HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2013 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, January 9, 2013 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
C. Consider the December 12, 2012 Minutes
D. Special Exception Item
EXC12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Robert Wetherell for NCS Pearson, Inc. for a
special exception to construct a 142-foot free standing Small Wind Energy Conversion System (a wind
turbine) in the Office Research Park (ORP) zone at 2510 North Dodge Street,
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: February 13, 2013
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC12-00015
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: January 9, 2013
Robert Wetherell
2510 North Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA
319-339-6552
National Computer Systems, Inc.
5601 Green Valley Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
952-681-3000
Requested Action: Approval of a special exception for a Small Wind
Energy Conversion System (SWECS) as an
accessory use in the Office Research Park zone.
Purpose: To install a 142.9-foot (95kW) free standing wind
turbine system to generate electricity for an office
use.
Location: 2510 North Dodge Street
Size: 50.1 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Office Research Park (ORP)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped; Interim Development
Research Park (IDRP)
South: Interstate 80 and Highway
Commercial (CH-1)
East: Highway Commercial (CI-1)
West: Undeveloped; Research Development Park
(RDP) and Planned Development -Highway
Commercial (OPD-CHI)
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria); 14-4C-2Y, Small Wind
Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS)
File Date: December 11, 2012
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Robert Wetherell, has applied for a special exception on behalf
of NCS Pearson to allow a 142-foot (115-foot monopole with 27-foot blades), freestanding wind
turbine system to be installed on the Pearson property at 2510 North Dodge Street. The 95kw
system would be off -grid and is intended to generate electric power for the office use. The
applicant has provided a site plan showing the location of the wind facility on the 50-acre site
within the Office Research Park (ORP) zone.
In fall of 2012, the City adopted new regulations to allow Small Wind Energy Conversion
Systems (SWECS) in certain zones. Freestanding SWECS that exceed a height of 45 feet are
allowed in the ORP zone by special exception only. Iowa City's new ordinance was modeled on
other ordinances in the State of Iowa and is intended to control for externalities, such as light
flicker and noise, and to implement safety standards having to do with the distance of the
turbine from other uses and buildings. Similar to the regulations for telecommunications towers
(cell towers), the intent of the regulations with regard to taller, free standing wind turbines, is to
allow the City to balance the potential for local wind energy generation with any negative effects
on adjacent properties, and to ensure that placement of free-standing facilities do not impede
development of adjacent properties,
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 in Section 14-4C-2Y pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion
Systems (SWECS) 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 (14-4C-2Y).
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) are allowed as accessory uses in certain
zones subject to the applicable approval process, standards and restrictions as set forth in
this subsection.
Permit Required:
The applicant will be required to secure a building permit from the City prior to installing the
proposed wind turbine. As part of the building permit process, the applicant will need to secure
any and all applicable permits required by federal or state law, including FAA approval.
A special exception is required for any freestanding SWECS that exceeds a total extended
height of 45 feet in the 1-1, 1-2, RDP, ORP, P1, P2, ID -I, and ID -RP Zones.
1. Feasibility Study Recommended
a. It is highly recommended that a feasibility study be made of any site prior to installing a wind
turbine. The feasibility study should include measuring actual wind speeds at the proposed turbine
site for at least 3 months. The applicant for a SWECS building permit shall indicate whether a
feasibility study has been conducted and the results of any such study.
The applicant refers to a feasibility study for a turbine system in Owatonna, MN. This study
would not apply to the Iowa City site, the capacity for wind generation at any location is specific
to local wind conditions at the specific site. A feasibility study is not required but is encouraged
in order to allow the Board to weigh the potential benefit of the system against any negative
externalities (i.e. noise, flicker, etc.) or other impacts of the proposed SWECS. Given the
location of the proposed system —and the significant distance from any residential structures —
Staff believes the study is not essential.
b. The grant of a special exception or issuance of a building permit for a SWECS does not
constitute the granting of an easement by the City of Iowa City. The SWECS owner/operator shall
have the sole responsibility to acquire any covenants, easements, or similar rights to assure or
protect access to sufficient wind as may be necessary to operate the SWECS.
Staff finds that the applicant has satisfied this criterion, based on the following finding:
The proposed location of the SWECS is in an open area, on the highest spot within the
boundary of the NCS property. No easements or covenants are necessary in order for the
system to access wind in this area. (No buildings C� other Sfru CtureS 'e_; block the system from
wind access.)
2. Size and Number of Systems Per Lot
a. If allowed in the subject zone, no more than one (1) freestanding SWECS that is taller than the
tallest existing principal building on the property may be permitted. If allowed in the subject zone,
additional freestanding SWECS that conform to setback requirements and other standards
contained herein and that are no taller than the tallest existing principal building located on said
property may be permitted. Additional building mounted SWECS may be allowed within the
parameters of this subsection.
Staff concludes that the applicant satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• Only one SWECS is proposed on this property.
b. Any one SWECS proposed for the subject property may not exceed a nameplate rated capacity
greater than 100 kilowatts. However, in no case shall the generating capacity of aggregated
SWECS on a property exceed anticipated energy needs for on -site consumption.
Staff concludes that the applicant satisfies this criterion based on the following finding.
• The generation capacity of the proposed SWECS is 95kw.
3. Lot Size Standards
The minimum lot size for a freestanding SWECS shall be one (1) acre.
Staff concludes that the applicant meets this criterion based on the following finding:
• The NCS property is approximately 50 acres in size.
4. Setbacks
a. The minimum distance between any freestanding SWECS and any property line or any
existing, proposed, planned, or anticipated public street right-of-way or public trail shall be a
distance that is equivalent to one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the total extended height.
