Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2013 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 5:15 PM City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the January 9, 2013 Minutes D. Special Exception Items 1. EXC13-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Tom Fresenmeyer for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front setback for property located in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone at 301 Richards Street, 2. EXC13-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front setback for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone and Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at Williams Street and Muscatine Avenue. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: March 13, 2013 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC13-00001 301 Richards Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: 13 February 2013 Applicant: Tom Fresenmeyer 301 Richards Street Iowa City, Iowa 319-471-5178 Contact: Mark Kennedy 931 Maiden Lane Iowa City, Iowa 319-621-0324 Property Owner Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections File Date: Ann Fresenmeyer Connors 301 Richards Street Iowa City, Iowa 319-337-8842 Special exception to adjust the front principal building setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. Reduce required front setback to allow for construction of an attached garage. 301 Richards Street Approximately .25 acres Residential (RS-5) North: Residential (RS-5) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Residential (RS-5) (RNS-20) West: Residential (RS-5) 14-2A-5b, Specific Criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback; 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for all special exeptions. January 11, 2013 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Tom Fresenmeyer, has requested a special exception to allow for a reduction in the required front principal building setback at 301 Richards Street. The subject property is a triangular lot located on the corner of Richards Street and Ferson Avenue. The applicant intends to build a new garage, approximately 20 feet x 14 feet (280 square feet), which will be attached to the house via a breezeway. Attached garages are subject to the principal building setback requirements. Because the property is a corner lot it is required to provide a front setback along both streets. The standard setback for principal buildings in single-family, residential zones is 15 feet. However, due to setback averaging, the setback requirement in this case is 20 feet.' The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front principal setback from the required 20 feet to 15 feet. The submitted site plan shows that the garage would be situated at an angle such that, at its closest point, it would be 15 feet from the property line on Ferson Avenue and approximately 30 feet from the street curb. Due to topography, there is no public sidewalk along this portion of Ferson Avenue, although there is adequate space in the right-of-way to provide one. The applicant has also requested a minor modification to reduce the required 25-foot driveway length requirement. Minor modifications are handled by the Building Official. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-2A-5B pertaining to adjustments to principal building setback requirements 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 (14-46-4E-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. Staff believes the situation is peculiar based on the following findings: The subject lot is triangular and is required to provide front setbacks along both the Ferson Avenue and Richards Street. The block along which the property is located is also triangular and the arrangement of lots is also somewhat unusual. The standard front principal building setback requirement in the RS-5 zone is 15 feet however, due to setback averaging, the subject property must provide a 20-foot front setback. 14-2A-4B-e(1) Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage have been developed and all of these developed lots are occupied by principal buildings that are located at least 5 feet further from the street than the required front setback, the required front setback along the frontage is increased to the equivalent of the setback of the building closest to the street. 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings above under criterion #1. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of setback regulations. The minimum principal building setback requirement is intended to: 1) Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting 2) Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. 3) Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in neighborhoods. 4) Promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences. 5) Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with nearby buildings. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • Allowing a modest setback reduction of five feet, for a single stall garage, would not significantly alter the character of the street or neighborhood. • The proposed garage meets the required 5-foot side setback. • Because the setback reduction is along the street, it would not reduce access to light and air or separation for fire protection or firefighting. • This placement of structures along this block is somewhat unusual due to double -fronting lots (lots that front on two streets). 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the findings from #3 above and the following finding: The property is located in a neighborhood that has been identified as a potential historic district. Because this special exception will allow construction of a garage in a location where it would otherwise not be permitted, Staff recommends that it be designed to complement the existing house. The applicant's contractor has met with the Historic Preservationist to ensure that the proposed garage design would meet historic standards. Although the elevation drawing shows brick on the street side of the garage, the proposed garage will be sided to match the cedar siding on the house. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The proposed garage will maintain the required 5-foot side setback from the southeast property line. 