HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2012 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the February 8, 2012 Minutes
D. Special Exception
EXC12- 00002: Discussion an application submitted by Steven Sacks for a special exception to allow a
reduction of the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single- Family (RS-
5) zone at 1215 Pickard Street.
E. Discussion Item
Board discussion of a proposal to seek clarification from the Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council regarding the criteria for a special exception to allow off -site parking in a municipal parking
facility for residential uses in the downtown commercial zones.
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: April 11, 2012
1
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC12-00002 Date: March 14, 2012
1215 Pickard Street
1
I GENERAL INFORMATION:
1
Applicant: Steven Sacks
j
1215 Pickard
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-400-8947
I
I
Requested Action: Reduction in the front principal building setback in
order to allow required parking within the front
) setback.
4
g
Location: 1215 Pickard Street
1
Size: 5,885 sq. feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family residential (RS-5)
)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5)
South: Residential (RS-5)
East: Residential (RS-5)
West: Residential (RS-5)
I Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria), Section 14-4C-3B-4b,
(Specific Criteria for setback reduction)
File Date: February 14, 2012
I
I
BACKGROUND:
The subject property at 1215 Pickard Street is a single-family use and is located in the Low-
1 Density Single Family (RS-5) zone. Pickard Street is a low volume, two-block long street with a
pavement width of 25 feet. The right-of-way width, which includes the sidewalk, is 60 feet.
The subject house is set back 20 feet from the right-of-way, with the attached garage set back an
1 additional 5 feet. The minimum required setback for this property, determined through setback
averaging, is 19.5 feet. The sidewalk is established 32.5 feet from the garage entrance.
1
j The size of the property is 5,885 square feet. Under current zoning, the minimum required lot size
for single-family uses in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet unless vehicular access is restricted
= to a rear alley or lane, in which case the minimum lot size is reduced to 6,000 square feet.
I
However, this property is established without access to the alley.
The applicant has indicated that the attached garage (9 feet in width) cannot practically
MI accommodate a car. The applicant is proposing to remodel the garage to serve additional living
space. A standard parking space is 9 feet by 18 feet.
4
1
4
2
M1
The current zoning code requires that a single-family use provide a minimum of one off-street
parking space, however, the zoning code does not allow the parking space to be located within
the front principal building setback. The applicant is seeking a reduction in the front principal
building setback in order to be able to provide the required off-street parking space on the
driveway.
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 14-2A-4B-5 pertaining to adjustments to the principal
setback requirements 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 Standards (14-4C-3B-4b).
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question;
Staff believes the situation of the property is peculiar based on the following finding:
• The attached garage is approximately 9 feet wide, which makes it difficult to use for
storing a standard size car or larger.
I s
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The Zoning Code requires one off-street parking space for single-family uses' in the
RS-5 zone, but does not allow the required parking space to be located within the
front principal building setback.
• Because the garage is small, the applicant stores his car on the driveway.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations.
The minimum principal building setback requirements are intended to
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's
neighborhoods;
The Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards in the code have different parking requirements based on the
makeup of the single-family use Single-family households that include unrelated persons are required to provide
additional parking. In either case,the first required parking space may not be located within the front principal
dwelling setback.
3
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences; and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
Because the setback reduction is for the parking and no changes to the size of the principal
building (the house itself) are proposed, the above criteria do not apply. However, Staff believes
it is more appropriate to consider the standards below that relate to parking in the single-family
zones.
The location standards for parking in the single-family zones are intended to
1. Ensure that parking areas are located so as to prevent drainage onto adjoining 1
properties, to prevent vehicles from blocking sidewalks and to ensure that front yard
areas remain free of large parking areas that will detract from the residential character
of the neighborhood.
2. Enhance public safety for residents and visitors by lining streets with active living
spaces, ensuring that there is a physical and visual connection between the living area
of the residence and the street.
3. Enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing blank
facades and large expanses of concrete along the street. f
1
Staff believes the application is in keeping with the above standards based on the
following findings:
• A standard parking space is 18 feet in length. Under the current zoning code, .
driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a minimum of 25 feet in length in
order to minimize the opportunity for vehicles to be parked across the sidewalk.
• The street right-of-way line is located 25 feet from the garage and the sidewalk is
located 32.5 feet from the garage, and so there is adequate space to park the car on ";
the driveway without blocking the sidewalk.
• The driveway is set back more than the required 3 feet from the side property line.