If the certificate of insurance for the SWECS requires a greater setback than the setback
required herein, the setback shall be increased to meet the insurance requirement. The
setback shall be measured from the point of the SWECS closest to the property line or
existing, proposed, planned, or anticipated public street right-of-way or public trail, including
the blade at its greatest horizontal extension.
Staff concludes that the applicant meets this criterion based on the following finding:
• The required 115% setback equals 164.34 feet. The site plan provided with the
application shows the wind turbine meets the required minimum setback.
5. Additional Siting Standards
a. No portion of a vertical axis SWECS blade shall extend within 12 feet of the ground.
Not applicable —the proposed system does not have a vertical axis.
b. No portion of a horizontal axis SWECS blade shall extend within 30 feet of the ground.
Staff concludes that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The blade on the proposed SWECS will be located approximately 85 feet above the
ground.
c. The blades of any freestanding SWECS may not extend within 20 feet of a parking area,
driveway, tree, structure, outdoor use area, pedestrian walkway, or above -ground utility structure
or facility.
Staff concludes that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The site plan indicates that there are no parking areas, driveways, trees, structures,
outdoor use areas or above ground utility structures or facilities within 20 feet of the
blades of the turbine measured from end of the blade at its greatest lateral extension.
d. No part of a SWECS shall be located within or over drainage, utility, or other established
easements.
Staff concludes that the application complies with the standard based on the following finding:
• The applicant has indicated that no part of the proposed turbine is located within or
over drainage, utility, or other established easements.
e. No SWECS shall be constructed so that any part thereof can extend within 20 feet laterally of
an overhead electrical power line (excluding secondary electrical service lines or service drops).
The setback from underground electric distribution lines shall be at least five (5) feet.
Staff concludes that the application complies with the standard based on the following finding:
• The applicant has indicated that there are no overhead electrical lines within 20 feet of the
proposed turbine and there are no underground electric distribution lines within five feet.
f. A SWECS shall be located in compliance with the guidelines of applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations as amended.
Staff concludes that the application complies with the standard based on the following finding:
• The applicant has indicated that the facility is in compliance with FAA regulations and that
FAA approval has been obtained. Staff recommends a condition that FAA approval be
supplied with the building permit application.
6. Height Standards
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems are exempt from the maximum height standards of the
base zone, however the following height restrictions apply:
a. For freestanding SWECS, the Total Extended Height of SWECS shall not exceed the
following: for lots more than 15 acres: 150 feet maximum
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The proposed height of the facility, from base to blade tip, is 142.9 feet.
7. Design Standards
a. Only monopole towers shall be permitted for freestanding SWECS. Lattice or guyed towers of
any other type are prohibited.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The application complies with this standard: the proposed system is mounted on a
monopole.
b. Freestanding SWECS shall be a neutral color such as white, sky blue, or light gray. Building
mounted SWECS shall match or be complementary in color to the building to which it is attached.
Other colors may be allowed at the discretion of the Board of Adjustment. The surface shall be
non -reflective.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The surface of the proposed system is non -reflective white.
c. No lights shall be installed on the tower, unless required to meet FAA regulations.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• No lights are proposed or required as part of this facility.
d. No signage or advertising of any kind shall be permitted on the tower or any associated
structures.
The applicant has proposed lettering on the SWECS; this is prohibited by the zoning code. The
Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to grant the request.
e. The tower must be designed to prevent climbing within the first twelve feet (12') of height above
grade.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The applicant has stated that there will be no external ladder on the SWECS tower.
8. Coordination with local utility company
a. Utility Notification: The City of Iowa City shall notify the applicable utility company of receipt of
an application to install an interconnected customer -owned generator. Off -grid systems shall be
exempt from this notification requirement.
The proposed system will be off -grid, and thus no notification is required.
b. Interconnection: The SWECS, if not off -grid, shall meet the requirements for interconnection
and operation as set forth by the utility and the Iowa Utilities Board. No permit of any kind shall be
issued until the City of Iowa City has been provided with a copy of an executed interconnection
agreement. Off -grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement.
The proposed system will be off -grid, and thus no notification is required.
c. Restriction On Use Of Electricity Generated: A SWECS shall be used exclusively to supply
electrical power to the owner for on -site consumption, except that excess electrical power
generated by the SWECS and not presently needed for use by the owner may be used by the
utility company in accordance with Section 199, Chapter 15.11(5) of the Iowa Administrative
Code, as may be subsequently amended.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The applicant has indicated that power generated by the proposed system will be off -grid,
and will be solely for use by Pearson's facility.
9. Performance Standards
An applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the following standards will be met:
a. Noise: A SWECS shall be designed, installed and operated so that the noise generated does
not exceed 50 decibels (dBA) when measured from the nearest point on the neighboring property
line to the SWECS.
Staff concludes that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The applicant has indicated that the proposed unit (a Windmatic 17S) has a rating of 58
decibels at 20 meters from the tower site. The applicant has provided a calculation based
on the Danish Wind Energy Association's "Wind Energy Manual," indicating that the
decibel level at the nearest property line would be approximately 31.32 decibels.
b. Shadow Flicker: No SWECS shall be installed and operated so to cause a shadow flicker to
fall on or in any existing residential structure.
Staff concludes that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The NCS property is located a considerable distance from any residentially zoned
property. The nearest residential structure, which is located south of Interstate 80, is more
than 2500 feet from the SWECS location.
c. Safety Controls: Each SWECS shall be equipped with both automatic and manual braking,
governing, or feathering system to prevent uncontrolled rotation, over -speeding, and
excessive pressure on the tower structure, rotor blades, or turbine components. Said
automatic braking system shall also be capable of stopping turbine rotation in the event of a
power outage so as to prevent back feeding of the grid.