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 based on the following finding. A setback of 15 feet would not interfere with visibility along the street or the opportunity to construct a sidewalk along this portion of Ferson Street. In order to comply with the code requirement for 25 feet of driveway between the garage entrance and the property line, the applicant must either straighten the driveway such that it runs parallel to the side property line or secure a minor modification from the building official. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the finding in #1 above and the following finding: • The proposed garage satisfies the 5-foot side setback requirement and does not impede visibility along the street or reduce opportunity to install a public sidewalk along Ferson. • The applicant has designed a garage that complies with historic preservation standards. 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 believes the application satisfies this based on the following findings provided above under general criteria #1 and #2. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding. • All necessary utilities and facilities are already in place for this property and the neighborhood. • While there is no sidewalk along the east side of Ferson Avenue, the location of the garage does not reduce the opportunity to construct one. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding: The proposed garage would be setback 15 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed garage would be setback approximately 30 feet from the street. Thus, staff believes the proposed garage would not impede views for motorists or pedestrians. The proposed change to the property will not generate additional traffic along the street. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding: • The applicant has applied for a minor modification to reduce the 25-foot driveway length requirement. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding: • The Comprehensive Plan encourages preservation and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC13-00001 an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 301 Richards Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the plan submitted in terms of garage size and location 2. The setback reduction is for a single stall garage. 3. The garage will be sided to match the house. 4. The applicant must meet the 25-foot driveway length requirement or secure a minor modification for the drive -way length from the Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial views of the proposed location 3. Site plan and elevations 4. Application materials Approved by: Jeff Davidson, Direc or, Department of Planning and Community Development NJ o a o M ♦N^ / V/ W o �G 0 LO U)Ln o Q ru V Q � OM ]AV NVMOSOW z _ I I 0 g v 0 J W H M ODZO D o 0U "a, a vim Oluw=a dB 71 OA�flfl a NO(OfllSNOD d9NN,731 d9 d 800 NV Id j 3115 •' Z �.� V is SQXVH.7/N TOE V NOLI NOV 95VUVO HYAYJfNT7J,,J 3",T 09'�o t aJ/,1JJ i n{ / G 911119U SI 35A 9ApllAtl ] &v g10 Y I e£ 4 1 e0N5 � I / � TiU151X3 OVY30 ��� IL R \ \ I I � G/ \\ E C �\ El i V) 10 �p A AP-jFPLICATI ON T -0 THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: PROPERTY PARCEL NO. _j PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE 77 APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone: CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: q Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address:-, Phone: _aLL Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: -:L Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:ii -3- ®. General Approval Cri eria: 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. t. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. f'. i a. Tire specific proposed exception will not be injuriousto the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. f pp � ve (9(, I'll% A l" V" iA � i P G, � e) )' J C7 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. !N rIlIV, I l,�vr P_ 'IA'V>'� ft;3,,,14,,,., t; 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. i � P. Vi c f l -4- a Adequate measures have been or will he taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimise traffic congestion on public streets, i t y i Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-413 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j i X! xr.< e'-:•°C-- f" i ?, a,.:a ( t d, �.. �! t ' rS k�i„� �{ �. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. I tl -j, r � g U r i r r J\-<?�i-t' 1 -6- 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-2C4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to eSestablishuthe i.ise Vr construct th rite building permitted under the ieriTiS Ji 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 C17 rl4. Date: - Iv _ 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) l�? Date: a-n f 20 a -i.cr'I�✓-rP- St'nature(s) of Proopperty Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmi n\a ppl i cation-boase. doc STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC13-0002 William Street and Muscatine Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: February 13, 2013 Applicant: Hodge Construction 711 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact: Kevin Digmann kdigmann@yahoo.com 631-0548 Property Owner: ACT Inc. and Hodge Construction Requested Action: Reductions in the required principal building setbacks —front and side. Purpose: To allow a proposed building to be constructed with the following setbacks: 0 feet along the Muscatine Avenue right-of-way, 2 feet from the William Street right-of-way, and 3 feet from the side property line. Location: Southeast corner of Muscatine and William Street. Size: 43,309 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial (CC-2) and Commercial Office (CO-1) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Cemetery (RM-20) South: Currently commercial, proposed for future residential (RM-20) East: Commercial (CO-1) West: Commercial (CC-2) Applicable code sections: 14-2C-5b, Specific Criteria pertaining to adjustments to the principal building setbacks, 14-4B-3A, General Criteria applied to all special exceptions. File Date: January 16, 2013 F) BACKGROUND: The subject site, located at the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and