• While this neighborhood is characterized by small lots, along Pickard street (the short
side of the block) there is ample space between buildings and driveways. The subject
frontage is 267 feet in length, and has just three homes. Two of the houses provide
vehicle access from Pickard Street. (The house to the south has vehicle access from
Friendly Avenue.)
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
1 the extent practical.
1
Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following findings:
•
See findings listed above under criterion #3.
1
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property
line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right of way or permanent
open space.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: ('
i
• The subject building satisfies all setback requirements for the zone in which it is
located.
4
I
1
General Standards (14-4B-3)
1
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
t
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. i
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: i
!
i
• The front property line is located 25 feet from the garage and the sidewalk is located 1
,
g.
32.5 feet from the garage. i
• A standard parking space is 18 feet in length. Under the current zoning code, 6
driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a minimum of 25 feet in length in ,
i
order to minimize the opportunity for vehicles to be parked across the sidewalk. t
g
• Pickard is a low-volume street, only two blocks in length, and does not intersect with g
i
k
any collector or arterial streets. Only ten homes front onto the entire length of Pickard g
Street, which runs between Kirkwood Court and Friendly Avenue (both residential
I
streets). Thus pedestrian and vehicle traffic along this street is low-volume.
V
.t.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of g
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
1
property values in the neighborhood.
t
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings listed .
t
under#1 above and the following: I
,
!
• The proposed setback reduction is solely for the purpose of allowing required parking ri
to be located on the existing driveway; the house itself will not expand further toward i
g
neighboring properties or toward the street right-of-way.
• The subject house satisfies all building setback requirements for the zone in which it
1
is located.
i
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and .
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses k
I
permitted in the zone in which such property is located. I.
i
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based the findings provided above i
1,
under general standards#1 and#2.
I
,
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or I
are being provided. I
,
I
• The subject neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary access roads,
drainage and other facilities, and alleys. [
1 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
1
Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The subject property is a single-family residence and does not generate significant I
i
traffic. i
/
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception
1
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. i
I
i
1
I
i
I
5
• The proposed setback reduction conforms to the applicable regulations for single-
family residences in the RS-5 zone.
• The applicant will be required to secure a building permit to convert the garage to
living space. This special exception is not concerned with the details of the
conversion of that space other than the implications it has for required parking.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
While the Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue directly, it does encourage
reinvestment in Iowa City's established neighborhood and preservation of pedestrian
safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by
Steven Sacks to reduce the front principal building setback from 19.5 feet to 7 feet to allow a
required parking space to be located along the driveway for a single-family use located in the
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1215 Pickard Street, subject to the
following condition:
• The setback reduction is for the purpose of satisfying the parking location standards
only and does not allow for any expansion of the building into the required setback.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial view and illustration of setback.
2. Location maps
3. Application materials
4. Correspondence
Approved by 714
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
A
It
1
4
i
t
4
6
1215 Pickard Street
The garage is set back 25 ft.
from the ROW line
The house is set and 32.5 feet from the sidewalk.
back 20 ft.from The sidewalk is located within the
ROW line ROW
N✓ Street right-of-way(ROW) line.
(Above the line is the private
ti,,
s.
property, below the line is ROW.
Sidewalk
[1.!, Pickard Street
i 1031 ivw -'
.-_
i
1 0 it „ (J
:OS c» UM
15 go
v iv .
eall o G' '
. •- GINTER AVE
'1 wti M i_
on r .< r
lak
MD CM . mg
I 16 L'.Ki On MO k-Li CO CO }� CB �Li� �L77J (41� '' _
r ,
.mow
ItiriaMlenaa W
An aerial view of the neighborhood surrounding Pickard Street.
_
I (f)
1
c V ARCY ST
14 MI
O
1 1 1
Z (/'') I
1
i
. v
.
NJ V1
I .
1
(n
T
V .
— _
a LL, �CIR '< ST
_ _ _
re
j
•
I I 1 - 0W--_- LL ST
1 1 j
j 1 ! 11 1
i n . \
1
ill �
Ni
i '
I 0 2\'
U
l I
I
D -
•
I 1 I
•
j
j
n
j0
c ■
-... -. PIC'KAR.D ST .—1 I ..