Staff finds that the application complies with this standard based on the following finding.
• The applicant has indicated that the proposed system complies with this requirement and
includes automatic and manual breaking. The Building Official will verify this as part of the
building permit review.
d. Structural Integrity: Building mounted SWECS shall be prohibited unless the owner has
obtained a written analysis from an Iowa licensed structural engineer determining that
installation of a SWECS will not cause damage to the structure and that the SWECS can be
securely fastened so as to not pose a hazard caused by detaching from the structure.
Not applicable: the proposed system is not building mounted.
e. Maintenance: Facilities shall be well maintained in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications and shall remain in an operational condition that poses no potential safety
hazard nor is in violation of any provisions contained within this Article or elsewhere within the
City of Iowa City code.
• The applicant has indicated that a service agreement will be completed with the vendor to
maintain the system in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Staff
recommends a condition of the special exception requiring the applicant to provide a copy
of the service agreement with the building permit application,
f. Shut Off: A clearly marked and easily accessible shut off for the wind turbine will be required
as determined by the Building Official.
• The applicant has agreed to comply with this requirement. Appropriate measures for
access and marking of the shut off will be determined by the Building Official.
Electromagnetic Interference: All SWECS shall be designed and constructed to not cause
radio and television interference. If it is determined that the SWECS is causing
electromagnetic interference, the owner/operator shall take the necessary corrective action to
eliminate this interference including relocation or removal of the facilities, subject to the
approval of the Building Official. A special exception or permit granting a SWECS may be
revoked if electromagnetic interference from the SWECS becomes evident.
• The applicant has indicated the wind turbine blades are made from materials that are
"invisible" to radio frequency transmissions and are designed so as not to cause
interference.
h. Compliance with National Electric Code: Building permit applications for small wind energy
conversion systems shall be accompanied by a line drawing of the electrical components, as
supplied by the manufacturer, in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the design
and manner of installation conforms to the National Electric Code.
• Required drawings for electrical components must be submitted and approved as part
of the building permit process.
Insurance: A person seeking a building permit to erect a small wind energy conversion
system shall provide evidence, in the form of a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City
of Iowa City, showing general liability insurance coverage for the installation and operation of
the system under a standard business owner's insurance policy, separate and distinct from
any insurance requirements of a public utility.
• The applicant has indicated that a Certificate of Insurance will be provided to the City
showing general liability for the installation and operation of the SWECS with the
building permit application.
j. Engineer Certification: Applications for any SWECS shall be accompanied by standard
drawings of the wind turbine structure, including the tower, base, and footings. An engineering
analysis of all components of the SWECS showing compliance with the applicable regulations
and certified by an Iowa licensed professional engineer shall also be submitted.
• The applicant must submit the required drawings and engineering analysis to the
Building Official as part of the building permit application.
k. Installation: Installation must be done according to manufacturer's specifications. All wiring
and electrical work must be completed according to the applicable building and electric codes.
All electrical components must meet code recognized test standards.
• The Building Official will inspect all wiring and electrical work to ensure safety and
compliance with code standards.
Removal: If the SWECS remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of six
(6) months, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned. The SWECS owner and/or the
owner of the property shall remove the abandoned system at their expense. To comply with
this requirement, the entire structure, transmission equipment and any surrounding fencing
must be removed from the property, excluding foundations. Non -function or lack of operation
may be proven by reports from the interconnected utility. For off -grid systems the City of Iowa
City shall have the right to enter the property at its sole discretion to determine if the off -grid
system is generating power. Such generation may be proven by use of an amp meter. The
SWECS owner/operator and any successors shall make available to the Director of Housing
and Inspection Services or designee any and all reports or documents needed to determine
functionality, if requested. If removal of towers and appurtenant facilities is required, the
Director of Housing and Inspection Services Department or designee shall notify in writing the
SWECS owner and/or the owner of the property on which the SWECS is located. Removal
shall be completed within six (6) months of the date of said written notice.
• The applicant has agreed to these terms and will make available to the Building Official
any reports or documents needed to determine functionality.
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 concludes that the application satisfies this standard based on findings provided above with
regard to siting, height, setbacks, and distance from residential structures, in addition to findings
provided under the design and performance standards above.
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 concludes that the application satisfies this standard based on findings provided above with
regard to siting, height, setbacks, and distance from residential structures, in addition to findings
provided under the design and performance standards 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.
Staff concludes that the application satisfies this standard based on findings provided above with
regard to siting, height, setbacks, and distance from residential structures.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff concludes that adequate access is provided from the private drive, located between the
NCS building and the SWECS.
5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Because the SWECS system will not generate vehicle traffic to the site, Staff concludes that
ingress and egress and traffic congestion on public streets are not effected by the approval of
this special exception.
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 applicant must apply for a building permit to establish the use. All other elements of the
building and site plan not specifically discussed here, including lighting and signage, will be
reviewed for compliance with the zoning code.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Office and Research Park Uses.
While the Comprehensive Plan does not address wind turbines specifically, the Economic Goal:
and Strategies section of the plan calls for the improving the environmental health and
community through the efficient use of resources. The location and size of office and research
park developments, and the scale of the principal uses that locate there (i.e. large office
complexes) make them ideal candidates for advancements in alternative energy technology.
Thus the Zoning Code was updated to allow wind energy systems as accessory uses by special
exception in these zones.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC12-00015, an application to install a Small Wind
Energy Conversion System in the Office Research Park (ORP) zone at 2510 North Dodge
Street subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and location submitted.
