HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2012 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the January 11, 2012 Minutes
D. Special Exception
EXC12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T) for
a special exception to locate a communication transmission facility in the Neighborhood Public (P-1)
zone at 2901 Melrose Ave. (West High School).
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: March 14, 2012
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC12-00001
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
Date: January 18, 2012
Applicant: New Cingular Wireless OCS LLC (AT&T)
4300 Market Pointe Drive, Suite 350
Bloomington, Minnesota, 55435
Contact: Rich Kotite, Site Acquisition Agent
25870 Highway 2
Keosauqua, Iowa, 52565
703-597-5456
Property Owner: Iowa City Community School District
1725 North Dodge Street
Iowa City, Iowa, 52245
319-688-1000
Requested Action: Special exception to allow installation of a privately -
owned communication transmission facility in a
public zone
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Applicable code sections:
2901 Melrose Ave. (West High School)
80 acres
West High School (P-1)
North: University of Iowa athletic facilities (P-2)
South: OPD-8 and RS-8
East: OPD/RS-12 and RM-12
West: OPD-8 and RS-5
Specific criteria related to the location of
communication transmission facilities in the P-1
zone (14-4B-4E-5b); general criteria for special
exceptions (14-413-3A).
File Date: January 12, 2012
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, New Cingular Wireless (AT&T), proposes to construct a 120-foot stealth monopole cell
phone tower and accompanying facilities in a Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone at 2901 Melrose Avenue
(West High School). The tower and facilities would be located within a 20x37-square foot area, which
would be leased by AT&T, directly behind the bleachers on the north side of the West High School
football stadium. Antennas are to be mounted at 105 feet and 115 feet. The pole would be located 362
feet from the nearest residential zone. The cell tower would provide improved coverage for the Galway
Hills neighborhood to the west, and the other mostly residential areas to the south and east of West High
School.
The proposal includes removal of an existing lightpole within the leased area to make room for the tower
and facilities. A proposed 11-foot 5-inch by 20-foot shelter would also be constructed within the leased
area, surround by a 45x30-foot, 8-foot high chain -link fence with privacy slats.
A 20-foot wide access and utility easement along the existing north -south drive (from the west entrance to
West High from Melrose Avenue) that would run parallel to the western border of the existing property line
is also proposed. The proposal would expand on paths leading from the parking lot to the football stadium
and add a proposed 12-foot wide access road to the leased area. The proposal also includes removing
an existing section of paved pathway and installing a 5-foot wide walkway adjacent to the tower.
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 14-46-4E-5b
pertaining to specific standards for communications transmission facilities in the P-1 zone, in addition to
the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-46-3A.
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-4E-5)
The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial
property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the area. The applicant must
document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, and industrial properties within
one-half ('/2) mile of the proposed tower. Such documentation must include maps
illustrating the location of existing towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and
towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant must state the reasons
that these locations were not feasible.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• A map provided by the applicant shows a clock tower as the only existing tower within a
half -mile radius of the proposed site. However, there are no existing towers that provide
opportunities for co -location and no properties zoned industrial in the vicinity.
• There is one antenna structure within a .8-mile radius of the proposed monopole location
listed in the FCC Antenna Structure Registration database. That antenna structure, with a
height of 60 feet, is located at 2576 Westwinds Drive. The applicant stated that the
antenna is not suitable for the applicant's use due to overall height and space constraints
in the structure.
(2) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and
reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include
monopoles, which do not have guywires or support trusses and that are painted to blend in with
the sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flagpoles, monuments, steeples, or the
integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use
materials similar to or that blend in with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged
tower structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar structures allowed in
the zone, e.g., towers camouflaged as light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and
appearance as other such poles. The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would
appear in the proposed location.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The proposed monopole would be similar in appearance to the existing lightpoles at the
football field, except it will be 120-feet tall while the current light pole it would replace is
roughly 80-foot tall.
• The antennas will be flush -mounted at 105 and 115 feet, which means the antennas would
be attached to the exterior of the pole.
• The monopole will not have guywires or support trusses.
• If strobe lighting is required by the FAA it would be a flashing white light during the day
changing to a red light at night. The change minimizes disturbance to the surrounding
neighborhood.
• The school district will determine the height of the lighting for the football field; the
construction drawings indicate the lighting height and type will match existing lighting
around the football stadium.
• The applicant has provided a simulation of the how the tower would appear in the
proposed location.