1 •
1
1_
•
•
I
1
•
I j
1
•
MI
•
,
1
•
1.
f
I
Al _ — i — — —
YLWLLL ST
I
0 1 1
O •
O I
i
N I
}
rn �'
+n
o
o
' " a ..,W m. a. ° .K
N
z
d a. .Px 'Fy d � ��
Iry
I■L CD
R _,
r
o
ri-
';R `a s<,
1,t tw^, �
',
p «
$
WEI°b
�'w PLCKARD ST
®, w
I'; ,••^., d s "1 1''.* ''' '' .-
1.4 to a fi.
ff rte"' 71.': , °'t a. '+''" � a *=; p ' � _. :‘,.;4:,;°' 4 `s Fm .-
.. 3
5
'.
O 0
__.
r N O -0 N
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
i
1 �
DATE: 2 " ILI -- 1 Z PROPERTY PARCEL NO 10 I i 3'1 I opt--(
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1 2- 15 F i ck-ct vd
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 403 x 9
APPLICANT: Name: STEb64/* S4c1<�
Address: 12/r P/c-' 4o
Phone: (311) 9a9- 1-14•F
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
_ C)
Phone:
:::. --...; :1 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ,r, -'(if other than applicant) �; r--4'
Address:
t''.,
r,,
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 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city,org.
Purpose for special exception: Rkd t4-L ` _ rn1,1-4-- 5c-+ b c.h-_
.6 o f) <<Ax - ire- vi u
ci pc(
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any
I have had the m leasure to own home, a beautiful Moffitt house in a
p my
( neighborhood of similarly designed Moffitt homes, for the past year Although the
previous owners were attentive to the home, and updated many components of the
home, they left a couple of structural issues which need to be addressed. First and
foremost of these is a garage which is far too narrow to be useful for its originally
intended purpose - no car can realistically fit into the garage - which was also
designed with a driveway which has a downward slant, and has been the cause of
several drainage issues.At present,the garage is unable to serve any useful purpose
- neither as a room nor as a garage - and is subject to periodic water problems. In
my neighborhood, my house is one of the few Moffitt houses that retained its
original garage. Although I understood that structural eccentricities were
characteristic of this house, I would like to make best use of the space, and to
remodel the garage and the driveway so that the garage can become a bedroom,and
the driveway will easily accommodate my car,without interference in public space.
Since my home is also located in a very low traffic area, away from the downtown, I
am requesting that the minimum front setback for the home be reduced so that I
may proceed with this necessary repair and remodeling work.
C N
L:*) cam.,
1-71 6
0 -3- 0
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
I
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
7111 1-7°44�5 iIr P o'-, o/C 74142 7C 5¢ c.,se!/Alai t •
iTe4ti CPA 461.'.
race rn5 .,, ve-hr.'c. oYtz..-14
fn fte s,` (/14 nve- g 61•=e'''''. 74"‘W. L y.
7
I- 4 4.747 )L$ 4,s,// ,.1/4,r- /..yoj„dbc 7`"4e G.s.t r
t
1
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not 1
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
TIC rL a coact- -- .. -)/// "`a•SC ?'1 /oeep e-'/7
(/47ge 4- 4 /eyoea Pv.c . -'/,.'„... it • a i1` et.vif
/net te-e rf-ite re-zree-7 "A'Aroe...4/ PkIcAelC 411 ....&/5K f
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 district in which such property is located.
/�O veNGlry+ave yi` 44-14/ c / -»�o2 e
—
Y. &_
N)
IN)
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
i
been or are being provided. 1
T4•s dsc Afro we 1l e gi'l,rov-c / c-e 4/ICS 1
t
f�tfec•.lrr-1 , j
4'141.3.'e • 1
-4-
a
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
s s (4)4 0 1 /9c, es' G1`,
r1��54rC5 . -.11 € 'Ca$Sq4, fgv 2'�/i
/bk of cee: 5 -- li fe> w�o�c. ��c coal
sf ee.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
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 special 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 the City Code section 14-4B as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
(
C
C)
-11
1105 1205 1' 12‘
4/1k
Length:93.38 ft
32.5P* ID 5;de
Length:13.01 ft 5 7464
F-#
Lenuttre3o.54*
• CL
Length 43.03 ft 1215 0
1
—
1217
1Dm
gift
•aanqg Ane, rano...sme,
Johnson County,Iowa
1215 Pickard
Printed:Feb 13;2012'
r•-•.3
C=
a
J L
C")—<
=IC")
rn rn
r:ZD
ro,
March 12, 2012
i
Iowa City Board of Adjustment:
We have discussed with Steven Sacks, our next door neighbor, his request for a
special exception to allow a reduction of the required front yard setback at 1215
Pickard Street.