2. The approved SWECS system is a 143.9 foot, Windmatic 17S.
3. No lights, signage, or advertising are permitted on the system.
4. Approval by the building official of a clearly marked and easily accessible shut-off
for the wind turbine.
5. The applicant must apply for a building permit at which time the following
documentation shall be provided:
a) Certificate of Insurance for the SWECS;
b) Demonstration of compliance with FAA regulations;
c) Approval of the manual and automatic braking system as required by the
special exception;
d) Engineering analysis for the system and certification by an Iowa licensed
professional engineer as required by the specific criteria for the special
exception to ensure the structural integrity of the system; and
e) A signed maintenance agreement to ensure the long-term functionality and
safety of the system.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the proposed location.
3. Site plan.
4. Application materials
Approved by: rZ`� Z_Z'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
CITY OF ION CITY
� rya
lit
+a•:� a f P
s
+ Y r
f •
r
r- 4
SITE LOCATION: 2510 N. Dodge Street Scale: i"=300' aND
a
Y 1
�aoa�®ae®P• �€
asas�d®om=q
0
W t �
gI ypI) fill �I�
plrJ 4-u, PC-D. 1,5
APPLICATION TO THE
jl
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
-SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 2012 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. MEE�D=
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2510 North lodge Iowa City, IA 5224a
PROPERTY ZONE: _K= PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT:
Name: Robert Wetherell
Address: 12510 North Dodge Iowa City, IA 52245]
Phone: 319.339.6552
CONTACT PERSON:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
National Computer Systems, Inc. dba NCS P
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address: 5:601_Gi�-een —Valley Drive Bloomington, MI\
6
ML523
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-waiz@jowa-city.org.
'S
Purpose for special exception- Approval to construct a 95kW —142' free standing
P
Small Wind Energy Conversion System (SWECS) at ma
ll
2510 North Dodge Iowa City location.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: 11-MAY-2012 I
, inc.
-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.
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing 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 14-4B-4
of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are
listed elsewhere in the Code.)
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.
�a
A. Legal Description: All that part of the West half of the Southwest quarter of
Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. EXCEPTING THEREFROM those parcels
conveyed to the City of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to deed recorded in Book
1075, Page 406 and 408, of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
Containing 50.1 acres, more or less.
B. Plot/Plan/Site Plan:
1. (1) See accompanying drawing
2. (2) See accompanying drawing --
3. (3) See accompanying drawing
4. (4) There are no abutting streets or alleys
5. (5) See accompanying document - Surrounding Land Uses
6. (6) See accompanying drawing
7. (7) Not applicable.
C. Specific Approval Criteria:
1. Permit Required
a. Pearson has no intention of installing the proposed wind turbine without
obtaining a building permit from the City.
b. We know of no applicable state or federal permits required to construct
the proposed wind turbine.
2. Applicability and Approval Process
a. Not applicable - The proposed Pearson wind turbine will not be building -
mounted.
b. Not applicable - The proposed Pearson wind Turbine is-142.9' high and
is not located within 300' of a residential zone boundary.
c. Pursuant to I.C. §14-4C-2(Y)(2)(c), Pearson is seeking a special exception
from the Board of Adjustment because its proposed freestanding SWECS
exceeds 45 feet in height.
3. Feasibility Study Recommended
a. A feasibility study as described has not been conducted. Pearson has
installed a similar wind turbine at its Owatonna, MN location and is relying
on data from this installation. Additionally, Pearson has researched wind
data charts for Iowa City and has used that data to support the decision
to locate a wind turbine at the 2510 North Dodge location.
b. The turbine is located near the highest elevation of Pearson's 2510 North
Dodge property. Acquiring easement rights is not required.
f01322462.D0CX}
4. Size and Number of Systems Per Lot
a. At this time Pearson intends to construct only one (1) freestanding
SWECS that is taller than the tallest current building on the 2510 North
Dodge Campus.
b. The proposed wind turbine has a rating of 95kW and the anticipated
generating capacity is estimated to be -5% of Pearson's current Data
Center electrical load.
S. Lot Size Standards
a. The 2510 North Dodge location is 50.1 AC m/l.
b. lNot applicableii- The proposed bV -o will not be building mounted.
p pose, S
c. Not applicable - The proposed SWECS will not be building mounted.
6. Setbacks
a. The required setback is the equivalent of 115% of the total extended
height. With a proposed 142.9'total SWECS height, Pearson meets the
required 164.34' setback requirement. The proposed SWECS is sited with
a setback of 192.24'. Pearson has worked with property insurer FM
Global and will be able to provide a certificate of insurance at the time a
building permit is requested from the City.
b. Not applicable - The proposed SWECS will not be building mounted.
7. Additional Siting Standards
a. Not applicable - This is not a vertical SWECS.
b. The blade of the proposed SWECS will be -85' above the ground.
c. There are no parking areas, driveways, trees, structures, outdoor use
areas or above ground utility structure or facility within 20' of the
proposed turbine.
d. No part of the proposed turbine is located within or over drainage, utility
or other established easement,
e. There are no overhead electrical lines within 20' of the proposed turbine
and there are no underground electric distribution lines within 5'.
f. Federal Aviation Administration approval has been obtained and will be
supplied when building permit is requested.
S. Height Standards
a. .....The Total extended Height.......
i. (1) - Not applicable.
ii. (2) - Not applicable. ti
iii. (3) - Not applicable.
iv. (4) - The proposed SWECS location, 2510 North Dodge, is SaA AC
m/I and the proposed height at 142.9' is less than the,'150'
maximum allowable height. Although the proposed'SWECS
exceeds 45' in height (requiring a special exception) it is
well within the applicable City height standard.
b. Not applicable - The proposed SWECS will not be building mounted.