(3) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended.
Evidence presented should include coverage maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and
changes to coverage with the proposed tower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for CNA), CH-1,
CC-2, CIA, CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 zones, communications towers are exempt from the maximum
height standards of the base zone, but under no circumstance may the tower be taller than one
hundred twenty feet (120) from grade. In the CO-1, CNA, and any ID-C zone intended for CNA,
communications towers must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type
of structure to which they are attached or if a communications tower is camouflaged to appear
similar to another common structure allowed in the zone, it must comply with the same height
standards that would apply to the type of structure that it emulates. For example, if the tower is
camouflaged as a light pole, flagpole, or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation for
such structures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard exists in the code for such a
structure, it must be designed to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or typical
structures. If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop structure, the board
may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of
the building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar rooftop structures.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The applicant has stated that the monopole height is the minimum needed to provide the
increased coverage adequately.
• The applicant has provided maps illustrating radio coverage before installation and after to
help visualize the increased coverage area afforded by the proposed site.
4
• The maps appear to show existing gaps in coverage and changes in coverage created by
the proposed tower.
(4) The proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any
residential zone, ID-RS zone, and ID-RM zone.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The height of the proposed monopole will be 120 feet.
• The closest residential zone from the pole is 362 feet.
(5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed,
cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened from view of the public right of way and
any adjacent residential or commercial property.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The proposed shelter used to store ground equipment will be located behind existing
bleachers and partially concealed by topography. The proposal includes an 8-foot high
chain -link fence with privacy slats to surround the leased area.
• A retaining wall would be located within the chain link fence.
• A proposed 12-foot wide double swing gate would be located at the northeast end of the
leased area.
• This area is not within view of adjacent properties or public rights -of -way.
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize a backup generator as a principal power source. Backup
generators may only be used in the event of a power outage.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
The applicant has stated the monopole will not be using a backup generator as the
principal power source.
(7) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional
user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the one hundred twenty foot (120') height limitation
or if the board of adjustment determines that allowing the additional height needed to
accommodate another user will detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent future
development intended in the zone. The applicant shall provide a certification by a professional
engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second
antenna system of comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna system.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The applicant has indicated that the monopole is the minimum height required to provide
adequate coverage to the area.
• The applicant has provided certification by a professional engineer licensed in Iowa that
the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of comparable
size to be added to the tower immediately below the original antenna.
(8) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed
by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and replanted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall
present a signed lease agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other satisfactory
evidence acknowledging this obligation.
• The applicant indicated an e-mail they sent had an abandonment letter attached. The
abandonment letter was not attached, and does not appear to have been submitted. Staff
recommends that an abandonment letter be provided at the time that the building permit is applied
for.
General Standards (14-413-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The structure must meet all applicable building, mechanical and fire codes, including wind
and ice loading requirements for the monopole.
• Ground equipment will be housed in a shed surrounded by fencing and screened from view
of other properties bleachers, a retaining wall and trees.
• The school district will also be able to use the monopole for athletic field lighting.
• The pole must be located more than 300 feet from the nearest residential zone.
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.
• See # 1 above.
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 # 1 above.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• Adequate utilities will be provided to serve the site. Access will be through the school
parking lot and on existing access to the athletic field; no drainage issues are present.
S. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so
as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• The proposed use does not generate vehicle traffic and will have no impact on ingress or
egress from West High 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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
All other aspects of the site must be compliance with the zoning code. The applicant must
secure a building permit before constructing the tower. All other applicable code
standards must be in compliance.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The zoning code does not speak directly to the issue of communication transmission facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC12-00001, to allow installation of a privately -
owned communication transmission facility in a public (P-1) zone at 2901 Melrose Avenue (West High
School), subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit,
indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued.
• Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Aerial views of the proposed location.
3. Photo simulation of the tower.
4. Coverage maps.
5. Application materials.
Approved by;,/
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
a
l8 N32LL NOMHO
W
a
(n m Qr N "�
ol
a
W Q V \ t
Has wa � o
o �
�1 _
J
0-4
V
O
O h
N
00 pR
(L�
O m =1
as N i ieno �" •- - •"
a'
O
_._... N
v _ _._ ti
1� FI
W
KRNN�oy Id V9 N �� T
rr J_
U)
Aerial view of the cell tower location. Area labeled as POV is the location represented in the photo
simulation (attached).
Larger view of the West High property. Not tree line along the southern property line.