We are certainly in favor of your granting the special exception because we
believe it would preserve the integrity of, not only his home exterior and yard, but
also ours. If this exception is not granted, Steven Sacks or a future owner of 1215
Pickard Street might place a concrete driveway and shed just a few feet from our
living room windows and, instead of a view of our side yard and his lovely stone
house, we would be looking directly at a car or two
Please grant this exception.
Sincerely,
Nancy Carl
12 / f
Sally Moore
p ML
1217 Pickard Street
Iowa City
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 08, 2012 —5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Larry Baker, Will Jennings
MEMBERS ABSENT: Caroline Sheerin
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Andrew Bassman
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ramirez
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, Baker and Jennings were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Jennings outlining the role and purpose of the Board
and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 11, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Baker asked if Walz had heard from the applicant regarding EXC11-00011.
Walz said that when the applicant applies for a building permit they will submit plans, and those
plans will go through design review.
Grenis moved to approve the minutes as corrected for January 11, 2012.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC
(AT&T) for a special exception to locate a communication transmission facility in the f
Neighborhood Public (P-1)zone at 2901 Melrose Ave. (West High School).
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 2 of 8
Bassman explained that the tower and facilities would be located within a 20x37-square foot
area, which would be leased by AT&T, directly behind the bleachers on the north side of the
West High School football stadium. The pole would be located 362 feet from the nearest
residential zone. The cell tower would provide improved coverage for the Galway Hills
neighborhood to the west, and the other mostly residential areas to the south and east of West
High School. The proposal includes removing an existing light pole within the leased area to
make room for the tower and facilities. A proposed 11.5x20 foot shelter would also be
constructed within the leased area A 20-foot wide access and utility easement along the
existing north-south drive (from the west entrance to West High from Melrose Avenue) that
would run parallel to the western border of the existing property line is also proposed.
Bassman said that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the area The
proposed tower will be constructed to reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area The
proposed monopole will be 114 feet tall based on an FAA determination and will be similar in
appearance to the existing light poles at the football field. The tower will be no taller than is
necessary to provide the service intended. The applicant has stated that the monopole height is
the minimum needed to provide the coverage adequately. The applicant has provided maps to
illustrate radio coverage before installation and after to point out the increased coverage area
afforded by the proposed site
Bassman said that any equipment associated with the tower facility must be enclosed in a
structure adequately screened from view of the public right of way. The proposal includes an 8
foot high chain link fence with privacy slats to surround the leased area and other walls to
conceal the equipment.
Jennings invited discussion.
Baker asked if there is a requirement for a special exception that neighbors within a certain area
have to be notified.
Walz explained that in every case anyone who lives within 300 feet of any portion of a site
receives a letter, there is notice published in the Press-Citizen and a sign is posted on the land.
In addition, this applicant held a good neighbor meeting at West High.
Baker asked if any objections would have been registered at this point.
Walz said it is staffs hope that they would have been
Baker asked about the abandonment letter, as it does not appear to have been submitted yet.
Walz explained that it would be required with the building permit as a condition of approval of
the application for the permit.
Baker inquired if it is standard procedure to allow the a pp licant a year to remove their property
should they discontinue use of the facility.
Walz stated that the City's policy on any abandonment of use is typically a 12-month period.
Baker asked why the applicant has to provide evidence that co-location is not possible.
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 3 of 8
Walz explained that both the cellular companies and the City would prefer co-location, so the
City looks at these applications on a case by case basis to see if possibilities exist for co-
location.
Baker asked if it is a problem that "The zoning code does not speak directly to the issue of
communication transmission", as noted in item 7 of the staff report.
Walz determined that the sentence should read "The Comprehensive Plan does not speak
directly to the issue of communication transmission."
Jennings said that the tower would be right next to a bleacher, and noted that there is easy
access to the facility, so what purpose does a fence serve.
Walz said that the City's reason for having a fence is to visually screen the use from public view,
although she could not speak for the applicant's reason.
Jennings said that he is worried about access and the safety issue that easy access creates.
Someone could easily jump down from the bleacher into the tower area He wanted to know if
these particular safety concerns were considered by staff.
Walz said they were not
}
Jennings asked if the design of the tower and the combination use as cell tower and light was
evaluated by the City for structural integrity.
Walz explained that the applicant would have submitted engineering plans to get the building
permit, and those plans would have to be approved by a certified engineer.
Baker asked if public concern about cell towers and emissions was still an issue and if those
issues would have come up when the neighbors were informed of the application.