{01322462.DOCX}
9.
10
11
Design Standards
a. The proposed SWECS will be mounted on a monopole tower.
b. The surface of the SWECS will be non -reflective white in color.
c. No lights are required to be installed on this tower and none are planned
to be installed.
d. Pearson would request that they be allowed to have "PEARSON" lettering
installed on the SWECS Nacelle.
e. There is no external ladder on the SWECS tower.
Coordination with local utility company
a. The proposed SWECS will not be connected to the utility grid.
b. The proposed SWECS will not be connected to the utility grid.
c. Power generated by the proposed SWECS will be solely for Pearson's
consumption.
Performance Standards
a. Noise: The proposed Windmatic 17S SWECS is a remanufactured unit. A
study published in April 1986 by Riso National laboratory in Roskilde,
Denmark suggests that the Windmatic 17S has a 58dB (A) rating at the
tower at 9m/s, 1.4 meters above the ground @ 20 meters from the
turbine. Chapter 4 "Wind Energy Acoustics" of the Danish Wind Energy
Associations "Wind Energy Reference Manual" provides a table of "sound
Levels by Distance from Source" for wind turbines. This table states that
a wind turbine that has a noise source level of 100dB at 56m would be
-54dB. Given this, if the Windmatic 17S has a noise source level of 58dB
the projected sound level at the nearest property line would be-31.32dB
(54db x 58%) which is well below the threshold of 50dB at the nearest
property line.
b. Shadow Flicker: Not applicable - Ordinance states that No SWECS shall
be installed and operated so as to cause a shadow flicker to fall on or in
any existing residential structure. Pearson research finds that typical
shadow flicker studies are required/conducted when "sensitive receptors"
are located in the vicinity of the SWECS which is typically a value 10 x's
the height of the tower or in this case 1,429'. The study then looks at
each individual "sensitive receptor" and determines shadow flickeK-,affect.
There are no residential structures within the aforementioned distance
from which to derive said shadow flicker calculations.
c. Safety Controls: The proposed SWECS complies with this requirerpent. ;-
d. Structural Integrity: Not applicable - The proposed SWECS will not be-J
building mounted.
e. Maintenance: A service agreement will be completed with the vendor to
maintain the SWECS in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
f. Shut Off: Pearson will work with the Building Official to determine
requirements for a clearly marked and easily accessible shut off.
f01322462.000X)
g. Electromagnetic Interference: The proposed SWECS has not been found
to cause electromagnetic interference. A September 2008 report from the
American Wind Energy Association states, in part, that Small wind turbine
blades are made from materials that are "invisible" to radio frequency
transmissions and cannot cause interference problems.
h. Compliance with National Electric Code: Required line drawings of
electrical components shall be provided when a building permit is
requested.
L Insurance: A Certificate of Insurance will be provided to the City showing
General Liability for the installation and operation of the SWECS when a
building permit is requested from the City.
j. Engineer Certification: Standard drawings of the wind turbine structure,
including the tower, base and footings certified by an Iowa licensed
engineer will be provided when a building permit is requested.
k. Installation: Installation of the tower will be in accordance with all
applicable local, state, and federal codes.
1. Removal: Pearson and/or successors will make available to the Director
of Housing and Inspection Services or designee reports or documents
needed to determine functionality, if requested, and will comply with the
requirements of this provision.
D. General Approval Criteria
1. The City Code now provides that a SWECS is an accessory use.to.a,principal
use on a property. A special exception is required because Pearson's SWECS
exceeds a 45' height requirement. However, Pearson's SWECS is. --
Well within
the City Code's 150' height standard for property of this size. Pearson's
proposed SWECS will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
2. Wind turbines are becoming a generally accepted structure in the state of
Iowa. Entities wishing to show their commitment to alternative energy
sources are pursuing many different types of delivery systems, including
wind power. The installation of a wind turbine on City and University
property do not appear to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property. Since this City Ordinance is a new ordinance specific Iowa City
metrics to evaluate impact on property values is not quantifiable. However,
a report published in September of 2008 by the American Wind Energy
Association states that they have seen no indication of wind turbines having
a negative effect on property values.
3. The location of the proposed SWECS, on Pearson property, will not impede
any normal and orderly development of the surrounding property as
{01322462.DOCX)
currently zoned and used or proposed to be used. Pearson SWECS meets all
of the applicable City Code requirements.
4. The site plan provided, for the proposed SWECS, addresses this question.
5. The proposed SWECS is located on private property and not adjacent to any
public streets so there will be no impact on traffic congestion.
6. Accompanying documentation addresses this section.
7. Since the proposed SWECS is now allowed per City Ordinance, the City has
deemed SWECS to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
E. Names and Mailing Addresses
1. See accompanying document - Surrounding Land Uses
(0132246ZDOCX}
0
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,
useless the applicant shall have taken action v�,th<se 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-1E, 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.
Date: 20 -.f,tiA-i� 1„
Date: c /' z ) < :y- jam/ 20 1, 7.
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
;. fPP.
�� vl; ,
0
E
O
11
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 12„ 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, T. Gene Crischilles, Brock Grenis, Will
Jennings, Caroline Sheerin (late arrival)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Kelly Beckler
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Approved changes to Board Procedures.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2012 MEETING MINUTES:
Jennings moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections
Bakerseconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS
EXC12-00014, an application submitted by Hy-Vee Stores, Inc. for a drive -through coffee shop
associated with a convenience store on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2)
zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street.