Location of the tower is more than 300 feet from the residential zone to the east (Westwinds Drive).
r-I
Ln
r-I
Q
G
W
0
(
buo
^L
W
0
U
U7
O
0
0
O
L
U
0
,W^
V
0
0
W
4-J
l-
ro
W
L
0
U
N
E
O
Ce,
v O
U
Y
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION -
DATE: January 12, 2012
PROPERTY PARCEL NO
1018101001
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2901 Melrose Avenue (west High School) (E911 to be assigned)
PROPERTY ZONE: Pi
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 80 acres (parent
parcel)
APPLICANT:
Name: New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T)
4300 Market Pointe Drive, Suite 350
Address: Bloomington, MN 55435
Phone: Connie Lamberes, Real Estate Mgr. 952-656-9178
CONTACT PERSON:
Name: Rich Kotite, Site Acquisition Agent
(if other than applicant)
25870 Highway 2
Address: Keosauqua, Iowa 52565
Phone: 703-597-5456
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name: Iowa City Community School District
(if other than applicant)
1725 North Dodge Street
Address: Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Phone: 319-688-1000
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 366-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: 14-4B-4-E-5-b: Privately Owned Communication
Transmission Facilities in Public Zones
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/A
-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.
Applicant's proposed site will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The site will meet
all applicable building, mechanical and fire codes, including wind and
ice loading requirements for the monopole. The school district will also
be able to use the monopole for athletic field lighting.
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.
Applicant's proposed site 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 site will
be appropriate in relation to the existing aesthetics of the athletic
field complex.
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.
Applicant's proposed site will not impede normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district in which such property is located. The site's footprint is
very small and located well inside the high school property.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
Adequate utilities (power and telco) will be provided to serve the site.
Access will be through the school parking lot and on existing access to the
athletic fields; no drainage issues will be present.
-4-
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Applicant's site will be unmanned, and so no traffic congestion will
be evident.
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 14-46 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-6A through K) j
Applicant's site will meet all applicable regulations and standards
pertinent to the P1 Public Zone, conditioned by the site development
standards outlined in applicant's previous responses.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
Applicant's proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
of the City. Applicant is working closely with the school district and
the planning department to ensure all requirements are met.
III,
T
■ s 2 -
Ll
|| ■ - � k
$
%G
6«
■ -
� /
§ §oa
/
k3°(n £ *�2
�§] || | § £ j ¥
N gum
§; ( !r E\§
2
jw
V)G
�
( «i 2
\
-( § }
__=in
�)
e
7
|� § Id�) \.
q 2 '
§ &
|H12 2 !|§■
, � |
' K ,
--®—_— ---- _-------- -
----------------------- -
--�—,: -------�---------�----
f` ®_`|
\\ zz.
E{ a |
%
� • |||
| (,|
§�(
P §
/ ■| | e.
|
PH
(|!�
|® ��
;•!�
�� � � �■�k |�K |■ � �� ƒ!
2 |
�� ƒ(
� /� �q�2�|� � �■ ��q| /�
ho
|
§
w
C.)�
§
A
§
■
.e
§
$
tl
\
, §
B]
3
§\z
\ K§§
n
Z. In
3620
\ \
m�uz
V�/n
V)0\\
\
\ s| 2j§
)
a
/\
C§
|
|
�
� \
® ||
!■§■
e
2!'
2-
§|
. ■
.
|
�
|
PH
U|
§
§
(
�
�.
}���
I I I I I I I 1 \ N
--- \\
--jig U
I I I 1 1 \ irr
I I I I I I I \ \1 \ \ \ \ G
I I I \ \ r
I I I I 1 \ \
I I 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \
04
N
In
m
jig
\
\
zz
(n J >
\ \ \ \\ \` \\`\�.. \ N d VI
--------------
Z J
\ \\ \\\` \\` \\ \\` \ \\\\\\\ N
------------
04
----------- poll-
-----
N _
s` j a
$ IRS
1 4F s
d wk
of ri v ri d ae�
d NUON 3nNi g U
N1NON 3nN1 cn
g R.,
Z
aO
N��F
z m
<�1 F <�i F w !C-
a)
w
�j�
Now
ZQ�
w NOwZ
3 a In O
€ as o o 0(.)
