings
asked if there was then an ongoing system of review in place where an abandonment of use
would be noted. Holecek said that a determination of when a use ceased could pretty clearly be
made in this case.
Jennings asked what the term "hazards" meant —were there certain hazards associated with
cell towers other than that of its stability or collapse. Walz said that the wording is general and
applied to all special exceptions. In each case Staff must consider whether a special exception
creates negative externalities: whether it generates increased traffic or odors that could detract
from surrounding properties or if they create noise or glare. Walz said the particular externalities
of a specific exception must be examined, in this case collapse could be considered a potential
hazard.
Sheerin asked about lighting. She said that while there may be no strobe lighting, there is
proposed parking lot lighting that is 35 feet high. She asked if this would not create more
lighting than was necessary. Walz said that it was the view of Staff that additional lighting was
not necessary. Walz said that the Olympic Court tower was in an area where some extra
security lighting could be useful; however, the proposed location is already well lit and no
additional lighting seems necessary. Staff does not oppose lighting if the Board wishes to
require it; however, Staff recommends that it be placed low enough not to shine above the
screen provided by the landscaping. Eckstein asked if lighting could be stipulated. Walz said
that it could. Sheerin said adding lighting to the area could be a potential nuisance.
Sheerin asked how much traffic would be generated by maintenance to the tower. Walz said it
would be minimal. Sheerin asked for clarification about collapse. Walz said Staff would want
this kind of use in an area with minimal traffic, such as the back of the building, so that in the
unlikely case of catastrophic failure, the tower would not present a danger to people —it would
not fall onto a sidewalk or a high -traffic area.
Hora asked if Staff had consulted the FAA about whether the tower was in line with flight
patterns. Walz said Staff had not, but that the applicant would be required to produce that
information in order for the building permit to go forward. Hora asked if there would be a
constant red light on top of the tower if there was to be no strobe light. Walz said there would
not be any light at all. Sheerin asked if this meant that the tower would presumably be too low
for a plane to hit, and Walz said she believed so.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 6 of 11
Hora asked if Staff had looked at the 150-foot towers at MidAmerican Energy and at Kirkwood
for possible co -location. Walz indicated that staff had not. She indicated that Hora could ask the
applicant about that location. Hora asked if Staff had talked to the applicant about the possibility
of raising the Olympic Court tower an additional 40 feet. Walz said they had not.
There were no further questions for Staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Brian Ramirez, an agent for AT&T on this project, said he would attempt to address the Board's
questions. He said that AT&T had done an extensive study with the FAA to conclude that 100
feet would not only be allowable at that location, but had no lighting requirements and would not
be a flight issue at all. Ramirez said that documentation of this would be provided.
Ramirez said that customers of all cell phone providers are demanding greater coverage and
more applications in all areas of their lives. As a result, the cell phone companies are struggling
to keep up with that demand. Ramirez said that if there is not enough coverage calls get
dropped, and that companies are running into capacity issues because they have such high
demand. Ramirez said that the cell phone towers can only support a certain number of cell
phone traffic. Ramirez pointed out areas on the coverage maps where proper service was
lacking. He noted that AT&T would be locating antennas on City High School. Ramirez noted
that elevation and terrain have an enormous effect on coverage range.
Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower at Olympic Court is actually 64 feet tall. Walz clarified
that the tower is 60 feet tall and has a four foot lightning rod on top. Ramirez said that the
reason carriers like to have their antennas on the outside is because they can gain more
coverage area by adding more antennas than they could fit inside. Outdoor location also allows
companies to maneuver the antennas to target specific areas. Ramirez said that having the
antennas on the inside is limiting to providers and the coverage they can provide. Ramirez said
there are three canisters in the U.S. Cellular tower, but that the only room left in them is 30-40
feet high which is insufficient. Ramirez said AT&T would also need to use two levels in their
proposed tower because of the GSM and UMTS technologies which they are using to handle
roaming coverage, different kinds of phones, and roaming customers. Using the U.S. Cellular
tower was immediately ruled out for all of these reasons. Ramirez said that it is necessary for
AT&T to be higher in order to shoot their signals out further and connect with existing cell sites.
Then, those other cell sites could be pulled back and powered down a little bit and to handle
more capacity.
Eckstein asked if Ramirez was suggesting that connections to the existing towers could not be
made without a 120-foot tower. Ramirez said that AT&T was attempting to do the proposed site
in conjunction with City High's tower, and that it is possible that there may still be issues in some
areas north of there that, compounded by terrain issues, could result in coverage that is less
than the best AT&T can provide. Ramirez said there are different zoning codes in every city,
state, and town AT&T goes into, and nearly every zoning code in the country prohibits building
towers in a residential zone. Because of this, cell phone companies have had to become more
creative to accommodate the demand for service.