Walz said this is part of a larger development that has already gone through the Planning and
Zoning Commission for rezoning. Walz explained the rerouting of St. Clements Street and the
rezoning of the properties to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. She showed the Board an
aerial view of where Hy-Vee is going to redevelopment the former Roberts Dairy site. She
showed the Board a general layout of the proposed buildings on the site.
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 2 of 10
Walz showed the Board on the plan where a five foot tall brick wall is proposed to run along the
coffee shop drive -through and the shrubs and trees that are to be planted to screen the wall.
She said the concern on staff with this drive -through was its close proximity to residential
properties across the street. She said the wall is intended to screen things associated with
drive-throughs, which are light glare from cars and noise from the intercom system. She said the
pedestrian routes to the convenience store from the rights -of -way have been routed around the
drive -through so they aren't in conflict, and they have to be marked where they cross the
parking area. Walz said the other staff concern was that if this were to become a fast food
restaurant other elements would come into play, like litter. She said although there isn't a
definition for coffee shop as a use, ifs in the same category as eating establishments. She said
they define it through the special exception as "an eating establishment whose principle
product/sales are coffee and other beverages, with food sales being incidental or accessory.
She said staff also thought it was important to limit the hours of operation.
Baker asked what the length of the wall is. Walz showed him on the plan where it runs. She said
the main area of concern is really when traffic is facing the neighborhood and ordering, because
that's when there will be some amplification of sound through the speaker system.
Walz clarified the location of the walkway to the drive -through.
Jennings asked if the terms coffee shop and convenience store are interchangeable. Walz
replied that the coffee shop is just a part of the convenience store. She said the building is 4500
square feet and of that area, 1300 square feet is the coffee shop.
Jennings asked if the drive -through is for use only by the coffee shop. Walz said it was.
Baker asked if it could just turn into a fast food restaurant, i.e. a Blimpys. Walz said that the
recommended conditions would preclude that and explained that staff has defined coffee shop
as part of the condition. Without staff's recommended condition the drive -through could serve
any restaurant. With the condition recommended by staff, the drive -through could only become
a fast food service through another special exception. She said staff thought this was important
because the drive -through located so close to residential properties. The limitation of the food
service gives them the chance to establish something, see how it's working, and then seeing if
the neighbors would want to go to something more intense or not.
Jennings asked if St. Clements Street dead ends and if there are plans for making that a
through route. Walz said it does dead end and it will remain that way.
Sheerin asked about the volume of traffic on St. Clements now. Walz said it is now used by
people accessing the dairy or the houses on St. Clements.
Jennings asked if matters of traffic or city engineering are not within the Board's purview. Walz
said the curb cuts are there, and the rerouting is there so that everything meets the City's
standards for separation from the intersection and separation between curb cuts. Jennings
asked if there will be a sign installed indicating that St. Clements is dead end. Walz said there
would. Jennings said he knows that Prairie du Chien gets a lot of traffic, and that generally when
they are creating or intensifying a destination somewhere along an arterial, the feeder streets
begin to see increased traffic. Walz said she doesn't think that whatever amount of traffic
coming to the present Hy-Vee and Roberts Dairy down Prairie du Chien will differ greatly from
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 3 of 10
the amount when the proposed development is complete. Jennings said when he sees a curb
cut that's just shy of the intersection of two major arterials, there may be some issues with left
turns. Walz told the Board to consider things only in the context of the two drive-throughs,
because the layout for the grocery store has been approved. Jennings said he was concerned,
referring to the drive off Dodge near the grocery store and the reconstructed St. Clements Street
will be the major entry points for the drive -through.
Grenis said he had the same thoughts, but he will take comfort in that the Planning staff finds
the arrangement acceptable. Walz told the Board they have to do the findings.
Jennings said he's just seeing many left turns. Sheerin asked what part of the road system he
was referring to. He said a left turn off of Dodge, a left turn back onto Prairie du Chien. Sheerin
asked if his concern was traffic or safety or both. Jennings responded that it was both.
Sheerin asked how much pedestrian traffic there was. Walz said she doesn't know if they have
quantified that, but the idea is that any redevelopment in this area should be pedestrian friendly.
Sheerin asked if there were many pedestrians currently using Hy-Vee. Walz said she wouldn't
think so. She said the idea of the new store is that it will be more accessible and inviting for the
neighborhood to walk to than the current store because it's located closer to the neighborhood.
Jennings said he would consider pedestriasn and bike traffic because the sidewalks in that area
are wider and hook up to other bike paths. Walz said there is also a bus pull —off and the
development is intended to be user-friendly for many uses. Jennings said he is just trying to get
clear. He said what's mentioned in the staff report is the issue of development in this area as
wanting to project a store -front, pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly, more neighborhood
atmosphere and asked if those issues are adequately covered in staff's opinion. Walz said that
is staff's position.
Grenis asked if St. Clements Street will now be a publically owned street. Walz explained that it
is a public right-of-way that was not built to street standards.
Baker asked if the upgrade on the new configuration of St. Clements Street is a City upgrade.
Walz said the developer will be building that.
Sheerin asked if there will be any parking restrictions on St. Clements Street. Walz said she
didn't know the answer to that.
Jennings said that by looking at it, it seems that it will be a significantly used street, an
elongated entrance and egress to and from all facets of the development. Walz agreed.
Jennings said in the description it said that what faced the arterial roads of North Dodge Street
and Prairie du Chien Road was to be storefront, pedestrian friendly. He said the larger site
seems to not achieve that. Walz said the actually positioning of the building was a matter for
Planning & Zoning and the Board is looking at only the drive-throughs. She said that the side of
the grocery facing the street will have windows and features and quite a bit of screening on the
development. Jennings said he only mentioned it because it is one of the criteria that is
mentioned. Walz said in the Board's case, it should be specific to the drive -through.