William Street, is zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Commercial Office (CO-1). Both commercial zones require a minimum front building setback of 10 feet. Because this is a corner lot, the front building setback applies along both streets. Typically, there is no side setback requirement for commercial zones. However, because the adjacent property is zones residential (RM-20), a 5-foot side setback is required along the south property line.' The subject property is within the boundaries of the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area, a neighborhood targeted for redevelopment. The design guidelines in the Towncrest Plan are intended to create a pedestrian -oriented commercial and mixed use neighborhood with buildings located close to the street. The Plan provides recommendations for the location and screening of surface parking, storefront design and building materials, and streetscape improvements. While the Towncrest Plan has been adopted by City Council, the zoning designation that will govern re -development has not been completed. Therefore the proposed development must comply with current commercial site development standards unless granted a special exception. The applicant has been working with the City for some months to redevelop the subject property in compliance with the forthcoming standards for the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area. The applicant is seeking to build two single -story medical office buildings. The applicant is seeking a reduction of the front building setback along Muscatine Avenue, from 10 feet to zero, and along William Street, from 10 feet to 2 feet. The applicant seeks to reduce the side setback from the required 5 feet to 3 feet. To further the implementation of the Towncrest Plan, the developer must dedicate an 8 x 280 foot portion of the property (a strip running along William Street) that will allow the street to be widened to accommodate on -street parking, sidewalks, and landscaping. The applicant has provided a site plan showing the right-of-way dedication and the arrangement of buildings on the site. Because he City will design and install all streetscape improvements, including street trees, these improvements are not shown on the submitted site plan. The City is working with another private developer to construct elder housing on the adjacent property to the south. Vehicle access for that development will be provided via a drive that runs along the shared property line. The property line between the commercial and residential properties is irregular in shape, this may be modified (straightened) prior to the residential use being developed but is not a requirement of the special exception. There is also a change in grade between the commercial and residential properties such that the residential property is approximately 5-6 feet higher at grade. A retaining wall will be reconstructed along the property line. 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 14-2C-5b pertaining to adjustments to the principal 14-2C4B-3c states that where a side or rear property line for a lot in a Commercial Zone abuts a Residential Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential Zone must be provided along the Residential Zone boundary. Because the RM-20 zones requires a 5-foot side setback, the Commercial Zone must also provide a 5-foot setback. building setback requirements in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Please note: The site plan submitted shows the requested setbacks along Muscatine Avenue and William Street, however, the setback along the side (south) property line is shown at zero. The minimum setback allowed in this area is 3 feet. The applicant is aware of this discrepancy and is able to modify the site plan by relocating the handicapped parking currently shown along the driveway to an on -street location, adjacent to the front entrance. By substituting compact spaces along the drive, the applicant will be able to shift the southern building 3 feet from the side property line. Specific Standards (I4-2C-5b). The Board of Adjustment may reduce the building setback requirements if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific criteria are met. 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. Staff finds that the situation is peculiar based on the following findings The proposed buildings and site plan have been designed to comply with the guidelines for redevelopment of the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area —the Plan calls for commercial buildings to be set at or near the property line. However, because the new zoning designation that will apply to Towncrest has not been adoptedthe current commercial site development standards apply. Relief from the minimum setback requirements for the commercial site can only be granted through a special exception. The situation is also peculiar due to the irregular south property line 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. Staff finds that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards based on the findings listed above, under criterion #1, in addition to the following findings: The developer must dedicate a portion of the property along William Street as right-of-way in order to allow the street improvements envisioned in the Towncrest Plan. This dedication, in addition to the two -foot setback, will allow space for wide (8-foot) sidewalks as well as on -street parking and metering, street trees, and other required landscaping. This leaves the property with less area in which to construct buildings and required off-street parking. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The purpose of the setback regulations are to: • Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting. • Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. • Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods and commercial areas; • Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and • Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Staff finds that granting the requested setback reductions will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations based on the following findings. The Towncrest Plan calls for the re -orienting of buildings and surface parking on properties within its boundaries. Both the subject property and the abutting property to the south are within the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area. Both sites are currently proposed for redevelopment, and both developments are being designed to comply with the guidelines in the Plan with regard to placement of buildings and off-street parking. The proposed office buildings will be built to commercial standards, and must meet the quality and aesthetic standards of the Towncrest Plan. The redevelopment of the subject property in accordance with the Plan guidelines is intended to encourage redevelopment of other properties within Towncrest, including the adjacent property to the south The proposed 3-foot setback from the south property line along with the change in grade between the two properties (the property to the south is set 5-6 feet above the subject property) will preserve light, air, and privacy for the proposed residential development to the south. The adjacent development will provide vehicle access along the south property line, creating ample separation for fire separation and protection. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Staff believes that the Towncrest guidelines, which apply to this property and all surrounding properties, are intended to enhance the development potential and value of properties in the neighborhood. The intent of the Towncrest Plan is to encourage redevelopment in the area by creating a cohesive architectural character and improving the public street and adjacent areas —sidewalks, planting areas, etc. Elevations for the proposed buildings have been submitted and reviewed for compliance with the design guidelines in the Towncrest Plan, including storefront windows and entrances along the street and quality building materials. All required off-street parking is located to the rear of the building in accordance with the Plan, and the parking area will be set back from abutting properties and screened with landscaping. As mentioned above, the applicant must dedicate an 8-foot wide strip of land along William Street as public right-of-way and provide a 2-foot minimum setback to allow for wide sidewalks, on -street parking, and various landscaping improvements. The City will design and install all streetscape improvements, including street trees. With regard to the side setback, there is a considerable change in grade between the subject site and the property to the south. Vehicle access for the adjacent property will be provided from a driveway that runs along the property line. 6. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line unless the property abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. Staff finds that the application must meet this criterion. As noted above, the applicant has been made aware of the minimum requirement and will alter the site plan to accommodate a 3-foot setback along the building's south side. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: The setback reductions requested comply with the design standards for the Towncrest Plan. The applicant must dedicate a portion of the property and provide a 2-foot building setback along William Street in order to allow for on -street parking, landscaping, and wide (8-foot) sidewalks. The Muscatine Avenue right-of-way is sufficiently wide to provide 8-foot sidewalks and other improvements in the public right-of-way. All off-street parking for the proposed development is located to the rear of the property in order to encourage a pedestrian -oriented streetscape. Existing curb cuts along Muscatine Avenue and William Street will be closed. A two-way access point will be provided from William Street approximately 140 feet from the intersection; an exit -only drive will be provided to Muscatine Avenue along the east property line. These changes will create safer vehicle access and reduce conflicts with pedestrian areas. 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 finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: As stated above, the intent of the Towncrest Plan is to encourage redevelopment in the area by creating a cohesive architectural character and through various improvements to the streetscape and public areas —streets, sidewalks, planting areas etc. In complying with the Towncrest guidelines, the proposed development will contribute to the overall improvement and reinvestment potential for the surrounding neighborhood, including the adjacent property to the south. 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 general criterion #2 above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place. Right-of-way improvements described in the Plan will be designed and constructed by the City. All drainage will be addressed by the City Engineer as part of the site review and building permit processes. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The City's access standards control the number and placement of curb cuts along major arterials like Muscatine Avenue in order to minimize conflicts and congestion. By closing the two existing curb cuts on Muscatine Avenue and William Street and providing a shared drive between the two buildings on the site —a drive that is set back more than 100 feet from the William and Muscatine intersection —staff believes the proposed development will improve safe ingress and egress and minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 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. All other aspects not discussed here are being reviewed by the building department to ensure that the site is in full compliance with the zoning code and the Towncrest Plan. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Towncrest Plan is considered part of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the Plan calls for buildings to be set closer to the street. Wider sidewalks, and other streetscape improvements are intended to improve the aesthetics, pedestrian appeal, and overall function of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC13-00002, an application submitted by Hodge Construction to reduce the front and side principal building setbacks for property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) and Community Commercial (CC-2) zones located at the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and William Street, as follows: • The principal building setback along Muscatine Avenue is reduced from 10 feet to zero; • The principal building setback along William Street is reduced from 10 feet to 2 feet; • The principal building setback along the south property line is reduced from 5 feet to 3 feet; and These reductions are subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial views of the proposed location. 