0
01
N
Ll
�o
=w
IIII
< 11- Z
I I� a
wo g
W� = $
I� o jai
Y
II� �
II� x Cox
F�a
'M F,SOI MUN30 M 03SOdOW
'WV F,9II N31H30 M 03SOdOW gE c
-*V i.OZI 1N013N ONAIL 03SOdONd
7
� FF
F�a�
f
ro
4-4
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 11, 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Larry Baker, Caroline Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, Baker and Sheerin, were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Baker questioned whether or not he should abstain from this consideration as he was
not present at the last meeting. Walz stated that he is allowed to vote if he believes that
the commission determines that the minutes are correct.
Sheerin said that she had a question on page five. Sheerin thought Michael Lensing was
speaking on behalf of the application, but what was stated in the minutes, "Michael
Lensing said this was a great opportunity to take this house and make it into an amazing
single-family property", didn't make any sense. Holecek verified that this is indeed what
Lensing stated. Sheerin thought that he was speaking in favor of the application, but
what he said does not support that. After discussion amongst Holecek, Walz and the
board members, it was agreed that what Lensing said did not make any sense in the
context of his support of the application.
Sheerin's second suggested correction was in the sentence, "Holecek stated that she
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 2 of 8
was unaware of what Canganelli had in writing but there is a larger analysis to the zoning
code regulations." Sheerin questioned whether this accurately captured Holecek's
statements. Holecek clarified that what she had said was that there's a larger analysis to
determining whether or not the use is abandoned under the zoning code. Sheerin
believes what Holecek said needs to be corrected in the minutes.
Grenis moved to approve the minutes as corrected for December 14, 2011.
Sheerin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc., for a
special exception to allow up to three parking spaces for residential uses at 225 Iowa Avenue to
be located on a separate lot in a municipal parking facility in the Central Business (CB-10) zone.
Walz stated that the building is in the (CB-10) zone, and one of the requirements of the special
exception is that the parking ramp be located in the same zone. The ramp is zoned CB-10. She
pointed out the location of Bruegger's property on the site map. It's cut off from the alley, so for
all practical purposes, they can't provide parking on -site because they would need that rear
entrance to get in. The subject site is 223 ft. from the ramp, and the pedestrian entrance that
you would take to get to your car is off Linn St., so it's well within the 300 ft. that's normally
required. Even within the CB-10 the off -site parking is not required to be within 300 ft.
Bruegger's building was destroyed in a fire. They are trying to replace the building they had with
the same number of apartments. They are going to have 3 dwelling units: 2 —1 bedrooms and
a 2-bedroom. The zoning requirements for that only require 2 parking spaces. They have asked
for up to 3 so they would have the option of providing one parking space per dwelling unit. The
Tower Place Parking Facility has 511 parking spaces. That includes the 30 spaces allotted to
businesses that own that own condos that surround the parking ramp. Transportation reserves
50 spaces anywhere throughout the ramp until 11 a m for people using the Senior Center. The
head of Transportation Facilities and the director of Planning and Community Development
have indicated that they believe this is appropriate and it can be accommodated within the
ramp. They have the distance. They have the zoning. Public ramps are designed with safe
egress and ingress so there are no safety issues here.
The Planning Staff is recommending that anytime a private developer ask for permanent space
in the ramp, that they get design review just to ensure that the building fits with the surrounding
structures. At the time that they apply for their building permit and go through the design
process is the time they would submit their Covenant for Off -Site Parking, which is their
agreement with the City for the parking spaces. Walz clarified that the address in question is
225 Iowa Avenue and the ramp being discussed is Tower Ramp.
Baker asked about the design review condition and if this building is required to go through
review regardless. Walz said no, and that is why staff has asked that it be a condition. Baker
also wanted to know if they can approve this exception conditional on design review. Walz
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 3 of 8
stated that they could.
Sheerin said she thinks design review seems irrelevant to the parking issue. She said
commissioners are always told to only consider what's in front of them, and if parking is in front
of them, then she doesn't see how the design review is linked.
Holecek explained that the parking is allowing the number of residential units. Otherwise you
might have a totally commercial building. Sheerin wanted to know if looking at the design plan
would include elements such as landscaping or just concentrate on how many residential units
are allowed. Holecek said that they are indeed considering esthetics as well. By allowing the
residential units to be built as a result of the parking, staff wants to make sure it fits esthetically
into the neighborhood. Sheerin said she thought that argument seemed a bit weak.
Walz said the Board can choose whether or not to attach that condition. She said what they
typically look for in design review is that the entrance to residential units be safe and well -
lighted, and those kinds of consideration.