Eckstein said she is wondering how many of these requests the Board of Adjustment will be
receiving as time goes on. She asked how many years forward this particular tower would take
service if it were to be allowed. Ramirez said that demand continues to increase because of the
wide range of applications offered by cell phones now, but that with the elevation of the
proposed tower he hopes to provide increased coverage. He said he could not guess how long
that coverage would hold out. He remarked that AT&T actually has communities banging down
their door to get towers built and increase their service. He said that the vast majority of
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 7 of 11
complaints received by cell phone companies concern a lack of coverage or service. Ramirez
said he also works for I -Wireless and U.S. Cellular in this area and so he sees the issue from
the perspective of all the carriers. He said that everybody is looking for the best spot they can
possibly get. He said that customer demand is ever-increasing and the atmosphere ever -
changing.
Eckstein asked if Ramirez could speak to her question about nuisance and interference from the
tower. He said he could not because he is not an expert on it, and that the Telecommunications
Act prohibits it from being considered. Ramirez said that the emissions from these towers are
so low there is no cause for consideration; AM radio towers have much more powerful
emissions. Phone towers are so far below those emissions that multiple structures and
antennas are necessary, Ramirez said.
Ramirez asked for clarification on Hora's question regarding co -location. Hora said that to the
northeast of the proposed site there are two 150-foot towers sitting on MidAmerican property
that do have cell phone capacity. Ramirez said those towers were way too far away from the
proposed site. Hora said those towers were in an industrial area and all of the antennas could
be exposed. He asked why that tower could not be used and eliminate the need for the
proposed tower. Ramirez said he did not understand exactly what Hora was asking.
Eckstein said that they were asking what kind of coverage could be gotten from 150—foot towers
with external antennas in the MidAmerican tower location. Ramirez said he did not know the
answer to that because there are so many aspects that go into consideration of tower
placement. Sheerin asked if AT&T had considered these towers as a possibility. Hora said that
there are an exorbitant number of towers in town already. Sheerin said that the Board just
wants to know if AT&T has considered using the existing towers instead of building a new tower.
Ramirez said he can find out that information.
Hora asked if the technology was available to take the Olympic Court tower and raise it 40 feet.
Ramirez said he did not know what the specific network was for the other carriers. Hora said he
was asking if the tower could be extended by 40 feet. Walz said one of the things that would
have to be determined is whether or not the FAA would allow the tower to be extended 40 feet,
as Olympic Court is closer to the airport. Walz said that allowable height gets more restrictive
as one moves closer to the airport. Ramirez said that the number one issue with the present
location was what the FAA would allow, noting that an extended 90-day study with the FAA was
done to determine the height of the tower. Walz said that if this is a genuine concern of the
Board, the Board can defer and wait for an answer. Walz said if there is something that inhibits
the Board from finding in favor of the applicant then they can certainly wait for further
information. Sheerin asked if a vote would need to be taken on the deferral, and Staff said that
it would.
Ramirez said he can appreciate what the Board is saying, but that there are other towers
providing service to the areas near the MidAmerican tower. Hora said he understood what
Ramirez was saying but that his point was that the question needed to be asked as to where the
limit on cell phone towers would be. He said that somewhere along the line a limit needs to be
reached or technology improved because they cannot keep going until there is a cell phone
tower every fourth block. Hora said he is asking if there is another way to provide this coverage,
or if another tower really needs to be built. Hora said he wants to know if other options have
been explored.
Jennings said that he understood that not all sites are equal, and that it is possible that a 150-
foot tower in one location would not be as effective as a 60-foot tower in another. Jennings said
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 8 of 11
there also seemed to be a question as to whether it was better to amplify the signal until it was
so strong it could penetrate any wall, versus new technologies to amplify the signal within the
home. Jennings said the technological questions may be beyond the Board's purview, but as
things are evolving and changing so quickly it may be relevant. Jennings asked Ramirez how
many other sites AT&T actually considered and what the process was by which this particular
site was arrived at.
Ramirez said that the Olympic Court tower was looked at, as was a location behind K-Mart
which was referred to earlier in the meeting. Ramirez said AT&T is severely restricted by
zoning and terrain. Jennings said he understood all of this but wanted to know if there were
other sites considered by AT&T. Ramirez said that the zoning requires a search to be done
within a half -mile of the proposed location, and that this was absolutely done. Ramirez said the
proposed location is what works best in the allowable zones. Ramirez said it is much easier
and cheaper for AT&T to co -locate and to avoid building towers altogether and that building
another structure is the last thing they want to do. He said a multitude of different things were
considered in arriving at that location.
Sheerin asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. There were none.
Ramirez said again that there would be no lights on the pole if the board does not want them,
that there would be room for two additional carriers to co -locate, and the equipment will be
inside of the building to keep the structure as unobtrusive as possible. Ramirez said a gray
paint for the pole may blend into the sky better than the brown color suggested by Staff.
Sheerin asked if there were further questions for the applicant. Eckstein said she would like to
thank him as the discussion had been very instructive.
Ramirez said he wanted to quickly demonstrate how important height is for the pole, and asked
Walz to once more run through the set of slides that shows the different coverage areas that are
possible based on different heights of the proposed cell phone tower. He said the coverage
pattern shows obvious terrain issues. He said that AT&T is trying to get the most bang for their
buck and not have to build more towers. Ramirez said that it can be very frustrating for radio
frequency engineers to hear that the location they need for maximum coverage is not in the
correct zoning code. He said he can appreciate the Board's questions, and he hopes they can
understand what it is AT&T is trying to accomplish.