Sheerin opened public hearing
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 4 of 10
Mike Pugh, representing Hy-Vee, said the new St. Clements Street will be dedicated to the
public as part of the subdivision process and be built to City standards. He said in his initial talks
with staff, they considered if they needed to have the Comprehensive Plan amended because
the North Side Plan talks about wanting the commercial uses in this area to be developed with a
Main Street, friendly construction and also be compatible with the residential uses in the area.
He said as a result of those talks, they re -positioned the grocery toward further to the south and
put in windows to give it that Main Street feeling. He said that, in addition to the screening with
the wall and landscaping on the western edge of the development, led the staff to believe that
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan probably wasn't necessary. Pugh said that for
purposes of this agenda item he would specifically adopt the City staff report and the
information that is set out In response to the general and specific approval criteria. He pointed
out that on the western edge of the development Hy-Vee has provided both landscaping that
has an elevation of 5 feet to the S3 standard and a masonry wall or 5 feet, so they have
satisfied both provisions instead of just the required one. He showed the Board a rendering of
what the fully developed site will look like. Pugh said the applicant is agreeable to all of the
conditions set out in the staff report.
Baker asked if the hours of operation for the convenience store itself have been set. Pugh
replied that he didn't know.
Walz said she thinks you can access the gas pumps 24-hours a day with a credit card, but the
convenience would not be open 24 hours.
Baker asked if this is a Hy-Vee gas station. Pugh said it is.
Walz reminded that what the Board needs to look at are only the drive-throughs
Jennings asked what sort of projections they have for traffic usage and flow. He said it seems
that very close to the intersection of major arterials, they have just added two curb cuts that
facilitate the use of a drive -through. Walz said the curb cuts are part of the traffic system that
would exist regardless of the drive -through, but, logically, there will be more traffic because of a
drive -through. Jennings said what he is trying to ascertain is that if the Board's discussion is
only about the drive -through, then he has nothing else to add because he can't put forward a
concern or qualification based solely on traffic generated or aimed at a drive -through. Walz
asked if he had a specific concern about either or both curb cuts. Jennings said when you
create the necessity for people to make left hand turns onto arterial roads, they will always have
to creep out and block the sidewalk in order to have a clear view of traffic or to indicate their
intention to turn left onto an arterial, therefore blocking the pedestrian or bicycle friendly route.
Walz said if he feels that the drive -through is making one or more of those curb cuts unsafe,
then that should be his finding. Valz asked if there is other information he feels is lacking that
staff could provide him. Jennings said what he is asking for is clarification from staff about the
methodology by which the traffic flow off of Prairie du Chien into the drive -through was
considered. Walz replied that she did not have that information but that if the rest of the Board
members share that concern, they should defer the item so that she could get the requested
traffic analysis. Jennings said he didn't feel the need to do that.
Pugh spoke up and said this was the traffic flow that was determined both working with the City
Engineers as well as the engineers that were hired by Hy-Vee. He said he just doesn't have an
answer for how much more traffic would be generated with a drive -through compared with
vehicle traffic that would be generated without the drive -through. Jennings voiced his concern
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 5 of 10
that traffic will back up in the morning on Prairie du Chien without a middle turn lane for drivers
making left hand turns off of Prairie du Chien onto St. Clements.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Walz reiterated that if the Board wants more information on traffic, they could defer the decision
to give her time to get it.
Baker asked Jennings if his concern was only with the St. Clements access. Jennings said his
concern is the number of left turns that are being added to a high -density intersection of two
arterials, and if if is staff, applicant, and the consultants' opinion that tilis issue h as been vetted
thoroughly, then he doesn't have the professional capacity to question that.
Crischiiles moved to approve EXC12-00014 as recommended by staff, including the
following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including screening,
location, pedestrian access points, and order board.
2. The hours of operation are limited to 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 weekdays and 5:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. weekends.
3. The drive -through use is limited to an eating establishment whose principal
product sales are coffee and other beverages with food sales being incidental and
accessory.
Baker seconded the motion.
Walz said that if Jennings feels that evidence is lacking, then he either finds that it is lacking or
he has the option to ask Walz or the applicant to provide other information and defer the
decision.
Jennings said he would defer to the Board in terms of how they would like to handle this.
The Board and Walz discussed the best way to present its findings.
Baker said regarding item EXC12-00014 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report
of December 12, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless
amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report as Board findings for the acceptance of this proposal. He said in
particular he finds that
a. the General Standards of the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare are true because through traffic may
increase with the grocery and convenience store proposal, North Dodge is a major
arterial street constructed for the capacity to handle high traffic volume, and Prairie du
Chien is an arterial with a capacity to serve this development. In addition, curb cuts
along North Dodge Street are located at least 150 feet from the intersection in
compliance with the arterial access street standards in the Zoning Code, multiple
entrances are provided in order to improve traffic circulation. The entrance to St.
Clements Street is located approximately 300 feet from the intersection in compliance
with Code standards, the site plan for the drive -through includes required pavement
markings to direct traffic through the drive -through. The site plan shows designated
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 6 of 10
routes to the convenience store building. These routes are not in conflict with the drive -
through, and as mentioned above, the installation of a five foot tall brick wall along the
drive -through will screen glare and noise associated with the drive -through, and this
satisfies the S3 standard for complete screening.
All but Jennings concurred with Baker's statement in support of the findings listed in the staff
report.
Jennings said he would like to abstain.
