Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2010 Board of Adjustmentm F i CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:00 P.M. Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA & STAFF REPORTS CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning & Community Development AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 5:00 PM CITY HALL - EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the January 13, 2010 Board Minutes D. Special Exceptions: EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property. EXC09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Regina High School for a special exception to allow the expansion of a general education facility in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2150 Rochester Avenue. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: March 10, 2010 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: 13 February 2010 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: EXC09-00009 Ace Auto Recyclers, 2752 South Riverside Drive As you are all aware, the discussion of this application was deferred at the January meeting in order that all five members of the board could consider the case and so that all five of you could visit the site and, in particular, observe the extent to which the south fence line is visible from Riverside Drive. In order to discuss your observations about the property and provide the applicant and public the opportunity to respond to this new evidence, Staff recommends that the motion currently before the Board be withdrawn and that the public hearing be reopened. This will also allow you to ask additional questions of staff and the applicant. The applicant has also provided additional information about the site, which I am attaching to this memo. The applicant will speak about these exhibits at the meeting in the event that the public hearing is reopened. The decision to defer discussion seemed to center on concerns regarding the fence along the south property line. For this reason you may wish to consider breaking your decision into two separate motions —one to address the north and east property lines, and a second motion for the south property line, with separate findings for each. Please carefully review the report and the minutes of last month's meeting. (In the event that anyone already recycled last month's packet, I have provided an exact copy of the report and application that was submitted to you last month.) FEB - 3 2010 Ace Auto Recyclers, Inc. Don Hilsman, Jason Hilsman and Joel McCaw February 2010 For the past ten years Ace Auto Recyclers has been aggressively improving our auto recycling property. We have improved the property by removing piles of scrap, buses, and semi trailers, which once occupied the property. Our salvage vehicles have been organized into rows, improving the appearance of our facility. We have improved our business practices by working with Sue Schauls an independent environmental consultant. With Sue's help we have improved the methods we use to recycle and have become I -CARE certified which exceeds national guidelines in the automotive recycling industry. The certification program has established standards in four categories: general business practices, environmental compliance and stewardship, occupational health and safety practices, and licensing and regulatory requirements. (See I -CARE insert) The "cash for clunkers" program is a good example of the standards our business abides by in our industry. Ace Auto Recyclers was the only automotive recycler in Johnson County properly licensed by the Federal Government to recycle the "clunkers". During the last four years we have worked with the city to be properly zoned, and to build a new recycling facility. Our company has spent an extraordinary amount of time and money to comply with the city guidelines and city leader's requests. We have added 120 trees along the properties perimeter and approximately 2 acres of green space to improve the view of our land. A new building and landscaping along with the green space will add visual appeal to the property. Ace Auto Recyclers is very serious about the way we conduct business as well as the way the property looks and is viewed. As recycling continues to be a very important part of our society, we need a modernized facility to keep up with the larger demand. As Iowa City and surrounding towns continue to grow it is imperative to have a facility to keep up with the increasing amounts of metal, automobiles, and by-products of the automobiles we recycle. 77777771 Ace Auto Recyclers 2752 S. Riverside Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Certified May 29, 2009 The Iowa Automotive Recyclers Certification Program was established by the industry to set a standard of excellence for automotive recycling in Iowa. The certification program is sponsored by the Iowa Automotive Recyclers association. The certification program has established standards in four categories that participating member yards meet specific to general business practices, environmental compliance and stewardship, occupational health and safety practices and licensing and regulatory requirements. Together these criteria provide a basic framework of expectations by which member salvage yards are guided. Certification distinguishes member of the Iowa Automotive Recyclers association as professional recyclers adhering to the highest standards of excellence in the industry. The certification process is an intensive on -site audit and documentation of the practices at individual Iowa salvage yards. Salvage yards must be members in good standing to become certified. Certification is conducted by an independent auditor approved by the IAR Board. Ace Aunt Rec\ ck rs, Inc. 14 %R1 (TRT11"R -1TJON PROGRAM STANDARDS General Business Practices • Adequate, well -graded (or paved), well -drained customer parking facility is separate from the vehicle area. • Clean and organized retail sales counter and reception area. • Signs in good taste and of positive tone. • Building and property is well -maintained to reflect a clean, orderly, and safe operation. • Delivery and support vehicles are well -maintained to ensure employee and community safety. • Pest control for mosquitoes and rodents is preventive. • No open burning at the facility as prohibited by Iowa law. Occupational Health and Safety Practices • Utilization of basic personal protective equipment including gloves, hard hats, safety shoes, safety clothing, safety shields, and goggles, when required. • OSHA approved 1 5-minute eye wash station(s) readily accessible near corrosive materials. • Readily available, appropriate typed, and fully charged fire extinguishers. • Safeguards and training for proper use of cutting torches. • A stocked first aid kit • Spill kit(s) • A safety program in which a particular individual is in charge of regularly scheduled safety meetings and safety inspections. Environmental Compliance and Stewardship • All automotive fluids are properly removed and managed as part of the dismantling procedure and/or prior to crushing the vehicles. Evacuated fluids include fuel, used oils and antifreeze. • Used oils, including crank case motor oil and brake, transmission, power steering, rear axle housing and hydraulic fluids, are managed according to the used oil management standards. • Evacuated fuel is managed as a usable product or properly disposed of as a hazardous waste if not useable. • Used antifreeze evacuated from the dismantled vehicle is managed as a usable product or properly identified as either hazardous or non -hazardous waste and managed according to the waste determination. • All fluids are stored inside a building, or outside with secondary containment. • Prevent or manage hazardous substance spills according to the applicable rules. • Maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan at facilities with oil storage capacity of 1320 gallons or more. • All lead -acid batteries are properly removed and managed as part of the dismantling procedure and/or prior to crushing the vehicles. Spent lead -acid batteries are placed either in a covered storage area on an impervious surface or in plastic containers with lids. Spent lead -acid batteries are recycled through a reputable battery recycler. • Refrigerant is evacuated from each vehicle in accordance with applicable regulations, or contracts for refrigerant removal with a licensed vendor. • Records are maintained for off -site refrigerant disposal/reclamation that includes the amount of refrigerant, the date sent, and the facility that received the refrigerant. Proof of technician certification is readily available onsite. • Engines and transmissions to be resold are stored under a permanent roof on an impervious surface, or in an outside covered weather-proof container. • Core and recyclable engines and transmission are stored under a permanent roof on an impervious surface, in an outside covered weather-proof container, or an impervious surface that drains to an oil -water separator. • Vehicle hoods are routinely kept closed to reduce exposure to rain fall of engines that remain in the vehicles stored in the yard. • Spent solvents from parts cleaning systems are disposed of with an authorized processor. • Wash water from water -based parts washers is either recycled or collected for disposal in an approved manner. • Waste tires are stored on -site with at least 50 feet of clearance between tire piles, the perimeter of the yard and/or structures. No more than 3,500 tires are kept on -site at any given time as is allowed by state law. • CAR certification requires that the company participates in the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) or the equivalent state program. • Oily wastes such as used oil absorbent and used oil filters are managed in accordance with applicable rules. • Fluorescent bulbs are managed as Universal Waste and properly recycled. Licensing and Regulatory Requirements • Iowa Automotive recyclers require these state permits or licenses that authorize the business to operate, other city, county or municipal permits may also apply: ✓ Iowa DOT Recyclers License ✓ Iowa DOT Used Car Dealers License (optional) ✓ Sales Tax Permit ✓ Household Hazardous Material (HHM) permit (if applicable) • Ensure compliance with Iowa Storm Water regulatory requirements. • Identify all hazardous waste through appropriate analytical laboratory testing or verify documentation of thorough knowledge as nonhazardous waste. These wastes are exempt from hazardous waste management, if recycled: ❑ Used Oil including Brake, Transmission & Hydraulic Fluids ❑ Spent Lead -Acid Batteries ❑ Mercury Switches ❑ Fluorescent Bulbs ❑ Refrigerant These wastes require a hazardous determination prior to selecting a disposal option: ❑ Antifreeze ❑ Sump sludge ❑ Oily Waste ❑ Solvent Waste ❑ Used Fuels • Identify the applicable EPA hazardous waste generator category and maintain records to ensure compliance with storage limitations, inspection and recordkeeping regulations. • Review and acknowledgement of applicable OSHA requirements pertaining to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), right -to -know, and employee safety. Establish and maintain a Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) program. • Conduct monthly safety training as recommended by OSHA. • Train employees on proper operations and handling of cutting torch equipment. • Documentation of appropriate DOT training for employees associated with the shipping of airbags. • Documentation of appropriate forklift training for employees. M, E-0 m Ef P4 P-4 E m O Cd 1 :10 ci ITJ 1 22 E� E-11 PR"'pQPT ROPOSE6 � SOILIDI� I f E14C 'o ��CING 4? & I _7 SILT FENCE 49.17 EDGE OF PROPOSED GRAVEL SOLID FENCING PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM tL�j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 650.27 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE DRAINAGEWAY AND FIRE FIGHTING ACCESS 649.47 > 25 15/0.34 it--------------------------------------------------- H.A3 PROPOSED,-, 106 650.07 SOLID FENCING "511 4ROPOSED p45'FIRVIGHiCE5s­ I [L ___________________________________________ / / / / / | / / � ��19' NOO°O0'00^E 1184.29' � � � � February 2, 2010 Ace Auto Recyclers 2954 S. Riverside Dr. Iowa City, Ia 52240 To Whom It May Concern: I have been working with Ace Auto Recyclers on the Landscape site plan for their building project since April, 2006. This includes the South end on the West lot line. After evaluating the site, soil conditions, and screening needs, it was my recommendation they install 2 rows of trees. The inside row along the fence was planted with Picea abies (Norway Spruce). This species is often used as a windbreak and a screen. Norway Spruce is adaptable to various soil conditions and develops a large fiberous root system. The growth rate is dependent on the site and soil conditions but is often 2-3 feet per season. The mature height can be 80- 100 feet with a width of up to 40 feet. These trees are also relatively pest free. The outside row was planted with a Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar). This is a native, hardy, tough tree that will grow up to 40 feet in height and 30 feet in width. I consider both these species to be an excellent choice for use as a screen on this site. These trees were purchased from a local nursery that specializes in windbreak plant material. Windbreak trees are most often planted in smaller sizes than landscape trees. This is to eliminate the stress caused by transplanting the larger size trees. In essence the windbreak trees, when planted, tend to begin root growth immediately and adapt quicker to the site. I also instructed the folks at Ace Auto in proper soil preparation, planting, watering, and maintenance techniques. The folks at Ace Auto have done a very good job preparing the site, planting the trees, and maintaining the trees up to this point. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, CIA Edward Rinderspacher, CIC ISA Certified Arborist MW-0133A 1476 Baker Ave, West Branch, la 52358 ■ 319-631-5200 ■ rindy@Lcom.net STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC09-00009 Ace Auto Recyclers GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: January 13, 2010 Ace Auto Recyclers, Inc. 2752 Riverside Drive Iowa City, IA Don Hilsman 319-338-7828 Special Exception to waive the requirement for solid fencing surrounding portions of a salvage yard. To allow the salvage yard to use no -solid fencing in areas that are not visible from the street right-of-way. 2752 Riverside Drive 11.36 acres Heavy Industrial (1-2) North: General Industrial (11) Salvage Yard South: General Industrial (11) Undeveloped East: Public (P-1) former landfill /Mesquaki Park West: General Industrial (11) 14-2D-2, Principal land uses allowed in the 12 zone; 14-4B-4C-5, Specific approval criteria for salvage operations in the 12 zone; 14-4B-3A, general approval criteria for special exceptions File Date: November 25, 2009 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1974, upon the request of the property owners at that time, the City annexed this property as part of an approximately 45-acre annexation. At that time, and before any salvage yard was established in the area, the owners of what are now the Ace salvage yard and the adjacent salvage yard to the north (Russell) entered into Conditional Zoning Agreements (CZA) specifying conditions pertaining to the operation of a salvage yard. The intent and the requirements of the CZA were to ensure that: 1. the salvage yard would be located at least 300 feet east of old Highway 218 (Riverside Drive); 2. there would be a berm and landscaping to screen views of the property from the highway and the Iowa River; 3. the auto recycling operation would consist of only temporary storage of automobiles awaiting crushing and crushed automobiles and equipment related to the crushing operation; and 4. the area used for automobile salvage would not exceed 5 acres. Though the CZA was recorded as a covenant running with the land so that it applied to the owners who agreed to it as well as any future owners, both properties were non -compliant. The salvage yards (Russell and Ace) were expanded beyond the 5-acre areas agreed to by the City and the property owners, and the Ace site grew to cover approximately 10 acres. The required berms and landscaping were not put in place or were removed. In 2005 the current operator, Ace Auto Recyclers, requested and was granted a rezoning of his property from General Industrial (11) to Heavy Industrial (12) to allow expansion of the salvage yard, including the construction of a new office/warehouse building. As part of the rezoning request, the applicant proposed a number of improvements to the property including a plan for landscape screening and fencing that would bring the property into general compliance with the prior CZA as well as requirements of the current zoning code. The rezoning from 11 to 12 was approved subject to the installation of landscape and fence improvements as specified in the site plan (see attached). In order to meet the conditions of the original CZA, the applicant removed salvage materials from property located within 300 feet of South Riverside Drive, with the exception of a warehouse used for disassembling the cars, which is approximately 250 feet from the property line. In 2006, the applicant requested and was granted a special exception to legitimize the established salvage yard in the 12 zone and to allow its expansion. As with the rezoning approval, the Board's decision included a condition requiring the applicant to "install all landscaping and screening improvements as specified in the approved site plan" (see attached decision). The applicant had specified in his application that the "proposed fencing" referred to on the site plan would be 8-foot solid fencing. In addition to the required screening, the applicant was required to maintain a 15-foot fire break outside the fence in order to minimize the threat of fire escaping the property. , . -, j {,,,, (. The applicant began the process of installing the elements of the site plan (see attached aerial views and photos) . A 6-foot high chain link fence with brown vinyl slats was erected on four sides of the property with an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks substituted for the chain link fence along a substantial portion of the salvage yard's southeast side. At the time of installation, the building official believed that the 6-foot chain link fencing with slats would satisfy the requirement for solid fencing. It was later determined thi&fencing does not meet the standard for S5 solid screening'. It was also determined that the fence was put in place across and adjacent stream at the northeast corner of the property in conflict with the approved site plan. In 2006, the BOA had no authority to waive the requirement for solid fencing. In December 2009, the City Council amended the zoning code to allow the Board of Adjustment discretion when applying the solid fence screening requirements "in areas that are not visible from streets, other public rights -of -way, or the Iowa River, and where nearby uses will not be harmed...." The amendment to the specific criteria, which the board must now consider in evaluating the applicant's request to amend the original special exception, is spelled out in bold under the analysis section of this report. The complete criteria for salvage yards are also provided as an attachment to this report. The applicant is seeking to amend the 2006 special exception in order to allow the presently installed, 6-foot chain -link fencing with vinyl slats for the south, east, and north property lines. Because the west side of the property is visible from the Riverside Drive right-of-way, no waiver may be granted. The 8-foot solid fencing is required along the west side of the salvage yard and must be installed. The applicant is not requesting a waiver from the required screening along this portion of the property. The applicant has met other conditions of the special exception, including installing the required landscaping at the west and south sides of the property. (While these evergreen trees are small at this time, when mature they will screen views of the salvage yard from S. Riverside Drive and the adjacent property to the south.) The applicant has brought all stormwater and DNR permits up-to-date and filed them with the City and provided the required maintenance plan for a 15 foot firebreak required around the property. Properties to the north and south are zoned General Industrial (11). Another salvage yard abuts the north property line, and to the south is vacant land owned by Ace Auto Recyclers. To the east is public property, known as Mesquakie Park. This property consists of a former landfill and is closed to public use due to environmental concerns. There is no plan to open the park for public use or access, and the land is, for all intents and purposes, undevelopable. The east property line for Ace Auto Recyclers is nearly 800 feet from the Iowa River and mature trees established on the public property effectively screen the salvage yard from the river. A small portion of the southeast corner of the salvage yard is bordered by a dredged pond that is that is outside city limits. 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 regulations of Section 14-4B-4C-5b pertaining to the screening requirements for salvage yards located in the Intensive Industrial ((12) zone as well as the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. 1 S5 screening is defined by the zoning code as "A 4 to 8 foot high fence, completely opaque, constructed of wood, brick, metal, masonry, or other permanent materials.... The height of the fence or wall will be determined based on the activity, materials, or equipment being screened. In general, the fence or wall should be of sufficient height to screen the activity, materials, or equipment from view." Specific Criteria: In areas that are not visible from streets, other public rights -of -way, or the Iowa River, and where nearby uses will not be harmed, the Board of Adjustment may approve a semi -opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below: (1) where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human - made features, such that the screening is effectively provided or the intent of the standard is met; or (2) where the adjacent property is unlikely to be developed, is not visible to the public, and is unlikely to be harmed by an alternative fencing requirement; or (3) where the adjacent property is zoned Industrial and the area on the adjacent property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an outdoor work or storage area rather than a part of the property that would be highly visible to the public or to customers or clients of adjacent businesses. As stated in the background information above, properties to the north and south are zoned for industrial uses, and most of the property to the east is public land with restricted access. Property located adjacent to the southeast corner of the salvage yard and consists primarily of a large dredged pond. This property is outside Iowa City limits and is zoned for agricultural and heavy industrial uses by the County. The topography of the area is relatively flat with an elevation of 642 to 646 feet for most of the site. The vacant property to the south, as well as the property to the east, have slightly lower elevations. The property to the north, which contains a non -compliant salvage yard, is at an elevation 4 to 6 feet higher than the subject salvage yard. The applicant has installed the 6-foot high chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of four sides of the property. As state above, the applicant will need to replace the fencing at the front (west side) of the salvage yard with 8-foot high solid fencing. The applicant has also installed the required landscaping along the west side and along the first 60 feet of the south side of the salvage yard as required by the 2006 special exception. The applicant has constructed an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the salvage yard's south side, which satisfies the solid screening requirements. Staff believes the waiver from the solid fencing requirements may be reasonable in this situation. However, the Board should consider the purpose of the height requirement that is part of the S5 standard, which is to provide fencing of a sufficient height to screen the activity or materials stored within the fencing. When the Board decided to approve the special exception to allow the salvage operation, the applicant had specified an 8-foot solid fence. The height of the fence provided some additional assurance that salvage materials would not be seen above the height of the fence. If the Board determines that a waiver from the 8-foot solid fence requirement is appropriate, the Board should include a condition stipulating that materials stored on the site may not be stacked higher than six feet. General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety comfort or general welfare. The presence of a blue line on the USGS topographic map for this property indicates a stream corridor/drainage way on a small portion the northeastern corner of the property. According to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, stream corridors require a 15-foot buffer from development. As presently installed, the chain link fence is in conflict with the site plan approved by the Board of Adjustment in 2006 and does not provide this buffer. The applicant is required to install a fence on the south side of the creek in order to prevent salvage materials from entering or blocking the stream. The applicant has agreed to maintain the 6-foot fencing with vinyl slats on the north side of the drainage way in order to prevent the salvage yard on the north from expanding into this area, and will install a 4-foot chain link on the south side of the creek to separate the salvage area from the drainage way. Staff recommends that amending the original BOA be conditioned upon the installation of this proposed fencing on the south side of the creek and the maintenance of the fence north side of the creek. 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. The salvage yard is set back more than 300 feet from South Riverside Drive. The required 8-foot solid fencing along the west side of the salvage yard, which has yet to be installed, along with the required landscaping, which has been in stalled, will effectively screen views of the salvage operation from the public street. Properties to the north and south are zoned General Industrial (11). To the east, property is public land (former landfill/Mesquaki Park), which is closed to the public due to environmental concerns. In Staff's view it is reasonable to waive the requirement for solid screening in these areas as doing so will not negatively impact the adjacent salvage use to the north, and because the woodland to the east and the distance from the river provide an effective screen from the Iowa River. The 6-foot slatted fence along with additional landscape screening required by the original special exception along the south property line will mitigate the negative effects associated with the salvage yard operation from the vacant property to the south. The remainder of the south side of the salvage yard is screened by an 8-foot wall of solid concrete blocks, which satisfies the solid screening requirements. 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 sited above regarding the surrounding uses, staff believes the waiver from the solid screening requirements to allow the 6-foot slatted fence will not impeded the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities and access roads are already in place. As stated above, under the first general criterion, the drainage way on the northeast portion of the site may not be unobstructed and a 15 foot buffer is required. The proposal by the applicant to maintain the fence north of the creek and provide an additional 4-foot fence to the south of the drainage way will prevent salvage from drifting into this a rea. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The waiver for the fence screening will have no impact ingress or egress for this property. 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. As stated above, the applicant is required to provide fencing on the south side of the creek in order to ensure that salvage does not obstruct the drainage way. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The South Central District Plan acknowledges conflicts in this area between industrial/commercial and residential uses —a mobile home park is located approximately 1700 feet to the northeast of the site. The long-term land use scenario for the area is to phase out these residential uses. The District Plan recommends that industrial and commercial business be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner within areas zoned for those uses, and specifies that "industrial zoning is most suitable for those properties with direct access to the railway and Riverside Drive. The District Plan also recognizes Riverside Drive as an entranceway to Iowa City. Because of its high visibility, the Plan encourages aesthetic improvements along this corridor and calls for "special efforts ... to provide effective screening along Riverside Drive where salvage yards are visible from the public right-of-way. Expansion of existing salvage operations ... may be considered if effective screening of the salvage yard is provided." The applicant is required to provide solid fencing along the front (west side) of the property. Staff believes that solid fencing, 8 feet in height, along with the required landscaping, will sufficiently screen the salvage use from public view along Riverside Drive, which is at a higher elevation than the salvage yard. Staff believes the installed evergreen landscape screening and solid fencing along the nearly the entire length of the south property line, will adequately screen views of the salvage yard from the adjacent industrial property that is currently vacant such that it will not deter future development for uses allowed in the zone. Because property to the north is also a salvage yard and property to the south has restricted public access, staff does not believe waiving the solid screening requirements lines will be in contradiction to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY While the existing salvage yard in this location operated for a number of years in non-compliance with zoning requirements, since 2006 the applicant has been working steadily to bring the property into compliance. The salvage yard is unable to expand its operations and to build a new office/warehouse until all the requirements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement and Special Exception are addressed. At the time of the special exception there was some question among staff as to whether the solid fence was necessary around the entire perimeter of the salvage yard since the property to the north is also a salvage yard, and the property to the east is a former landfill site with no public access. These areas are not visible to the public. At that time there was no discretion regarding the type of fencing required. Now that the zoning code does permit the Board to exercise discretion in regard to how the property is screened, staff believes it is reasonable to amend the prior decision and allow the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slatting along the north, south, and east sides of the salvage yard provided that all other conditions of the previous special exception are met along with additional conditions recommended in the report above and enumerated below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (Q) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. All landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southeast portion of the salvage yard shall be maintained; 7 2. The required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new office/warehouse service building is proposed; 3. When construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the existing tear - down warehouse; 4. In order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the drainage way as shown the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008; 5. The 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent property; 6. Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is installed; 7. Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet; 8. All other conditions related to the original special exception (EXC06-00008) not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Site plan approved as part of original special exception 3. Aerial views and photos of the site 4. Decision for the previous special exception 5. Application materials Approved by: /4*1 Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 14-4B-4C- 5. Salvage Operations a. The proposed use must be located at least 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property. b. All outdoor storage and work areas must be completely enclosed by a fence built to at least the S5 standard such that outdoor storage or salvage operations are not visible from adjacent properties, streets, or highways (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). Salvage materials may not be piled against the fence or piled higher than the height of the fence. In areas that are not visible from streets, other public rights -of -way, or the Iowa River, and where nearby uses will not be harmed, the Board of Adjustment may approve a semi - opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below: (1) where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that the screening is effectively provided or the intent of the standard is met; or (2) where the adjacent property is unlikely to be developed, is not visible to the public, and is unlikely to be harmed by an alternative fencing requirement; or (3) where the adjacent property is zoned Industrial and the area on the adjacent property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an outdoor work or storage area rather than a part of the property that would be highly visible to the public or to customers or clients of adjacent businesses. c. For fire protection, a 15-foot wide, unobstructed firebreak, which completely surrounds the use, must be established and maintained. d. The storage of rags, paper and similar combustible waste may not be stored closer than 100 feet from any property line unless enclosed in a masonry building of not less than 4-hour, fire -resistive construction. of 1 4' 41k CL 31V8Od8OO kill VMOI JO AIIO fig AVAHM M 7. 0-4 NE COR, NE 1/4, SEC. 28-T79N-R6W-5TH PM u Ewmrlc TEARDOWN- S 88°01'38" E 619.19' SOLID r}PROPOSED 15' FIRE FIGHTING ACCESS FENCING PROPOSED .. p100E ESSED E D NpJAD SOLID FENCING GRA ED TO ZC w z74 SEEOa PROPOSED PROPOSE z G GRASS SOLID m SOLID = Uz FENCING H FENCING o P.C.C. sm. LK SOLID PROPOSED FENCING 1 s „b �` q qt MIaoSEq giFiD:IM�ARE11W5E SERYIQ &NIMNr B°38'S7"W 5 see•aesrE DGE OF GPAVEL 0 PROPOSED I-2 ZONING - 494755.0 sq. ft g 11.36 Acres PROPOSED 15' FIRE FIGHTING ACCESS 3 N d CR r 0 r4. PROPOSED DRAINAGEWAY AND FIRE FIGHTING ACCESS PROPOSED 15' FIRE FIGHTING ACCESS SOLID 0[ L FENCING S 90°00'00" W 525.30' 3-6 0000 Legal Description- Proposed 1-2 Zoning Commencing a the Northeast comer of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; Thence6@08M Oe N a recorded bearing along the East Line of said Northeast QuarterpTe950feet, to the GRAPHIC SCALE 25, ftPslehef A&&jgpu,18i Thence S00°00'00"W, along said East Line p s®so of the Northeast Quarter, 903.88 feet; Thenceo@0E0RFDS61►! ( IN pear ) �T8et; Thence N01 ° 10'00"E, 541.87 feet; Thence PLAT PREPARED BY: SCALE 1"=100' Thence N01°24'33"E, 322.72 feet; HART-FREDERICK CONSULTANTS, P.C. LEGEND Thence Thence 101 58 22 E, 57.50 510 E. STATE ST. feet; Then c to the Point of P.O. BOX 560 Beginning. Said parcel of land contains 11.36 acres, more or TIFFIN, IA 52304 less and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 545-7215 OWNER OF RECORD: ACE AUTO RECYCLERS, INC. 2752 S. RIVERSIDE DR. IOWA CITY, IA. PROPERTY ADDRESS=2752 SO. RIVERSIDE DRIVE PARCEL CONTAINS 28.01 ACRES +I- EXIS ING ACCESS EASEMENT FOR 30' ROADWAY ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 31, 1974 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 435 AT PAGE 155, RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER r iI + nrw.w,n• �a i� '� r ' y Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL O_ MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Carol Alexander, Michelle Shelangouski, Michael Wright Nei 1N'ooand MEMBERS ABSENT: None., STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Hilsman, Dick Brown, Robert Crane, Sandra Rasles, Mary Lou Gay, Ed Morgan, Mary Lee Dixon, Nestor Lobodiak SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: EXC06-00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a special exception to permit a salvage yard for property located in the proposed Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone east of South Riverside Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the salvage yard established on the property has operated in violation of zoning ordinances and conditional zoning requirements placed on the property for a number of years. The Board finds that salvage yards are allowed by special exception in the 1-2 zone upon meeting both the general and specific approval criteria outlined in the Zoning Code. The Board finds that the proposed salvage yard is located more than 1,000 feet from residentially zoned land in Iowa City. The board finds that surrounding land uses are industrial or public property closed to the public. The Board finds that the proposed site plan will bring the salvage yard into compliance with the requirements of the current Zoning Code. The Board finds that fencing and landscaping specified in the site plan meet the requirements of the code and will screen the salvage yard from view from adjacent properties and from Riverside Drive. The Board finds that the salvage yard will be set back more than 300 feet from the road as specified in the Zoning Code. The Board finds that the salvage yard is surrounded by other industrial uses and public land that is closed to the public. The Board finds that a blue line stream corridor is present on a portion of the property and that a significant portion of the salvage yard is within the 100-year floodway. The Board finds that outdoor storage of tires provides habitat for disease carrying mosquitoes and thus poses a significant public health concern. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the proposed salvage yard will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Because the property is surrounded by other industrially zoned land and public property closed to the public, the Board concludes that the salvage yard will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and should not substantially diminish or impair property values in area. The Board also concludes that the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. The Board concludes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends this area for industrial use. The Board concludes that the proposed fence and landscaping and the location of the salvage yard 300 feet back from the public right-of-way provide the intended buffer between the salvage use and the neighboring property and will improve the appearance of the property from South Riverside Drive. The Board concludes that salvage yards are associated with certain environmental issues and that the location of the salvage yard in proximity to a stream corridor and within the 100-year floodway warrant some additional assurances with regard to DNR permits and the manner in which tires and other salvage is stored on the site. Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves special exception EXC06-00008 to allow a salvage yard in the proposed Heavy Industrial (12) zone east of S. Riverside Drive, subject to: 1. City Council approval of the 12 zoning; and 2. The applicant must apply for a building permit in order to establish the salvage use. Additionally, prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant must: 3. Install all landscaping and screening improvements as specified in the approved site plan except for those adjacent to the proposed building in the 11 zone. The spruce trees on the west and south side of the fence shall be planted in a staggered pattern, 20 feet on center. They shall be a minimum of 2" in caliper at the time of planting unless an alternative is approved by the City Forester. The area designated by the blue line as a stream corridor must remain outside the fenced area of the site and a 15-foot buffer must be left between the fence and the blue line drainage way. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building, all other required landscaping, as indicated in the site plan, must be installed; and 4. The applicant must provide a maintenance plan for keeping the required 15-foot firebreak clear of trees and shrubs; and 5. The applicant must bring all DNR permits related to the salvage and auto parts operation as well as storm water up-to-date and have such permits filed with the City. Further, after establishing the salvage use, the continuation of the use is subject to the following conditions: 6. No salvage (including tires, cars, or parts) may be stored outdoors on any portion of the applicant's property outside of the fenced area; and; .m0 7. Outdoor storage of tires (whole or partial) is limited to no more than 600 tires=all G` s must be covered by a tarp to prevent mosquito habitat. Tires may not be stored;ywtfhin�0 feet of a property line; and F-r I -n 8. Vehicles must be crushed and removed from the site on a regular basis. 0 _ c- EXC06-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by First Presbyterian 61�urch f 6 a special exception to permit installation of a columbarium, a structure containing niches for storage of cremated remains, for use by the church members for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue. rkC.,, 09- 060og APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: PROPERTY PARCEL NO. :::, 2e —7-7 y Ir' PROPERTY ADDRESS: (;;Wx� S• �P�li ,/�',5�� '.� PROPERTY ZONE: --Z�� PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name: , V? 111110 ���i���- �Ts✓ - Address v3;��-02 .sue/l✓/�iS•���A Phone: dl / J&Y C3 Z®X1 CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: XZ 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 366-6239 or email sarah-walz(jowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: Ka NOTE: Conditionsin 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-2C4, 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 14-8C4 F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. x/- Date: 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Date: , 20 _ ppdadminlapplication-boase.doc Signatures) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) 77 V , The purpose for special exception is to allow us to use a six foot chain -link fence with slats on the north, east, and south property lines. Properties abutting the site are as follows: On the north is another salvage yard and to the south is a vacant land owned by Ace Auto Recyclers. Finally, east of the site is a former landfill. On October 15, 2009, Planning and Zoning approved an amendment to the zoning code to allow flexibility on the type of fence required for salvage operations. This would allow us to be in compliance on the north, east, and south property lines. Date of previous application: May 10, 2006 ya �� Jy� STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC09-00010 Regina H.S. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: February 10, 2010 Regina Catholic Education Center 2150 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 319-338-5436 Contact: Mike Streb 703 Huntington Drive Iowa City, IA 52245 319-331-2341 Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: Special Exception to allow expansion of a General Education Facility in the RS-5 zone. To allow the construction of a two-story press box adjacent to the baseball field. 2150 Rochester Avenue 37.9 acres General Educational Use; RS-5 North: Hickory Hill Park; P-1 East: Residential; RS-5, RM-12 South: Commercial & Residential; CN-1, CO-1, RS-5, RM-20 West: Residential; RS-5 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria); 14-4B-4D-9, Specific criteria for general educational facilities in the RS-5 zone. File Date: December 21, 2009 z BACKGROUND: Regina Educational Center is categorized as a General Education Use, a use that is permitted in residential zones by special exception. The school property consists of 37.9 acres, with the baseball complex located behind the school buildings to the northwest. The proposed new press box would be constructed in the same location as the current press box, which is approximately 80-90 feet from the adjacent residential property to the west. The current press box is a two-story, 11.5 x 16 foot structure with storage on the ground floor and a press box on the upper floor. It appears that the existing building was built without a special exception or building permit. The proposed, new two-story press box would measure 22 V2 x 16 feet (22.5 x 16 x 2 stories = 720 square feet). The specific criteria for the special exception allow modifications (additions) of up to 500 square feet without a special exception. Because the proposed press box exceeds the 500-foot limit a special exception is required. 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 14-413-413-9 pertaining to General Educational uses in the single-family residential zones in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. 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: 14-4B-4D-9, General Educational Facilities in the RS-5 zone According to the Iowa City Zoning Code, a general education facility is defined as elementary and secondary schools below university grade (ordinarily grades one through 12), including denominational and sectarian schools, kindergartens and military academies. Section 14-4B-4D-9 provides that a general education facility may be expanded in the RS-5 zone by special exception. The specific criteria for expansions of general education facilities in the RS-5 zone (see attached) take into consideration vehicle access, building setbacks, increased traffic and parking. Because the application to create a new press box is relatively small in relation to the entire Regina campus, and because the addition is an accessory use that will not generate additional traffic, will not require additions to the parking area, and is set back from adjacent rights of way, not all of the specific criteria for the special exception are relevant to this consideration. Those criteria that staff believe are relevant to this application are listed below. b. The proposed use will be compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed new press box replaces an old press box on the property. While the previous press box was constructed without a building permit or special exception, it has functioned on the property for some time. Staff is not aware off any issues and concerns pertaining to the press box and its location adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The use of loudspeakers is regulated under the noise ordinance and the application to create the new press box will not have an effect on the use of loudspeakers. The use of loud speakers is permitted in association with school athletic facilities between the hours of 10 AM and 11 PM. c. The principal building setbacks for General Educational Facilities in the RS-5 zone (Front: 20 feet; Side: 20 feet; Rear: 50 feet) do not apply to the proposed building since the press box is not a principal use but an accessory one. Nonetheless, in order to maximize the space separating the uses, staff recommends that the proposed structure be set back no less than 70 feet from the adjacent residential property. The previous press box is set back approximately 80-90 feet from the property line. e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the livability of the nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late -night operations, odors and litter. The proposed press box will not create any additional effects on the livability of nearby residential uses: it will not result in a change to the lighting, sound, or time or intensity of use of the athletic facilities. (See "b" above.) General Standards: 14-46-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes that the proposed press box satisfies this criterion for the following reasons: • It is modest in size (760 square feet); • It is set back more than 70 feet from the adjacent residential property; • It faces away from the residential property; • It will not increase traffic to the site nor the use of the site; and • It will not alter sound or lighting of the baseball field. 