Baker asked that if the condition here is that they submit a plan for design review. For the
special exception to be approved, does it require that their design be approved?
Walz stated that they can't get the special exception without getting design review approval.
Grenis wanted to know if the applicant had a problem with the design review requirement.
Walz said that they had received the packet, but she had not heard from them.
Sheerin asked about the fact that the Director of Transportation Services can relocate the three
permits to any other downtown municipal ramp on an annual basis. She said she understands
why that might be, but doesn't that take away all the work that the Board is doing here?
Walz explained that within the CB-10 zone the parking doesn't have to be within 300 ft. of the
residential unit(s). In the CB-10 zone, the parking can be located anywhere. This is the ideal
ramp for the residents of 225 Iowa Ave. to be in, and the City wouldn't move them unless there
was a circumstance that would require it.
Grenis said that the last time the Board considered a similar application, Jennings brought up
the fact that it seemed the Board is approving parking in perpetuity and not necessarily just to
this ramp.
Walz said that if the Board is concerned about the wording in the Code, they can always ask
P&Z to clarify policy.
Sheerin said she doesn't like setting aside parking spaces in public ramps. By doing so, then
more ramps need to be built.
Walz explained that there is something being added to the Code that indicates that there has to
be practical difficulty with providing the parking on site. Outside of the CB-10 there are situations
where in order to get permits the developer will have to pay a contribution toward future
development of ramps. Rather than getting the permanent privilege of a parking permit, they
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 4 of 8
would be paying an impact fee designated for the construction of future ramps.
Sheerin says she thinks there's confusion about what the Comprehensive Plan is dictating. She
quoted from it. "...People who live in and near downtown will walk to work or classes..." She
thinks the Comprehensive Plan's idea is to get less parking in the downtown area. But by
designating parking spaces in municipal ramps that requires building more ramps is contributing
to the parking problem.
Walz said this came about because previously there was no required parking for CB-10
residential uses, and then it happened that there were lots of residential uses going into the CB-
10. The City felt like some of those people were taking up spaces and the City wasn't
accounting for them. At the time, Walz said, developers weren't allowed to provide parking on -
site. Now, they are required to provide it on -site, and if they can't, some fine-tuning needs to
happen. It is at least accounting for the fact that when you have lots of people living downtown,
they are going to bring cars with them. And you need to account for that in the ramps. Walz said
that next month when there will be four members, the Board can contemplate a letter to P&Z or
Council that these things need to be clarified.
Sheerin thinks it's confusing what they are being asked to do and what the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan are. She thinks it's come up often enough that it needs to be addressed.
Walz said she thinks the change happened when staff recommended that developers have to
provide parking, and when it reached Council the thought was that there would be some
properties that can't do that. The Council wanted to be flexible, so this solution was created
somewhat spontaneously and maybe isn't quite right yet.
Baker asked Sheerin if her concern was that there not be this option or that her issue is with the
language
Sheerin replied that there's a lack of clarity in the Comprehensive Plan and in the zoning code.
There's a tension between whether we want more parking downtown or if we want to be going
toward more pedestrian traffic. If it's not clear what the goal is of the Comprehensive Plan, it's
not clear how the Board should be proceeding. She thinks that Walz's explanation has helped
her understand why it's advisable to have the designated spots in the ramp.
Walz explained that it doesn't mean someone has to use them. In this case, if only one person
in the residential units has a car, only one permit would be issued, with up to three reserved.
Sheerin feels that the City has been trying to force people into the ramps with stricter parking
enforcement, but she's concerned that parking in the ramps will decrease as more permits are
issued at the same time non-residents are parking in the ramps due to parking enforcement.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Grenis moved to approve EXC12-00001 .an application submitted by Bruegger's
Enterprises, Inc. for a special exception to allow up to 3 parking spaces in a municipal
parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 5 of 8
be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 Iowa Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
• The applicant must submit the required agreement for off -site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions:
o The permits shall only be available to residents of 225 Iowa Avenue at a
cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of
transportation Services at the time of leasing.
o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the
name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will
only be granted to residents with the primary address of 225 Iowa Avenue.
o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to
another downtown municipal parking facility on an annual basis as
necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities.
o The final building plan be approved by the Staff Design Review Committee.
Baker seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Grenis said he's fine with the design review mostly because it seems that the applicant isn't
opposed to it, and it seems appropriate.