Sheerin opened the meeting up to the public and asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Seeing no one, she asked if there was anyone who
wished to oppose the proposal. There was not, and so Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Sheerin opened the matter for Board discussion.
Eckstein said that the discussion had been very instructive and that the Board had stepped into
something extremely complicated due in part to the quick evolution of technology. Eckstein said
she now understood more about the site selection, and that she now understood that while she
was not keen to have another tall tower in that neighborhood, the neighborhood itself would
benefit from better cell phone service if the tower was built.
Eckstein said she was still interested in the answer to the questions concerning the
MidAmerican tower sites, and did not feel that an adequate answer had been provided as to
whether that site could work.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 9 of 11
Sheerin said she felt the same way. She said she thought more cell phone coverage was good
for the community, but that it should be done without building more towers if possible. Sheerin
said she would be interested in deferring and hearing more about the towers Hora had brought
up.
Hora said he would also like to hear about technology and whether or not the FAA would allow
for an extension of the Olympic Court tower. Hora said he believed the technology was there to
put an extension on the mono -towers. If the technology does not permit, Hora said, or if the
radio signal engineers say the MidAmerican towers don't work that's one thing, but he would like
to defer to find out the answers to those questions.
Jennings said that his experience with technology is that it is transitional and is always
changing. Jennings said that clearly the demand for cell service has expanded. On the other
hand, Jennings said, so has the tolerance for visual clutter. Jennings asked if there would be
another request for a tower next year. Jennings said he would like to have the questions about
the other towers answered because it seems a reasonable thing to ask. He said if the answer is
no, it will not work, then he would like to know.
Ramirez said that the building permit for the City High location is in the works. He said that the
City High location will fill in the same gaps that the MidAmerican tower would in his opinion.
The U.S. Cellular tower is made of fiberglass at the top. He said it could be potentially
extended, but he would be very surprised if U.S. Cellular would not have taken all the height
they could get at that location. Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower would have to be
studied for months before answers could be had about structural issues and height limitations.
Ramirez said he did not think an answer could be had quickly, that it would take a very long
time. Sheerin asked if he thought three or four months was a very long time, and Ramirez said
yes.
Walz suggested that the Board state specifically what they wished the applicant to present to
them at the next meeting if they chose to defer.
Sheerin asked Holecek if the board was exceeding their authority by deferring to have AT&T
look into alternate sites. Holecek said they are deferring to get more information about both the
Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites and that was well within their rights.
Eckstein said her suspicion was that the Olympic Court site was too short.
Sheerin said it sounded like there were a couple of threshold questions that could be answered.
Walz asked if there were any other pieces of information the Board wanted from the applicant
besides examining the Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites. Jennings asked what the
arrangements were that kept the equipment inside at the proposed site. Walz said she believed
that the cell company is leasing the space just as the store located there also leases space.
Jennings asked if it was possible to make the indoor equipment a condition and Holecek said
that it was.
Eckstein asked Staff to bring to the Board's attention other potential sites if they are overlooking
any.
Hora asked Ramirez how long it would take to pull the requested information together. Ramirez
said he would like to see what the threshold questions are because anything involving the FAA
will take three to four months. He said he would try to ask U.S. Cellular why they did not build
higher but he did not know that they would give him that information since they are a competitor
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 10of11
of AT&T. Sheerin said that what the Board is trying to determine is whether either of those
locations are realistic possibilities, and that if he is able to cut-off those inquiries by answering a
threshold question then the Board can proceed. Walz and Holecek suggested that if Ramirez
was to determine that the U.S. Cellular tower would not work because it is at the maximum
height allowed by the FAA and would not give the needed coverage at its current height, then
the Board would not consider that site further.
Eckstein moved to defer the EXC09-00005 until the Board gets answers on the
MidAmerican site and the Olympic Court site and any other tower sites that Staff deems
worthy of reexamination.
Hora seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer passed 4-0 (Thornton absent).
The Board determined that Staff would be in touch with the applicant and the Board about the
possibility of scheduling a meeting prior to the October meeting for the applicant to present
answers to the questions in the motion to defer.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eckstein motioned to adjourn.
Hora seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Thornton excused), and the meeting was adjourned at 6:396 p.m.
�
�
�
Ei
�
�
�
C4
g
g
X}
X
X
X((
Z
Z}
Z
Z
Z
�
� .
� .
0
Z(
Z)
Z
Z
Z
7
X)
X}
X
K
k
Ul
LM
y
0
Z)
Z}
Z
Z
2
:
y \
E
z
Z)
Z}
Z
Z
Z
Z
(
Z
}
Z
Z
2
�
\ 1
X
X
X
X
X
(
)
X}
k
X
k
k
2
q
o
m
—
/
�
�
/
1—
uj
o
o
G
3
G
G
G
F
§
`�
c
�
2
.
/
/
®
�
■
�
■
J
Lu
Z
k
b
E
E
CL
Z
k
k
O
0
z
.
w
v