Holecek explained that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow localities to consider
those types of issues when deciding whether or not to site these types of uses.
Walz explained that the special exception being considered is really only for the structure itself,
not the antennas.
Jennings recalled that when these issues came up before, the reaction of the neighborhood was
to embrace the idea of getting better coverage with the addition of a tower. He said he thought
the abandonment letter seemed to be of critical importance, as with technology changing, the
future could see more of an emphasis focused on the receiving rather than the transmitting end.
Jennings invited the applicant to speak.
Brian Ramirez, a representative from New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T), explained that
they had originally applied for a 120 feet tower but the FAA determined that it would have to be
lowered to 114 feet. The tower will not be lit on top. He said that pole would be moved over
slightly from where it is now, about 15 feet, and the lighting would be replaced at the 80 feet
level, where it currently is The tower will be designed so it is structurally able to include the
lighting and a third set of antennas. He concurred that they too, were concerned about safety.
F
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 4 of 8
Although the drawings don't show it, they will place small-mesh fencing across the top of the
equipment shelter. The shelter itself is a prefabricated concrete cube that will be set on a pad.
They did have a good neighbor meeting at West High, and only one person came. This plan has
been approved by the athletic director, the football coach, the principal and the maintenance
director for the school district.
Baker asked who would be responsible for trash removal on top of the equipment shelter.
Ramirez said that the company has field technicians who hire local maintenance people for
trash removal and weeding at each site. He explained that in New Cingular's letter of agreement
with West High, it states that New Cingular would be responsible for removing the items should
they abandon use of the tower.
Jennings said in other cases that have come before the Board, the antennas have been
contained within the pole and thus made the structure less obtrusive. He asked if flush mounting
the antennas to the pole is required in this case due to the 4G or LTE technology.
Ramirez explained that the problem with containing the antennas within the pole is that they are
unable to be turned or tilted, as is sometimes required in order to "hit the spots you need to hit."
In this case, the antennas will be servicing multiple types of gadgets and so they will need to be
moved and adjusted.
Jennings asked how the reduction in height that the FAA required makes it feasible for there to
be any co-location.
Ramirez explained that New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T)will take the top two spots.
When they transition to LTE technology, there's a good chance they will take the third spot as
well. He thinks that if another carrier came in, they would probably ask to replace another,
different light pole because all the carriers in the industry are transitioning to this new
technology that requires a height greater than what would be offered on the third spot of this
pole.
Jennings opened public hearing.
Jennings closed public hearing.
Jennings asked staff if they had any issues or reservations about the new height requirement,
the new fencing on top of the enclosure and the three spots instead of two on the pole.
Holecek said that substantively there hasn't been a material or significant change in the
application.
Walz added that if the Board wants something beyond a verbal commitment for the applicant
regarding the fencing on top of the enclosure, they should add that requirement to the special
exception and include it in their findings.
Baker said he was inclined to so stipulate.
Baker moved to approve EXC12-00001; an application submitted by New Cingular
Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T) for a special exception to locate a communication
i
1
,
1 Board of Adjustment
' February 8, 2012
1
1 Page 5 of 8
c
,
1 transmission facility in the Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone at 2901 Melrose Ave. (West
f High School) subject to the following conditions:
' • Installation of a cover on the fenced enclosure.
!
1 • The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit,
i indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued.
I
• Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan.
Grenis seconded.
,
1
1 Jennings invited discussion. 1
t
1
1.
, Grenis submitted his findings.
1 1
1 The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are
, 1. The proposed tower is the only existing tower within one-half(1/2) mile of the
Iproposed site
1 • There are no existing towers that provide opportunities for co-location and
I no properties zoned industrial in the vicinity.
:
• There is one antenna structure within a .8-mile radius of the proposed
:
location but the applicant stated that the antenna is not suitable for the
t applicant's use due to overall height and space constraints in the structure.
,
t
i 1
t 2. The proposed monopole would be similar in appearance to the existing light poles at
,
t the football field. As noted by the applicant, the height of the pole will be 114 feet
i
rather than 120 feet
• The antennas would be attached to the exterior of the pole.
! ,
• The monopole will not have guywires or support trusses.
t
• There will not be any strobe lighting.
1
, • The school district will determine the height of the lighting for the football
,
field; the construction drawings indicate the lighting height and type will
, match existing lighting around the football stadium.