Baker stated that the discussion has been very helpful in understanding some of the issues and
that he has no problems with the motion as submitted.
Sheerin said she is fine with the design review and that Walz has clarified the parking issues for
her.
Grenis submitted his findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
A. Special Location Plan is met because the applicants will be submitting a plan subject
to approval.
B. Location of Off -Site Parking is satisfied because the subject property is 235 ft. from
the parking ramp.
C. Zoning is satisfied because the parking spaces and principle use served are both are
in the CB-10 zone
D. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking is satisfied because the applicant is not proposing to
share parking with any other use.
E. Off -Site Parking Located in a Municipally -Owned Parking Facility - In the CB-10
zone, up to 100 percent of the required parking number of parking spaces may be
provided in a City -owned parking facility regardless of the distance between the use
and the parking facility - is satisfied because both the ramp and the proposed use is
in the CB-10 zone, and the applicant has requested up to 3 parking spaces for long-
term rental and Director of Transportation Services indicated that was adequate
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 6 of 8
along with the Director of Planning and Community Development and the City
Manager
F. Approval Criteria and consideration of the desirability of the location of off-street
parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in terms of
pedestrian and vehicular safety; and any detrimental effects of adjacent property;
and the appearance of the streetscape are satisfied based on what the zoning code
allows in the CB-10 zone, the distance of ramp from the subject property, the parking
being in a municipal ramp which has adequate ingress and egress and good visibility
and the ramp is already constructed so there will be no change to the surrounding
area.
G. Covenant for Off -Site Parking requiring a written agreement between the owners of
the parking and the owners of the property for which the parking will serve is satisfied
because the parking agreement will be subject to the approval of our Special
Exception
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare is satisfied because the parking facility is
within 300 ft. of the proposed use, pedestrian access is adequate and already
established between the 2 sites with appropriate crossing at a controlled intersection,
and the ingress and egress from the parking ramp is designed safely and has good
visibility
2. The 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 is satisfied especially in light of the Board's approval being subject to
the design review process
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property is satisfied in light
of the Director of Transportation Services reviewing and approving this request and
the condition that this plan be reviewed by the Design Review Committee
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided is satisfied because all utilities, access roads, drainage and
necessary facilities are in place to serve the parking facility and the development of
the proposed building
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets is satisfied because
as mentioned earlier, the municipal parking facility has been designed to allow that
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other aspects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located is satisfied
because this municipal parking facility should meet all applicable standards in the
zoning code and all aspects of the residential development will be reviewed by a
building official as part of the building permit process and by the Design Review
Committee
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended is
satisfied based on the language promoting higher density in this area and the
parking requirements that such density requires
Sheerin stated that she adopts Grenis's findings.
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2012
Page 7 of 8
Baker asked if this was standard procedure to enumerate each finding.
Walz stated that while some summarization is fine, must make clear what facts led them to the
conclusion that each criterion is satisfied or, conversely what facts led them to believe a criterion
was not satisfied.
Holecek explained that the law adopts the staff report as part of the record, and the issue is a
reviewing court would ask if there is enough evidence before the Board to make the decision
that had been determined. It is better to articulate the findings overly clearly than to be too brief
or to only infer a finding.
Sheerin explained that this had become the standard procedure with the board and drew a
distinction between articulating conclusions versus the facts that support a conclusion.
Baker adopted Grenis's findings.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz stated that there will probably be a cell tower application at next month's meeting. She
also explained that the update to the Comprehensive Plan will commence at the 2 community
planning workshops. The Comprehensive Plan will also bring in all the work that's being done
on Riverfront Crossings. This will be an opportunity for people to look at the current
Comprehensive Plan and decide if they like the direction its going and state their opinions.
This will not replace the District Plans but rather will build on them. The City has received a
grant to focus on sustainability as part of it in the sense of social and economic sustainability.
ADJOURNMENT:
Baker moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote.
W
V
N W
W V-
Q Z N
LL
O Q
pZ
W
Q r
ma
X
X
O
X
y
�(oLoCM
�W
�_
—
T-000
--
��
W d
p`
N
N
N
�x
L V
��T-T-
p
0
0
0
C
N
N
4)
N
L
C
W
m
U
C
N
C
•-
O
Z�
_3ao3:U
O
—
N
E
7
O
0
3 Z
C) Q)
X G
LU
Eco
Q Z O
d Q II II Z
II II W II
XooZ
}
W
Y