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. Staff believes that the proposed press box satisfies this criterion for the following reasons: • The proposed press box will replace an existing press box, which has operated for some considerable time on the property, without apparent issue; • The proposed press box faces away from adjacent residential properties and is set back more than 70 feet from the property line; and • The proposed press box will not alter use of the existing athletic field, including the use of lighting and loudspeakers, and will not increase traffic to the site. 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. See items 1. and 2 above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are already provided to Regina —no additional utilities or facilities are required to serve the proposed exception. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The applicant has received several special exceptions for previous projects. The most recent special exception (EXC08-00004) was granted to the Regina Catholic Education Center in 2008 for the construction of a press box and restroom facilities for the football complex. Prior to that Regina received special exception for the construction of a 43-space parking area and classroom additions to the principal structure as well as a press box for the softball complex on the north east portion of the property. Staff recommended that any future additions to the school that would result in increased traffic should not be approved unless the applicant provided a traffic study. The City continues to receive complaints about traffic issues in front of the Regina Campus, particularly during the morning commute. There are two driveways to Rochester Ave; one functions as an entrance -only and the other functions as an exit -only for parents dropping off their children in the morning. There is delay at the First Ave / Rochester Ave intersection and at the entrance to the Regina Campus, particularly for east -bound vehicles turning left into the Regina property. The traffic signal has been optimized to meet the traffic and pedestrian demand from all quadrants of the intersection. While the Press Box will not exacerbate the traffic issues, staff wanted to keep the traffic issues in the forefront if Regina seeks to expand the capacity of the school in the future. A secondary access to the Regina Campus will help distribute the traffic demand which will reduce the number of vehicles at the First Avenue / Rochester Avenue intersection and reduce the number of vehicles turning into and out of the Regina property from Rochester Ave. 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 proposed project will need to comply with the accessory building standards and will be reviewed by the building department as part of the building permit process to ensure compliance with all other aspects of the code. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan allows educational facilities in residential zones so long as they are designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Central District Plan designates this property as an institutional use because of Regina's historic use of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC09-0008, a special exception for the expansion of a general educational facility to construct a two-story 16 x 22 sh accessory building in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2150 Rochester Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: • substantial compliance with the plans and elevations submitted with this application; and • a minimum 70-foot setback from adjacent residential properties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial views of the proposed location. 2. Specific criteria for the special exception 3. Location map 4. Application materials - Approved by: !. Karen Howard, Acting Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development �s+x� ►":� 20-10 r�,Iic_:F-,r ci_l f i :o rpo r,�ti cl rI � �; 0 t,,l' ,'���'TE(D r r PiCtOrrietr. -r '�; Eye �_:, �Cl0 E+ir _ F i _t _�rr�itrr rr9ticir�:yl Picforrirtr y, f—D J2JIDID9 e PAGE 4B-31 144B Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses This plan must be reviewed by the City's traffic engineering planner and Is approved by the City. b. The number of off-street parking spaces provided may not exceed one and one- half (1.5) times the minimum number of spaces required, unless granted a special exception to do so. The Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the maximum allowed, particularly in areas where large parking lots will erode the residential character of the neighborhood. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on -street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use. C. If the proposed use in located in a Residential Zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6. 9. General Educational Facilities in the RS-S, RS-8, RS-12, and RNS-12 Zones a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to collector streets, arterial streets, or streets with pavement width greater than 28 feet. For expansions of existing uses that are nonconforming with this provision, access to streets with pavement width 28 feet or narrower will be considered based on the traffic capacity of the subject street and the projected traffic generated by the proposed expansion. If the proposed expansion will cause an increase in the amount of traffic, a plan must be submitted illustrating how traffic to and from the facility will be accommodated during peak periods. Estimates of vehicle trips to the site during peak periods must be submitted with the circulation plan. This plan must be reviewed by the City's traffic engineering planner and approved by the City. b. The following minimum setbacks are required in lieu of the setbacks specified in the base zone. However, the Board of Adjustment may reduce these setbacks, subject to the approval criteria for setback adjustments as specified in 14-2A- 4B-5, Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements. (1) Front: 20 feet (2) Side: 20 feet (3) Rear: 50 feet C. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas. The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that are deemed out of scale, incorpie,, or out of character with surrounding residential uses, or may regpJ06 t i itional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional require-T,00ft May include, but are not limited to, additional screening, lands p► ]Pedestrian facilities, setbacks location and design of parking facin ?d,'location and design of buildings. Title 14: Iowa Ci y Zoniorl. Revised 07-06-09 y PAGE 4B-32 144B Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on -street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use. e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from Fights, late -night operations, odors, and litter. f. The Building Official may grant approval for the following modifications to a Educational Facility, without approval from the Board of Adjustment, upon written findings that the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. (1) An accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size. (2) A building addition of less than 500 square feet, provided the addition does not increase the occupancy load of the building. g. If the proposed use in located in a Residential Zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6. 10. Specialized Educational Facilities in the PRM, MU, and CN-1 Zones a. Any such use is limited to 2,400 square feet of gross floor area. b. If the proposed use in located in the PRM or MU Zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6. 11. Hospitals in the CO-1 Zone Hospitals that existed prior to 1963 are exempt from and may expand without compliance with the maximum height and FAR standards of the CO-1 Zone. 12. Parks and Open Space a. Any new cemetery use must be located on a site containing at least 5 acres. Other shared private open space uses are exempt from the minimum lot requirements of the base zone in which they are located. b. The following uses and facilities are regulated as accessory uses and are subject to the regulations of Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings: (1) Accessory uses within shared private open space areas. Swimming pools, tennis courts, boat ramps, and other recreational facilities. These are recreational facilities that are shared among residents of the surrounding properties and are maintained and operated by a common homeowners' or residents' association. Recreational, sports, or athletic clubs operated as a commercial business and open to the general public to join are classified as Commercial Recreational Facilities and are regulated as a principal use. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 P,rc © 9 -- 000 ( a APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: 12-17-09 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2150 Rochester Ave. PROPERTY ZONE: RS-5 I_1„1I[N_LII6 CONTACT PERSON: (if other than applicant) PROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant) 1011178001 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 37.9 Acres Address: 91 F;n Pnr`he---:tiny Ave - Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone:—31 Q,'411 A- 5 A 3 6 Name: Mike Streb Address: 703 Hun .i ngton Dr. Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: 319-331-2341 Name: Address: N C �} C-11 • # o Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section numb%- 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-waiz@iowa-city.org. Iowa-city.org. Approval of a special exception to permit the expansion of a general education facility in the RS-5 Zone Purpose for special exception: To allow constuction of a 16' x22' -6 , two-story press box abutting the baseball field Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. A. Leaal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Regina Subdivision, You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property byLcPoing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-46-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) See Attached IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. N o n o c�1) -=tc .) rrn co -3- 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 public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed building is of modest size. TJJb use will not generate additional noise, g13re. or traffic. 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 and impair property values in the neighborhood. As with the current structure, the proposed building is located over 75 feet from the nearest property line. The new structure will not increase use of the athletic facilities. 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. The proposed structure will not impact the ability of neighboring property owners to make improvements an(J. enjoy the use of their property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary been or are being provided. a )' .a co 0 rn ;:a f Rlties=have CO All utilities, access roads and handicap accessible walks are already provided. Additional site improvements will not be required. 4 -4- Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed building will not -.increase traffic to the property,,, 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 14-413 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K)J The proposed project will need to comply with the accessory building standards. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan allows for educational facilities in residential zones so long as they are designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. r.> C= a �'---a rn c-J 71 •� rTJ M CC) -5- E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property.involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS N C? o c--) 71 .,..., :<M za. M o= *7 = .. CO U. 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 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. 7 Date: 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Date: 20 — ppdadminknpplication-boase.doc Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) O r., c c= ..a D- rC-) u ,...,� C)—. N .<r` M _ 03 Regina: Application for special exception C. Specific Approval Criteria 1. The proposed use is the same as existing structure to be replaced. 2. The building will not create additional traffic, lighting, or amplification. 3. The building will not adversely affect the livability of nearby homes, and will not create additional lighting, sound or increaded use of the athletic facilities. r+� 0 `a -- �,. C") ry --- �rn CO V) z m m X OC:U � --4 m 19 cnqz zO Ozm m �00 0 � m D r Z 0 "i —c —n DE om �r 0 - 0� z- q mD 0 z DL ASHNE �HATTERY I # ARCHITECTURE -ENGINEERING px C) 0 V) O V) 0 p X W W 03 uwi Z LL,2 O Of V) I oO dHZ -LLI 'O OO ZZ O ~ N J Z r*fit S r6/� 4 - - - - - r8/S 1 __ I 8 L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ " I I o I I CN I I I I I p I I I to I I W J2( � o 2 ENO I d�N V)-J I Q QV) I �3:C.DZO I CDI p-N 0X I I W-p_ 11- JW az ZWIJ �nJN o I I I I I I I I I I i W Z I I I I � I I I � I I I W I I p I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I i O ( - -- - ---- - --- ---- -- - - -J ^d ---- - -- n_ r0- „9-,ZZ zw Ld X a LJ ZZ 0 J� Q� = )w _lL zFF- t- mLLJ 50 a'UZF- D O Z O JO O W m I 0 LP= 0 C)a- Z>. W(n p== O z0 --n N� �X .:zZ ^1 N to TIN( AIN WE XIST ING Y I CO SP01 JE C ]SHE oue 16'= HIGI 4 IN I �f tii 6tt IN t� ti 1 _ _ � _• , \\ w^ •�•M ,_`fir •� ' i rr ,� .+,._.,,.,-. '`' � l',-u"- •"`• -4'9'4,y ~~�.,� .w,�.,,.wia.— ^�.y,�41ft. YYk .ewrc:.. MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JAN UARY 13, 2010 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson, Will Jennings, Robert Anderson MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Judy O'Donnell, Pete McNally, Doug Paul, Don Hilsman, Jason Hilsman 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: Sheerin, Jennings, Anderson and Tyson were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 16T" 2009: Jennings offered a clarification to the minutes and Sheerin offered a stylistic correction. Tyson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Jennings seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 2 of 23 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Judy O'Donnell for a special exception to allow a specialized education facility to operate at 415 Highland Avenue, in an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Walz outlined the property location, a large building in a CI-1 zone. The proposed use would occupy approximately one-third of the building which would be divided into two classroom areas; the rest of the building is vacant at this time. Walz explained that in December the City Council had approved an amendment to the zoning code to allow specialized education facilities in the CM zone by special exception, setting forth the criteria by which the special exception should be considered. Walz said that one criteria is that the use be functionally compatible with surrounding uses such that the health and safety of students and clients are not compromised. In determining this, the Board is to consider such factors as they types of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether or not those have negative externalities such as excessive noise, dust, or vibration, and whether or not the proposed use can be designed to mitigate any harmful effects. Walz explained that in this instance the surrounding neighborhood consists mostly of auto repair businesses, although there are a mix of other uses present that are permitted in the zone. Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate for the area because of the mix of uses found in the neighborhood. The surrounding uses are undertaken primarily indoors and do not present negative externalities that would be harmful to clients or students of the proposed facility. Walz said that this neighborhood has direct access to two arterial streets. The proposed fencing school will also operate primarily indoors, and the operator believes that no more than 30 people will usually be present at any given time. The site plan shows there is adequate ingress and egress: on the west side there is a curb cut with one-way access; on the east side there is a shared two-way drive. Walz said that she would not go through all of the general criteria because she thinks that the specific criteria get at the potential conflicts in uses in the zone. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the proposed use, Walz said that conflicts with the existing businesses were not anticipated. Walz said that in the Central District Plan this area is set to be preserved for CM uses, which do not conflict with the proposed use. Walz said that Staff recommends that this application for a specialized educational facility to be located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue be approved subject to an application for the building permit, which will establish the change in use, and that the special exception is limited to a fencing school. Walz offered to answer any questions the Board might have. Jennings noted that Staff recommendations specify that the special exception is for a fencing school. He asked if this meant that a different special exception would be required for a yoga school or tae kwon do school at the same location. Walz said that was correct. She explained that normally another qualifying use, another specialized educational facility, would be allowed without the need for another special exception so long as the new use was not an expansion. However, in this case, Staff recommends that only the fencing school be allowed under this special exception. Jennings said that he had asked for clarification because it occurred to him that this particular use was very space intensive, and the number of people anticipated to be in Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 3 of 23 the facility is relatively low. He noted that another specialized educational facility might double or triple the intensity of the building as it would likely not need as much space per person as the fencing school. Walz said that this was one of the reasons staff felt that this use was appropriate, as it is not a heavy traffic generator, whereas another specialized educational facility might be. There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin opened the floor to those wishing to speak on behalf of the application. Judy O'Donnell of the Iowa City Fencing Center, 16 South View Drive Northeast, spoke on behalf of the application. She said that she was happy to have the opportunity to address the Board as the process to get this fencing school up at this location had begun in September 2009. O'Donnell said she would like to make a correction to the number of square feet the facility will be occupying; she said the fencing school will actually take up two-thirds of the building or 6, 244 square feet, not one-third as staff had indicated. Sheerin asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Tyson asked if the fencing school would occupy the front of the building. O'Donnell said the school will actually be down one side of the building and across the back in a kind of an L- shape. She said that there would be another tenant at the front of the building near the front door, and that the owner is actually going to put another front door in for the fencing school. Sheerin asked if it was correct then that the front of the building would be occupied by someone other than the fencing school; O'Donnell said that was correct. Sheerin asked if it was the case that the parking spaces mentioned in the report were for the fencing school and not the other business(es) that might occupy the other one-third of the building. O'Donnell said she presumed they were in reference to the fencing school but that she was willing to share if need be. O'Donnell said the fencing school was going to have more than enough parking spaces; she said that only two spaces are required for each room and there are a total of 18 parking spaces. Sheerin asked if it was correct that O'Donnell expected no more than 30 people on the premises at one time. O'Donnell said that was correct and that they also anticipated patrons using the bus stop just down the street. She noted that if children were going to the school that it was likely parents would simply be dropping them off. Walz noted that there is on -street parking in addition to the parking available in the lot. She clarified that the owner of the property would be required to give the fencing school the minimum four parking spaces as a part of the lease. O'Donnell said that the lease already allows for nine or ten parking spaces. Anderson noted that the staff presentation indicated that uses would be "primarily" indoors. He asked if there were any intentions on O'Donnell's part to have activities outside. O'Donnell said there were not. She explained that it was an indoor sport requiring a nice smooth surface to play on. Jennings asked if O'Donnell imagined hosting tournaments that might periodically bring a larger number of people to the facility. O'Donnell said that they indeed wanted to host tournaments, but that typically a tournament in this area would be fairly small. She said that in the Chicago area a tournament might draw 40 people, but that such numbers were unlikely in this area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 4 of 23 Sheerin asked how frequent tournaments would be. O'Donnell said that ideally they would take place once a month, but that they would occur on the weekends and would not conflict with nearby businesses. There were no further questions for O'Donnell. Sheerin invited anyone opposed to the application to speak, but no one wished to. Sheerin invited a motion. Jennings moved to approve EX09-00008 an application for a specialized educational facility to be located in the Intensive Commercial (CIA) zone at 415 Highland Avenue subject to an application for a building permit to establish the change in use and that the special exception be limited to a fencing school. Tyson seconded. Sheerin invited discussion from the Board; there was none. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited the findings of fact. Jennings said that the use will be compatible with surrounding uses such that the health and safety of clients and students are not compromised. The Board has considered factors such as the type of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether there are any significant negative externalities created by these uses such as excessive noise, dust or vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safety risk to the clients and students of the proposed use; and where such negative externalities exist whether the buildings on site can and will be designed to mitigate the harmful effects. Jennings said that the applicant has explained that a fencing facility requires a large amount of interior space to accommodate a limited number of participants. The applicant has also explained that the proposed facility will be in use primarily in the evening and on weekends, and that they do not anticipate having more than 30 people at the site at one time. Jennings said that the surrounding neighborhood is a mix of relatively low -intensity repair and supply uses as well as veterinary offices and community service uses, with good vehicle access to surrounding arterial streets. Because the surrounding uses operate primarily indoors and do not create excessive dust, or vibrations or present other risks to the users of the proposed fencing school the Board believes the proposed use will be compatible. Jennings noted that the minimum parking standards for specialized education facilities are met as the facility will have two classroom areas and the applicant expects no more than 30 people on -site at a given time. The site provides 18 spaces, much more than is required. The proposed facility will operate outside of normal business hours and the location on Highland has good access to Gilbert Street and Highway 6. Jennings said no conflicts are expected between the proposed use and the surrounding uses. Sheerin invited Jennings to present the findings of fact for the general standards as well. Walz advised Jennings that if he did not wish to read through all of the general standards he could simply summarize if he wished. Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort of general welfare because: all activities will occur indoors; the use will not generate excessive noise, vibrations, odors, dust or health hazards; the proposed use will Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 5 of 23 operate primarily outside of regular business hours and will not generate significant amounts of traffic; and adequate parking is provided. Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Sheerin said this was true because the neighborhood consists of mixed uses that are relatively low in intensity and take place primarily indoors. Sheerin said that the proposed use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area for the reasons previously given. Sheerin said that adequate utilities, access roads and drainage are already in place to serve this facility. Sheerin said that adequate ingress and egress is provided as Highland Avenue provides direct access to South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 and is adequate to handle the limited traffic generated by the fencing school, which operates primarily on evenings and weekends. Sheerin said that in all other respects the use conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone, noting that a building permit is required to establish the change in use and that the parking area was recently updated in compliance with code requirements. Sheerin said the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the neighborhood is designated to be preserved as an Intensive Commercial zone and this is consistent with that use. Tyson said that she would vote in favor of the application because it does in fact meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is a setting that would comply with the general uses in the area. Anderson said he finds the proposed use consistent with the zoning code. He said his primary concern was traffic generated by the use and that this concern was alleviated by learning that the facility will operate primarily outside of regular business hours. Sheerin called for a vote. The motion was approved on a 4-0 vote (Eckstein absent). EXC09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a special exception to construct a communications transmission facility in an Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone at 3106 Rochester Avenue. Walz explained that this was another application coming before the Board because of a recent change in the zoning code. Walz said that the City broadened the areas in which cell phone towers could be considered to include the Interim Development zones. Walz pointed out the location of the property along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the surrounding properties to the north, east, and west of the proposed tower are undeveloped and in the ID-RS zone. There is property to the south of the proposed tower, on the opposite side of Rochester, that is zoned RS-5 but remains undeveloped and currently still in use as agricultural land. Iowa Wireless is proposing construction of an 80-foot monopole cell phone tower on the property. Walz noted that the location of the cell tower is approximately 80 feet from the house; Walz said that this was not a concern of the zoning code; rather the zoning code requires that the tower be set back at least 80 feet (a distance equal to the height of the tower) from the property line along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the terrain is rather rolling in that area Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 6 of 23 and that the proposed location is a high spot in the area. She said the tower would provide increased I -Wireless coverage for neighborhoods that are located primarily to the west and south of Scott Boulevard. Walz said that the applicant has followed the Good Neighbor Policy by holding a meeting where neighbors were invited to discuss the proposed tower with the applicant. Walz said she has had several calls about the cell tower and that she explained what is being proposed. She said she has not received any correspondence or comments to pass along to the Board. Walz said that the first criterion, which requires that the proposed tower serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area was satisfied for the following reasons. There are no towers within a half -mile radius on which to co -locate and that the nearest tower would not provide the necessary height as it is occupied by multiple users already. The commercial areas near Scott Boulevard and Rochester do not have viable locations for the tower, nor does the commercial area at the corner of First Avenue and Rochester. Walz said that I -Wireless looked into mounting antennas on a church off of Rochester, but found they would not be able to get the necessary antennae. Walz said that one alternative site could be at Lemme Elementary School, however the elevation is lower than the proposed site and this site is in an established residential neighborhood (as opposed to ID-RS). Walz said that the second criterion for the special exception requires that the tower be designed and constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Staff encourages the use of monopoles to make towers inconspicuous. Walz said the applicant is proposing a monopole but would prefer to use flush -mounted antenna on the pole instead mounting antennas inside the pole because it allows for easier maintenance. Walz said the Board could direct questions about that to the applicant. The third criterion is that the tower be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. The applicant provided several photographs to demonstrate views from differing angle of what the area looks like with the tower and without the tower. The applicant also supplied maps demonstrating the improvement in coverage afforded by varying heights of the tower. Walz noted that the coverage given by an 80-foot tower is significantly better than that of a lower tower a. Walz said that the proposed tower is set back more than 100 feet from the property line and that equipment associated with the tower will be enclosed in a shed. The proposed tower will use a back-up generator only in the event of a power outage. Staff recommends that in order to keep the site as inconspicuous as possible power lines to the facility should be buried underground. There is no lighting of any kind on the proposed tower. Walz said that while the proposed 80-foot tower could accommodate an additional set of antennas, that staff is doubtful another carrier would wish to co -locate since the available space for co -location would be at a height that the applicant's maps show limited potential for coverage. Staff therefore recommends that the Board approve a tower of 100-feet in height to provide a more viable opportunity for co -location. Walz noted that code requires that an engineer certified in Iowa verifies that the tower is designed to accommodate co -location. Walz said that the applicant is asking that this certification be waived until the application for the building permit is submitted. Walz said the applicant could answer questions about this request, but that staff found it to be reasonable. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 7 of 23 If the use of the tower is discontinued then the tower and associated equipment must be removed within one year, according to the requirements of the special exception. The applicant has provided an affidavit showing that the lease will require removal of the tower and associated equipment within 90 days. Walz said that the general standards are in part addressed by the specific requirements. Staff believes the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because: the cell tower is set back more than the required 100 feet from the Rochester Avenue property line; the applicant must provide construction information as a part of the building permit process to show that the tower is structurally sound; and, the facility will not rely on a back-up generator but will have power from the local electric utility. Walz said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantial diminish or impair property values because: the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no lighting, trusses or guy - wires, the antennas are flush mounted to the pole; the existing woodland will effectively screen the equipment associated with the facility; and the facility does not rely on a generator as its principle power source, rather it will draw from the local electric utility. The tower will improve cell coverage for the surrounding neighborhoods, and if allowed to extend up to 100 feet, will provide a co -location opportunity for another carrier. Staff believes that the 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 the property is located because: the proposed tower is designed to be inconspicuous; it is screened by the established grove of trees; it will not generate additional traffic, noise, or glare; it will improve cell phone and wireless reception in surrounding neighborhoods; and the extension up to 100 feet would allow co -location by other carriers. The property on which the proposed tower is located as well as the abutting properties are zoned ID- RS. Before these properties can be developed they would have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. At that time, if it is deemed necessary, the design of the subdivisions could be required to be done in such a way as to take into account the location of the cell tower. All adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are already available to this property. Matters of ingress and egress are not going to be a problem for this site as it will not be a traffic generator. Walz noted that as part of the building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be reviewed by the building department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code are met. This will ensure that 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. Walz said that the final general standard is that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Walz said that the Northeast District Plan calls for preservation of open space and limited residential development in this area due to steep Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 8 of 23 topography and other sensitive, natural features. The district plan does call for sensitivity with regard to signage and lighting in the area in order to preserve views. While the plan does not directly mention cell towers and other such structures, staff believes that some sensitivity is called for in allowing a cell phone tower in this area. Because the proposed design is unobtrusive and the tower height being proposed is not excessive, and because the tower will be located in a grove of mature trees and will have its electrical lines buried, Staff believes that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan are met. Staff recommends that EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications Transmission Facility in the Interim Development Single -Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106 Rochester Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions: the monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow potential co -location; no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower; electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground; and there must be substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of this application. Sheerin asked if the Board had questions for Staff. Anderson said he had several questions. Anderson noted that the proposed tower is 80-feet from the existing house and that staff is recommending a tower height of 100-feet. Anderson asked if extending the tower would require a different site. Walz said that it would not. She noted that it is the owner of the property that is allowing the tower to locate there; the only setback requirement is from the property line. Anderson asked about the public comments Walz received by phone, asking her to characterize the comments. Walz clarified that she did not receive any comments. She said she received calls from people who had seen the sign and wanted to know what was being asked for. Walz said she explained that the applicant had requested an 80-foot tower but that the Board had the right to consider a tower of up to 120-feet in order to allow co -location, and that staff was recommending 100-feet. Anderson asked if the callers had any reaction to the explanation provided by Walz. Walz said that people simply wanted to know what the issue was. Anderson asked if the Board approved the application for a 100-foot tower if it was then mandated that the tower must be 100 feet. He said he did not want to get into a situation where the Board was approving the application as -is at 80 feet with an option to go to 100 feet. Greenwood Hektoen noted that staff's recommendation is to require the tower to be 100 feet, so if the Board adopted that recommendation, then a 100-foot tower would be required. Walz explained that one of the criteria was that the proposed tower "must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user," and that this was why staff proposed a 100-foot tower, to maximize the potential for an additional user. Jennings asked what would happen if for some reason the property owner decided to remove the natural screening provided by the mature grove of trees. Part of staff's recommendation is based on this natural screening. Walz said that as the screening is a grove of trees it is somewhat protected by the sensitive areas ordinance. If the applicant ever decided to develop the property, the bulk of those trees would be preserved. Walz said that it is not impossible that the owner could go in and clear cut the trees without the intention of developing the property. Walz said that it does, however, seem unlikely and so staff did not add any additional screening requirements. Greenwood Hektoen said that part of the idea around allowing the towers in interim zones is that the towers would already be in existence when people moved to the area Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 9 of 23 and buyers/property owners would have full knowledge that they are moving in next to a cell phone tower. Walz noted that if the area is developed there is some limited allowance to remove some trees as part of the development process, but that in large part that grove of trees would be preserved. There were no further questions for staff. Sheerin asked the applicant to present their proposal. Pete McNally of The Grinnell Group, 225 42"d Street, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of (- Wireless. He noted that the property owner is also present. McNally said that I -Wireless is attempting to improve their network locally in response to customer demand. I -Wireless is also putting towers at City High and on a building south of downtown. McNally said this has been a two year effort for this particular location. He said that many areas were looked at but they were either too distant or too short or the lots were too small to meet setback requirements. McNally said that he believed this was the exact situation the City Council had had in mind when they passed the amendment a few months ago to allow towers in the ID-RS zone. McNally said this was a really good site because of the screening provided by trees. McNally thanked staff for the help they had given him in searching for the site. McNally said that there was an open house held to allow neighbors to express concerns and have questions answered. He noted that the property owner was very patient to allow his home to be open for the full two hours even though only three people actually showed up. McNally said that the only concerns expressed at that meeting were whether there would be lighting on the tower and if the tower would interfere with satellite TV reception. McNally noted that the answer to both of those questions is no. McNally explained why I -Wireless would want to submit the engineering documentation as part of the building permit process. McNally said that the tower manufacturer designs and builds the tower on a site -by -site basis. That design work is done after the tower has been ordered, and typically a tower is not ordered until regulatory hurdles, such as this process, have been cleared. After the zoning and special exception is in place, then I -Wireless can order the tower, the design work can be done, and the required paperwork submitted to the City. McNally said that [-Wireless appreciates the staff's support and agrees to all of the conditions they place on their recommendation and respectfully asks that the Board approve the application. Sheerin invited questions for the applicant. Jennings said he had a question about externally versus internally mounted antennas. Jennings asked if it was largely an issue of accessibility that made the external mounting more favorable to I -Wireless. McNally explained that essentially the internally mounted antennas were simply covered by a fiber glass shroud. In order to achieve this, McNally said, the whole tower system has to be a little bit thicker than it would be for externally mounted antennas. McNally said there is both an operational and a visual impact for the internally mounted systems. In order to internally mount antennas the antenna placement has to essentially be designed ahead of time for the shroud to fit properly. The implication is that I -Wireless would have to guess how big the antennas of an unidentified co -locator would be ahead of time, potentially making the entire unit larger. McNally said that externally mounted antennas are much easier to access for maintenance and repair purposes, as climbing crews can simply climb up the ladders on the outside of the tower. Internally mounted towers require the hiring of a crane, an $8,000/day expense. McNally said that the fact that internally mounted antennas Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 10 of 23 make the tower a little thicker, make co -location a little less likely, and the operational impact, all combine to make the internally mounted antennas unattractive to I -Wireless. Sheerin asked if it would nonetheless not be impossible for I -Wireless to have internally mounted antennas. McNally said it is not impossible, but that he would throw himself at the Board's mercy. He said that if it is really a deal -breaker for the Board then they would do it but they would really appreciate not having to do it. Tyson asked if the antennas were serviced about once a month. McNally said the radio equipment at the base is serviced once a month, but the antennas are serviced as needed, every year or two. McNally said that if something goes wrong with the antennas and the site has to be shut down, if the antennas were internally located then that area would be without service for all of the days it took to get a crane, make the repairs, and have the crane put the shroud back on. Tyson asked how many more people I -Wireless would be better able to serve by having this tower. McNally said that he was not sure he could quantify it in numbers of people, but in looking at the coverage maps the area that will be improved will be significant. McNally said that now that so many people use cellular technology inside their homes, the existing coverage is inadequate to the task. Jennings noted that the coverage maps are based on an 80-foot tower. Tyson remarked that the coverage would be even better with a 100-foot tower, and McNally agreed. Sheerin asked why I -Wireless didn't request a ,100-foot tower in the first place. McNally said that his engineer had asked for 110 feet and that he had told his engineer he thought he could only get him 80 feet. Sheerin asked if 100 feet would be preferable then, and McNally said it certainly would. Jennings asked if there was anything about this particular tower and antenna design that is specific to the type of service I -Wireless provides or that would hinder co -location. McNally said that the only reason another company would want to build another tower near it and not co - locate would be because of a height issue. McNally said that co -locations are done all of the time and there is nothing to keep another company from using this tower other than height and location. There were no further questions for the applicant. Sheerin asked those who wished to speak in favor of the application to address the Board. Doug Paul, said that he is the property owner at the proposed site and that he is partly responsible for this having been a two-year process. He said that he has been very hesitant to have any kind of development go on at the property at all. He said that in the future the land will be permanently preserved as undeveloped land, so it will be very important for the property to have some source of income. Paul said the income will not be great, but it will be enough to cover routine maintenance. Paul said that the shroud versus the externally mounted antennas was an issue that he too was concerned about initially. He said that he had wanted only internally mounted antennas. Paul said that he had looked at a lot of antennas, both externally and internally mounted and that he has come to feel that there really is not a big aesthetic difference between the two. He said that it makes sense to make the antenna maintenance easier. Paul said he continues to feel that an 80-foot tower would be much less obtrusive than a 100-foot tower, but that because the tower is in the tall woods it will not be a predominate feature in the neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 11 of 23 Anderson asked if Paul was alright with the tower being 100 feet tall. Paul said he was; he said it was preferable to having two cell towers. Sheerin invited those wishing to speak against the application to come forward. There was no one. Walz noted that the flush mounted tower is not one that is seen a lot in this area. She said that she had seen some during a drive to Indiana over the holidays, and that they are different from the towers that have antennas projecting out from the pole that one sees frequently along the highway. She said she obviously could not decide for the Board if the flush mounted antennas were intrusive, but that she found them to be somewhat similar in appearance to the poles with internally mounted antennas. Anderson moved to approve EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications Transmission Facility in the Interim development Single -Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106 Rochester Avenue be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, which are: that the monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow potential co -location; that no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower; that electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground, and that there be substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of the application. Tyson seconded. There was no further discussion from the Board. Sheerin closed the public hearing and asked for findings of fact. Walz explained that the Board members must decide what they think is a finding and what they agree with, but that in the staff report, the statements themselves are the conclusions being drawn; whereas the supporting facts, the possible basis for the findings of fact, are found underneath the listed statements/criteria. Sheerin pointed out that a Board member can disagree with staff's supporting facts or can come up with their own observations. Walz said that it can be used as a guide for the findings of fact, but reiterated that Board members should certainly use their own judgment and observations when presenting their findings of fact. Walz noted that a Board member could state findings of fact that negated staff's conclusions and base findings of fact on things that come up in testimony and at public hearing. Tyson said that she finds that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by any existing tower or any other structure, and that the applicant has done their due diligence in searching for other options. She said that the proposed tower will be camouflaged in such a manner as to have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area and the neighborhood. Tyson said that the tower will be a monopole, no taller than 100 feet from the grade. Tyson said the setback requirement will be met with a 110-foot setback, and that the tower will use a back-up generator only in the event of a power outage. Lighting in any form will be prohibited, Tyson said, and the tower will be constructed in such a way as to accommodate one additional user. If the tower is discontinued for use, it will be removed within 90 days. All wiring for the tower will be underground. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 12 of 23 Sheerin asked if anyone wished to add anything to the specific criteria. Sheerin said that she would add that under the first criteria that there are no existing towers within a half mile of the proposed site to provide opportunities for co -locations, and the applicant has looked at five sites in the area and has determined that none of them are adequate for co -location. Sheerin said that with regard to the second criteria, the antennas are not on the inside of the pole but that testimony has been given that the aesthetic difference is minimal. For criteria five, Sheerin noted that the equipment for the cell tower will be stored in a shed and effectively screened by existing tree cover. Sheerin invited someone to go through the general standards. Jennings said that the proposed specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or welfare because it meets the setback requirements, and does not rely on a back-up generator. The 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 tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no lighting, trusses, or guy -wires, and the antennas are mounted flush to the pole; the existing woodland will effectively screen equipment associated with the facility; the facility does not rely on a generator as its principle power source; and the tower will improve cell phone coverage in the surrounding neighborhoods. Jennings said the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone because it is designed to be inconspicuous, is well screened, and will not generate traffic, noise, or glare. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets, Jennings said. The tower will not generate significant additional traffic, and the improved driveway access to the cell tower will help. Jennings said that 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 being located. As part of the building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be reviewed by the building department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code are met. Jennings said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the Northeast District Plan calls for preservation of open space and shows limited residential development in this area due to its steep topography and other sensitive, natural features. While the Comprehensive Plan does call for maintaining the integrity of scenic and historic vistas by promoting unobtrusive lighting and signs, it makes no mention of cell towers or other similar structures. Despite this omission, the Board believes that the proposed cell tower balances the practical need for coverage with the strong desire to protect the natural beauty of the area by: the tower being designed to be unobtrusive with no guy -wires, trusses or lighting and with flush mounted antennas; the tower being constructed at 100 feet would increase the likelihood of co -location and decrease the likelihood of another tower in the neighborhood; the Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 13 of 23 location of the tower in a grove of mature trees approximately 60 feet in height will minimize the visual impact of the facility. Walz noted that the Board may wish to consider requiring the applicant to provide the required certification to verify co -location opportunity at the time of the building permit. Sheerin asked if the motion should be amended, and Greenwood Hektoen said that it should. Tyson moved to amend the motion to include a condition placed on the approval of the application requiring the applicant to provide certification at the time the building permit application is submitted that an engineer will approve the plans for co -location. Jennings seconded. Anderson asked if the tower design would be covered by the site plan or if it should be subject to staff approval. Walz said the term "elevations" in the present motion covers the design. Sheerin added to the findings of fact that she found persuasive the testimony that the land is hopefully going to be preserved and that this tower would help that preservation. Walz said that the fact that the land is not in permanent preserve presently may preclude it from being a basis of consideration. Sheerin said she just found the fact persuasive; she was not saying it was a requirement of the exception that the land go into permanent reserve. Anderson added under the general standards #7, the fact that the tower is adjacent and almost amongst the grove of trees is a primary reason for his support of the application. He said that this screening is maintains the rustic character of the area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property. Walz clarified that what was being considered was not allowing the existence of the salvage yard, but simply the waiver of the requirement for solid screening. At the time the original special exception was granted, solid fencing was a requirement of the zoning code and there was no opportunity for the Board to consider a waiver. Since then, language has been added that says under certain circumstances the Board may waive that requirement for solid fencing. That is what the applicant is asking for. Walz noted that the waiver is being requested for three sides of the property, not on the west side that fronts onto Riverside Drive. Walz noted that the background information gives a long history with the property, showing a period of non-compliance. Walz noted that the Russell Salvage Yard next door to Ace Auto Recyclers is a non -compliant salvage yard. She said that at this point Russell Salvage yard is not required to come into compliance as they won a case in court; however, if at any point that salvage yard wished to expand, it would have to come into compliance. Walz explained that Ace Auto Recyclers applied for a rezoning to the 1-2 zone back in 2005, and the property was rezoned in a zone which allowed salvage yards. In 2006, Walz said, the applicant requested Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 14 of 23 and was granted a special exception which allowed them to legitimize and expand the salvage yard. The Board's decision at that time included a condition requiring the applicant to install landscaping and screening as specified in the approved site plan. That site plan indicates solid screening for fence material. However, while the applicant indicated it would be 8-foot wood fencing, the Board did not specify that in their decision. The applicant went about bringing the yard into compliance. They used some fencing that was already there and installed fencing around the perimeter of the property. Walz showed the Board a picture of 6-foot chain -link fencing with brown vinyl slats inserted into it. In the previous special exception, there was a requirement that the applicant fence off the area nearest the creek to avoid getting debris in the creek. Walz said that the applicant is willing to install and additional fence in order to comply and will also retain the perimeter fence that keeps debris from the adjacent non -conforming salvage yard from drifting into the creek. On the south-west side of the site all the required landscape screening has been installed. The fencing on the west side of the property, which faces Riverside Drive, is required to be 8-foot solid fencing and will be installed after new warehouse and office structures are built. Walz said that the applicant cannot secure the occupancy permits required for the new structures they wish to build without first replacing that fence with the required 8-foot solid fencing. Along the south-east corner of the site a solid block wall has been erected which does satisfy the solid screening requirements. Walz explained that the adjacent property is Mesquaki Park, which is actually a former landfill that is closed to public access. Walz said there are methane gas leaks and other things protruding up through the soil that make it a hazardous area. Walz said that the restriction on public access was not expected to change. Walz said that she and a colleague were allowed to walk through this area and found that the screening of the salvage yard was virtually impenetrable; it could not be seen from the park. Walz noted that Russell Salvage Yard is to the north of the applicant's property. Given its state, Walz said, it is not impacted by the view of Ace Auto recyclers. Walz explained that the vacant property to the south is also owned by Ace Auto Recyclers. Walz noted that the 1-2 zone and the salvage yard are set back 300 feet from Riverside Drive. Staff believes that this distance in combination with the 8-foot solid screening on the west side of the site, which the Salvage yard is not requesting a waiver from, will provide adequate screening from Riverside Drive. Walz shared a few additional views of the property. Walz reiterated that the applicant is only asking to amend the previous special exception. She outlined the specific criteria that have been added to the code as follows: In areas that are not visible from streets, other public -rights —of -way, or the Iowa River, and where nearby uses will not be harmed, the Board of Adjustment may approve a semi -opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below: Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 15 of 23 1) where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that the screening is affectively provided or the intent of the standard is met; or 2) where the adjacent property is unlikely to be developed, is not visible to the public, and is unlikely to be harmed by an alternative fencing requirement; or 3) where the adjacent property is zoned industrial and the area or adjacent property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an outdoor work or storage area rather than a part of the property that would be highly visible to the public or to customers or clients of adjacent businesses. Walz noted that any and of these three situations is one in which the Board can decide to waive the solid fencing requirement. In this case, Walz said, the properties to the north and south are zoned for industrial uses and most of the property to the east is public land with restricted access, so the criteria are satisfied in staff's view. The property to the south-east, Walz noted, consists primarily of a largely inaccessible dredge pond, is outside the city limits, and is zoned for agricultural and industrial uses by the County. Walz noted that the topography of the area is relatively flat so the view of the salvage yard is not overly conspicuous to neighbors. She acknowledged that it is more visible from Riverside Drive, which is why the 8-foot solid fencing requirement will be retained for that portion. The applicant has installed 6-foot high chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of four sides of the property, Walz said. The applicant must replace the fencing at the front, west side of the salvage yard with 8-foot high solid fencing. The applicant has installed required landscaping along the first 60 feet of the south side, as was required by the special exception. The applicant has constructed an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the salvage yard's south side which satisfies the requirement for solid fencing. Walz said that staff believes the waiver from the solid fencing requirement may be reasonable in this situation. Walz addressed the general standards, stating that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Walz said that the only area that is problematic is the area of the stream. The applicant is willing to install additional fencing and maintain current fencing to ensure that no salvage from his site or his neighbor's site gets into the stream. Walz said that staff believes the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that the salvage yard is set back more than 300 feet from Riverside Drive. She said that distance along with the required 8-foot solid fencing along the west side of the salvage yard (which has yet to be installed) and the required landscaping (which has already been installed) will effectively screen views of the salvage operation from the public street. Walz noted that properties to the south are zoned 1-1 and the property to the east is public land closed to public access. For these reasons staff feels it is reasonable to waive the solid fencing requirement and that doing so will not negatively impact the surrounding uses. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 16 of 23 Staff believes the 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 the property is located. Walz said that for reasons already outlined, staff believed that a waiver would not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. All utilities and access roads are already in place. Establishing a four -foot fence south of the drainage way will prevent salvage from drifting into this area. Walz said that the waiver for solid fencing has no impact on ingress or egress, so that is not a factor. 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 and standards of the zone in which it is to be located, Walz said. She noted that the 8-foot solid fencing will still be required along Riverside Drive along with fencing to ensure the drainage way is not obstructed will also be required. Walz said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the South District Plan acknowledged conflicts in this area between industrial/commercial and residential uses; although the long-term land use scenario for the area is to phase out residential uses. She said the District Plan recommends that industrial and commercial businesses be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner within areas zoned for those uses. The plan specifies that industrial zoning is most suitable for those properties with direct access to the railway and Riverside Drive. Walz noted that the plan also recognizes Riverside Drive as an entranceway to the city, and because of this the 8-foot solid fencing should be required along that side of the salvage yard. Walz stated that staff recommends that EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion of the salvage yard shall be maintained; 2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new office/warehouse service building is proposed; 3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the existing teardown warehouse; 4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the drainage way as shown in the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008; Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 17 of 23 5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent property; 6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is installed; 7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet; 8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. Walz offered to answer any questions the Board may have. Tyson asked how it would be monitored that the salvage would not be stacked higher than 6 feet. Walz said that typically that would be responded to on a complaint basis. Greenwood Hektoen said she wished to clarify that the waiver is to allow the existing fencing to remain in place on the north, south, and east sides of the property. She said she wanted to make sure that the conclusion established what the fencing should be, not simply allowing for a waiver of the standard. Tyson asked for a review of what is on the other three sides. Walz said that other than the stone area, the fencing is 6-foot chain link with brown vinyl slats. Tyson asked if it had barbed wire at the top all the way around. Walz said it did and that this was a security issue for the salvage yard whereas the City's concern was primarily separation between uses. Tyson asked if there have been complaints called in regarding the salvage yard up to this point. Walz said she could not answer that question. She said she did have a neighbor call asking what the fencing requirement would be and that he seemed satisfied with the current fencing. Other than that, Walz said, she was not aware of complaints. She said the building department has been trying to enforce the requirements of the zoning code. Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Don Hilsman, Tiffin, said that he is one of the owners of Ace Auto Recyclers. He said that he felt Walz has covered the issue well and he would be happy to answer questions from the Board. Hilsman said that he felt the salvage yard was making great progress with its setback and screening, and that he received multiple calls each week asking where the salvage yard is because those driving by could not find it. There were no further questions for the applicant. Sheerin invited parties interested in addressing the application to come forward; no one did. Walz said that if the Board makes a motion that they should include the 6-foot chain link with brown vinyl slats as a substitution for solid fencing. Walz said that the language could be inserted into the first statement. Tyson moved to approve EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 18 of 23 in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, and to substitute a 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats, subject to the following conditions: 1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion of the salvage yard shall be maintained; 2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new office/warehouse service building is proposed; 3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the existing teardown warehouse; 4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the drainage way as shown in the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008; 5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent property; 6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is installed; 7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet; 8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. Jennings seconded. Anderson said that his concern with this application is along the south side. He notes that the staff reports acknowledges that this is an entry -way into the city, and upon viewing the site, he is not convinced that the 6-foot chain link fencing with slats is sufficient for screening the salvage operation from vehicles entering the city. He said that he could not think of a more important land use to have screened, and that it is important that screening measures actually achieve the desired results. Anderson said he would propose amending the motion to provide an exception to the screening for the north and the east side, but maintain the required 8-foot solid fencing on the south and west sides. Tyson said she totally concurs with that. Walz said that she wanted to be clear that the solid block screening would have to be allowed to stay put because it does satisfy the solid screening requirement. Anderson said he would be fine with that. Tyson asked why Anderson would be fine with that because it would still be seen from the road. Tyson said he was not concerned that the fencing match so much as that the Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 19 of 23 salvage operation be blocked from view. Tyson contended that a mismatched fence was also not an attractive entrance way to the city. Hilsman noted that the elevation on which the required landscaping is installed is actually is higher than the fence. He said that he was told the trees would get one foot of growth per year. He said that in three years the trees will be higher than the fence and everything else in the area. Anderson said he appreciated that and that he hopes that will be the case. He said he thought the intention of the landscaping is to provide an additional buffer. He said there is a reason that both are required and not just one or the other. Sheerin asked what Anderson would want. Anderson said he would want to provide the special exception along the north and the east side but require the 8-foot solid fencing along the south and the west. Sheerin asked if Tyson did not feel that was enough. Tyson said she also felt there should be consistency in the fencing materials. Tyson said that allowing the concrete buffer to stay was not doing the entrance way to the city justice. Tyson said she wanted to see 8-foot wood fence along the south and west side, with the block fence being removed. Anderson said he agrees with that aesthetically but that he is not sure the Board has the authority to require them to remove a fence that is essentially compliant. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed the requirement was for solid fencing. Greenwood Hektoen said that one must look at the purpose of the screening, which is to block views essentially. She said there has been no testimony about how far along that property line can be seen from the highway, and that she thinks that is something important to consider and discuss. Anderson acknowledged that the stone wall was toward the back of the property. Tyson said that the wall can still be seen and that she made the approach from both directions. Anderson asked if it was Greenwood Hektoen's contention that the Board could require the removal of the block wall and require the solid wood fencing along the full south side of the property. Greenwood Hektoen asked what the previous special exception required. Walz said that the previous special exception did not specify the construction materials or the height, but merely said solid fencing. Greenwood Hektoen said that at this point the request is the waiver and that is what the Board should consider. If the requirement is not being waived, she said, then whatever the requirement is currently would remain. Greenwood Hektoen said that removal of a compliant wall would be beyond the scope of what the Board is being asked to do. Walz said the concrete block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement specified in the previous special exception. Sheerin asked whether the 6-foot fence or the concrete wall would look better. Anderson said he believed their plan was not to remove the concrete wall. He said the way he understood the exception is that their plan is to leave the entire south side exactly as it is. Anderson said the chain link fence with vinyl slats does not provide sufficient screening. Tyson asked if Anderson was saying that it would be an 8-foot wood fence up to the concrete wall. He said that his understanding is that would be required of the applicant simply by not allowing an exception. Walz said her understanding of Anderson's amendment is that the waiver would just be for the north and east sides. Anderson said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen directed the Board to condition #8 in the staff report that "states all other conditions remain the same," and that would include the solid fencing on the south side Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 20 of 23 Jason Hilsman, Tiffin, introduced himself as a current employee and future owner of Ace Auto Recyclers. He said that they had been through this issue the last time around. He said that they have worked with staff to design their landscape plan to shield the view from the city. He noted that they do not intend to use wood fencing, rather 8-foot solid steel fencing along the west side that will match the building to be constructed. Hilsman said that he gets a little frustrated because he feels that some people have a negative image of what they do, and they are working hard to improve their business. He said they have put in countless hours of dirt - work and tree planting. He said he was under the impression that they were finally to the point where they only needed to get the west side fence done and the 4-foot chain link near the creek, and that it is frustrating to be back talking about doing a whole additional side of fencing. Hilsman said they had worked closely with staff to arrive where they are at today; that they were due for a building last summer and were over -ridden due to these fencing issues. Hilsman said that they have been through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and now are back before the Board of Adjustment. Sheerin said she appreciated his frustration and that she had to confess that she had not done a site visit on this application as she had received her information packet late. She said what she was hearing from her fellow board members is that there's already a concrete fence there. Walz said the concrete fence is about half -way up the south side. Sheerin asked if the applicant is asking to keep the fence as it is. Hilsman said that they agree with staff's recommendations. Hilsman said he felt they had gotten to the point of not changing anything on the south, east, and north sides. Sheerin said she was most interested in the south side. Sheerin asked if she was correct in thinking that if the applicant got this waiver they would keep the south fence as it currently is. Walz said that was correct. Sheerin asked what would have to be there if the waiver was not granted. Walz said it would have to be 8-foot solid fencing to be approved bye staff. Anderson pointed out that in 2006 the applicant was supposed to erect an 8-foot high wall. To a certain extent, Anderson said, the current situation is a result of the fact that a 6-foot high fence was put up instead of the agreed upon 8-foot fence. Don Hilsman noted that the building official instructed them to put the vinyl slats into the chain link fence. Hilsman said they worked with staff all the way along. This fencing was not something they just decided to put up themselves. Hilsman said the fencing was done in three phases, each signed off on by staff. Hilsman said a staff member came out and looked at it and told them they were ready for a building permit. Tyson said she appreciates what he is saying and that she understands his frustrations, but that the report states later on that it was determined that the fence did not meet the S-5 standard. Hilsman said when he first began this process he spoke with a member of staff in charge who came out and worked together with him on the whole fence and told Hilsman that he would be seeing they project through. Hilsman said the frustration is that they thought they were doing everything right and everything the way staff wanted them to. He said they spent a lot of money on that fence. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks it is important to focus on whether or not a waiver is appropriate based on the criteria set forth. She said that the background information is just for background but should not play into considerations of whether the application meets the criteria or not. Anderson offered an amendment to the motion to exclude the south side from the staff recommended waiver. Tyson seconded. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 21 of 23 A vote was taken on the amendment and the amendment failed 2-2 (Sheerin and Jennings voting against the amendment). Sheerin asked if the motion needs to be restated, and Walz said it does not. Anderson asked if the vinyl slats had been included in the original motion and Walz said that they had been. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the cinder -block wall needs to be addressed in the motion, and Walz clarified that the cinder -block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement so no waiver is needed for that. Sheerin invited findings of fact on the specific criteria. Anderson said that land uses surrounding the property consist largely of salvage uses and dredge ponds. The topography of the area is flat with vacant property to the south as well as unused property to the east. Anderson stated that the applicant has installed the 6-foot chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of all four sides of the property. Anderson said that the west side of the property will be 8-foot solid fence as that is not considered in the waiver. Under general standards, Anderson said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The non -used park and the dredge pond and river are sufficiently unused to be screened by the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats. He said that the addition of the 4-foot chain link fence to the south side offers protection to the nearby stream. Anderson said the proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The adjacent properties are either unused or similar uses. Anderson stated 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 such property is located. Anderson said that all utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The 15-foot buffer along the drainage way and the addition of the 4-foot fence near the creek will help to ensure this standard is met. Anderson stated that the fencing waiver has no impact on ingress or egress. Anderson found that standard #6 was generally met by the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats except on the south side of the property where the materials used would be insufficient to provide adequate screening. Under standard #7, Anderson found that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the south side where the height and materials used are insufficient screening. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Jennings said that he would add under general standard #2 that the east property is closed to public use due to environmental concerns and so therefore the fence as proposed is reasonable for that area. Under general standard #6, Jennings noted that the applicant will be maintaining the existing fencing on the north side of the creek in addition to the new fencing on the south side of the creek. Tyson said she had no findings of fact to add. Sheerin said that she concurs with the findings of fact except for Anderson's finding that the south fence would be insufficient to provide coverage. She said she felt that the height of the chain link fence and the vinyl slats would provide sufficient screening. Greenwood Hektoen noted that approving this application would require a majority vote. She said that if the Board wished to they could defer until the next meeting when Eckstein was present. Walz said that she did not know how the Board members intended to vote, but that a 2-2 vote would result in the application being denied. She said that if the Board wished to defer to provide the applicant with a 3-2 vote, whether it was in favor or against, they could do so. Tyson asked if the entire process would then have to be repeated. Walz said that Eckstein would have the report and the minutes and that Walz could provide a brief summary if necessary. Anderson asked if a tie vote would require re -application. Walz said it would simply be a fail. Tyson asked if each of the Board members had driven by the site. Sheerin said she had not. Walz said that if the Board wished to defer in order to do so they certainly could. Sheerin said that a deferment makes sense because it would allow Eckstein to be present and Sheerin would have the opportunity to visit the site. Anderson said the vinyl slats are not indicative from the pictures shown. He said that in the pictures they look more opaque than they are. Sheerin asked if the deferment required a vote and Greenwood Hektoen said it did. Tyson moved to defer until the February meeting. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). Tyson said she felt it was in the best interest of the applicant to defer so that there was time for the Board to do site visits and all of the Board would be present. Walz said that it would be better to have the fifth member of the board present so that if the motion is to fail, it will do so on a majority vote rather than a 2-2 tie. For the applicant the a fifth member would also offer an opportunity to for the motion to have a majority vote in favor. Walz explained to the applicant that if the vote had been 2-2 the waiver would have been denied altogether. She explained that it seemed more appropriate to wait until next month when a fifth member would be present to consider the application. Sheerin noted that the Board could not discuss the matter amongst themselves or with anyone else until the next meeting. Greenwood Hektoen advised that any ex parte discussion would have to be disclosed at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Tyson moved to adjourn. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 23 of 23 Jennings seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.