,
t
, 3. The pole height is the minimum needed to provide the increased coverage
,
. adequately, and the applicant has provided maps illustrating the appropriate
t coverage. II
t
t
4. The proposed height of the pole will be 114 feet, and the closest residential zone
is 362 feet away.
5. The storage shed will be located behind the existing bleachers and partially
concealed by typography including an 8-foot high chain-link fence with privacy
i
slats surrounding the area and would have fencing on top of the structure.
• A retaining wall would be located within the chain link fence.
1
• A proposed 12-foot wide double swing gate would be located at the
1
northeast end of the leased area
f
• This area is not within view of adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
i
it
E
1
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 6 of 8
6. The pole will not be using a back-up generator as a principle source of power.
7. The applicant has indicated that the monopole is the minimum height required to
provide adequate coverage to the area, and the applicant has provided
certification by a professional engineer licensed in Iowa that the proposed tower
will be designed to permit this antenna system of comparable size.
8. The applicant has indicated they will submit an abandonment letter. It appears
they have communicated with West High that this issue will be covered. The •
Board stipulates that this letter be provided before the building permit is issued.
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The structure meets all applicable building, mechanical and fire codes, including
wind and ice loading requirements for the monopole, ground equipment will be
housed in a shed surrounded by fencing and screened from view, the school
district will also be able to use the monopole for athletic field lighting, and the
pole will be located more than 300 feet from the nearest residential zone.
2. The pole meets all the building and mechanical codes.
3. The pole meets all the building and mechanical codes.
4. Adequate utilities will be provided to serve the site.
5. The proposed use does not generate vehicle traffic and will have no impact on
ingress or egress from West High property.
6. The applicant will be required to secure a building permit prior to constructing the
tower which will require that all other codes be met.
7. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, even though the
Comprehensive Plan does not speak directly to the issue of communication
transmission facilities.
Jennings asked that in Item 2 the language be changed to read that "antennas will be flush
mounted at appropriate heights to the structure that is 114 feet total height.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
}
EXC11-00008: A request to extend the term of a special exception to allow a drive-
through restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone located at 710 Hwy 1 West,
east of Hawk Ridge Drive.
Walz explained that this late addition to the agenda is a special exception that was approved 6
months ago. The proposed user of the drive-through was in the process of getting site plan
approval when problems arose concerning the subdivider's agreement. The term of the special
exception is about to expire. The applicant is requesting another 6 month term. Walz said that
special exceptions are granted in finite terms because regulations change and also because an
applicant cannot then keep a site unused for years and build when neighborhood conditions
have changed from the time the exception was approved. In this case, everything is the same
as when the special exception was approved. The applicant cannot submit their building permit
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 7 of 8
until the subdivider's agreement is resolved. The special exception has already been approved.
The Board will be voting on whether or not to grant a 6 month extension.
Walz stated that the typical time period for an extension is 6 months although there are some
exceptions.
Holecek indicated that extensions are also granted when there is litigation.
Baker moved to approve EXC11-00008: A request to extend for 6 months a special
exception to allow a drive-through restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
located at 710 Hwy 1 West, east of Hawk Ridge Drive.
Grenis seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said they are in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan in terms of sustainability.
A workshop was held last week at West High School. This week's workshop will be at Southeast
Junior High School and the Board is invited to attend.
Jennings said that he thinks the issue of parking relative to multi-dwelling living units in the
downtown area is becoming an increasing issue. He asked if the Board of Adjustment can
request that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council begin to address this in a
more comprehensive and thorough manner.
y3
Walz said the next step is to write a letter. At the next meeting with a full Board, particular issues
can be identified and then Sheerin and Walz can work on a letter to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and to Council and ask them to look at these issues.
Holecek advised adding an agenda item called "recommendations to Planning and Zoning for
planning issues".
Jennings said he thought definitions, allotments and assignation of parking spaces have been
fluid and changing in previous special exceptions the Board has approved, and he sees more
definitive standards as a matter of some urgency.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meetin g was adjourned on a 3-0 vote.
1
)
(
!
i
}
|
� }
) .
I'
}
}
)
,
| }
(
)
( {
3 W .
E I
I- U \LLJ
M CL .\
W 1-
< 2cl
OD 2 xxxb
W
x x q x
m §
/
® c ) n § [
wa c) '- '- � m
= O
3 3 0 / (
0
/ / k \
tEkE /2
E § § $ 2
a < II II 2
m m \ i i & 2 i
c£ x002 ;
al
m 0 ) ¢
ILI m =•
Q ?
Z _1 c Q
/
1
»
[
{