Hoiecek stated that the City Council has a rule that if you are abstaining for any reason other
than a conflict it will go down as a yes vote, but she doesn't believe that this Board has that.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
EXC12-00013, an application submitted by Hy-Vee Stores, Inc. for a pharmacy drive -through for
property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge
Street.
Walz said this is on the same site and has the same conditions as the other item. She said there
is plenty of stacking space to prevent a line out onto North Dodge Street. She said this will be
one lane, as from staff's observation, these drive-throughs don't seem to generate a lot of traffic
but are more for convenience. She said this drive -through will see much less intensity than what
is anticipated for the convenience store. She said staff's main concern here is that there be
sufficient screening from the residential property along St. Clements Street. She showed the
Board on a site plan that there is an existing line of trees that will be supplemented by
evergreens that will be planted. Walz said Hy-Vee has agreed to install bollards because there
are uncurbed areas, and bollards will make it safer for pedestrians passing through.
Grenis asked if there will be any kind of grocery pick up lane. Walz said there won't be a
separate lane for grocery pickup. Grenis said he wanted to know if there will be such a lane in
front of the store. Walz said the applicant will have to answer that.
Baker said in taking the Comprehensive Plan into account, he has a concern about the side
facing North Dodge Street and the absence of the Main Street feel the Plan calls for. The Board
agreed that was really an issue for Planning and Zoning. Walz said the North District Plan did
encourage, specific to this site when it was developed, that Main Street design principles be
encouraged. She said the Plan also noted that redevelopment of the area would have to be
seen in view of the larger transportation issues. She said she thinks what the Planning and
Zoning Commission tried to do was strike a compromise, seeing that Hy-Vee was important to
the neighborhood and that the redevelopment on this property would improve it.
Grenis asked if Planning and Zoning approved the building without the drive-throughs. Walz
said they don't have the right to approve the drive -through. She said they knew the drive-
throughs were proposed as part of the overall development. She asked Holecek what Planning
and Zoning could have allowed or not.
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 7 of 10
Holecek said they could have said that the traffic generated by the drive-throughs would be
excessive or could have done a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Walz said she thinks that in
general Planning and Zoning, unless they feel particularly strongly about something, they defer
to the Board.
Grenis asked if the Board could then deny just the development of the drive-throughs. Walz
explained that the development is going forward provided that City Council approves the
rezoning and vacation.
Sheerin opened public hearing
Mike Pugh on behalf of Hy-Vee said this is a much less intense use than the coffee drive -
through. He complimented the staff on the excellent job they had done in setting out in detail the
specific information in the findings of both the general and specific approval criteria. He said that
part of what the Planning and Zoning Commission considered was the site itself and what it was
going to be used for, and he believes they must have considered the uses of both the pharmacy
and the coffee shop. He said Hy-Vee is in complete agreement with both of the staff -
recommended conditions that they propose be placed on this special exception.
Grenis asked Pugh if he knows of any other Hy-Vee that had to adhere to these Main Street
principles.
Pugh said the Waterfront store went through design review. Walz said the circumstances were
different because that store already existed and the district plan in that area had a different
emphasis. Pugh reminded staff that the south side of the convenience store has a window front
and door to it that they hope will make it inviting to pedestrian traffic and to give it the same look
as the main building.
Crischilles asked if there was an opening on the front of the store for grocery pickup. Pugh said
the drive -through is not intended for that. Crischilles asked how many openings there would be
besides the main door and pharmacy window. Pugh and Walz explained where the doors are.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Grenis moved to approve EXC12-00013 as recommended by staff with the following
conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
2. Installation of bollards between the sidewalk and drive -through lane; this aspect
of the site plan to be approved by the planning staff.
Crischilles seconded the motion
Jennings said regarding item EXC12-00013 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report of December 12, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied.
Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt
the findings in the staff report as Board findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 8 of 10
All the other Board members concurred with Baker's statement in support of the findings listed
in the staff report.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
OTHER:
Discussion of updated BOA Procedural Rules
Walz said that some of the procedural rules were necessitated by changes in technology
and some by Zoning Code changes. She went through the rules and explained the
changes and why they were made. Holecek put forth some changes in some of the rules
that she thought were necessary, and Walz concurred with those changes.
Grenis moved to adopt these updated procedural rules with changes as noted.
Jennings seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Election of board officers
Jennings nominated Brock Grenis for Chair of the Board.
Bakerseconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Jennings nominated Larry Baker for Vice -Chair.
Crischilles seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 4-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Jennings requested that any staff report where it is relevant include more specific information
from the Traffic Engineer. Walz said if a Board member believes there isn't enough evidence
available at the meeting, that is a legitimate reason to vote to deny or defer an application.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sheerin moved to adjourn.
Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
Page 9 of 10
Bakerseconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
Z 0
W
�O
E— U
cn W
Q W T
a z N
oa
pZ
W
aF-
oa
no
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
a—
xxxxx
T
cXXWX
W
r
V
O
N
W
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
X
X
-
X
f")
X
x
co
x
x
x
x
x
u
T
r
X
X
1-
X
co
N
x
x
i
x
x
M
CO
X
X
1
X
N
0
x
x
1
x
T ,
�
W
r
co
LO
CO
CD
CD
CD
0
W d
N
N
N
N
N
~ X
W
CD
CD
CD
N
CD
CD
�
c
Y
C
N
C
C
L
co
U
c
C
W
m
Y
C
N
.E
O,
O
E
0
-o O
O o
U � O
m 9
W C E
N N
(D o
m
N N E O N
N Q Z O
d Q 11 II Z
II W :
XOOZ
NO
MA