3. Site Plan 4. Illustration of street cross-section from the Towncrest Plan 5. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development I O H1nOS a I _10 213153 _ — O �113SS3 1cm � M x 1S a3n0)4 1 fLLI J�3noa _ L —1S a3&- L s_----- i �\ CD IXN 00 cn p anHlav O?J Hi O T I i L O O 1S VN FF - U i �Ld L 3 c wo! o j �i oiiT w O Q f i i Q�1S 3SLnOl N LL U ? LO o O 7 Y ra J3�� of r L — ~ 1S 30HM _ 1 06 0) 3AV 1Sal� N _J IL F N003S � r �cn1 W Wj I _ - - Q ert n � r � N Ln E U FWF F 0. Q a 1 6 0 Y 3 8 � e G ® -k9 ill g�e g' 5ed4 5 $6�pdd�ee 1��CC�JU���Lj STPEETSCAPe ESQ4GjN INTENT The streetscape design for the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area is intended to be a catalyst for a desired District transformation from aging buildings and infrastructure to a vibrant, walkable and safe community center. The intent of this section is to make a series of recommendations for the planning of the vehicular and pedestrian spaces. The recommendations will touch on a variety of spatial baselines and aesthetic enhancements that could serve the future designers of these spaces. Now, more than ever, pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well as the safety, comfort and aesthetic enhancement of circulation routes and pedestrian spaces are expected. This expectation has come about as a result of an increased awareness that people's day—to—day environments do impact their quality of life. The more comfortable, safe and aesthetically pleasing a space is to a user, the greater the quality of the experience and the potential that the user could utilize that space or route again. MUSCATINE AVENUE & S 1ST AVENUE Muscatine Avenue currently has a tree lawn with mature ornamental trees and a widened sidewalk on the south side of the street. This area should be improved with new lighting with banners and signage that announces the entry into the Towncrest District. Special landscaping, signage and pavement at the intersections of Muscatine Avenue with Wade Street, Williams Street and Arthur Street further celebrate the entries into the District. zrr_w -7. Sinn/uM At the intersection of Muscatine Avenue & S 1st Avenue, the sidewalk zone should be treated with its own distinct Towncrest markers and landscape conceptto give the District identity at this major intersection. See the Signage chapter for further description of signage treatments throughout the District. The current intersection design would require the acquisition of additional right—of—way and should be further evaluated in context with existing traffic signals. WADE STREET, WILLIAMS STREET & ARTHUR STREET As the current main entrances to Towncrest, the three north —south streets are important pedestrian and vehicular r l! 11 is Prc%n 9 fjv.-.. .rijnmur�7 I ET rICAL STc.E'T SEC710N� WADE STPE�E?, J,T r.�o �TPEE .r;FTNUR c-P The diagram above represents a typical street section for Wade, Williams and Arthur Streets. Further study is required as to the need to modify existing pavement widths on these streets. The buffer shown above represents R.O.W. screening only. Private property owners are still required to comply with City of Iowa City landscape buffer requirements. Page 10 -6- NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and Intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-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::? 20r Date: ppd admi nlappl ication-boase. doc 20 of-Apptisant(s)- Ar:/V-/' Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) k 4�&Its ��z 9988a9a E3a#�#SP�� �aa € perux=w.a #p N� .s 3 � 3 Q QQ_ "5.. W Yn°i H LLI ,:3e cn 2 s o C/j a 4g a LL1 9�¢ �v tfe Z 3 vmz6aw€€ 3 p(t � � Q �•-- __ � y �. m 3 — � 11 4�54 i a ys §2 g�F@� g5g 31 6 Q 1 d1�11•. g � 6ii g V �E,€' g 1§e !g g� 3p ��Ayrpap IS js g��VYpqs gg; {{9 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 09, 2013 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, T. Gene Crischilles, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Pugh, Robert Wetherell, Stephen Moss RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. 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 DECEMBER 12. 2012 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes. Jennings seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 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. Walz said that an ordinance allowing wind turbines in the City was adopted in the fall after a previous appeal failed. She showed the Board the site plan and a view of the property where the wind energy system will be located. She said the nearest residential uses would be on the other side of the interstate, which are about 2500 feet away from subject site. The Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) that is being proposed will be off grid and is intended to generate electrical power only for the Pearson property. She said the Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 2 of 12 ordinance regarding SWECS try to balance the desire for renewal energy with the potential externalities that depending on where they are located and how they are managed can impact surrounding area. If this proposal is approved, the applicant will apply for a building permit, which is required for the use. Walz reviewed the specific standards: 1. A feasibility study is recommended, but not required. The purpose of such a study is to balance the potential for what the SWECS can generate with any negative externalities. She said the applicant has not submitted one for this site, but given the distance from residential structures, staff believes it isn't essential. • She said that granting a special exception does not constitute an easement, and the proposed location for the SWECS in an open area on the highest spot on the Pearson property, and no easements or covenants are needed in order for the system to access wind. 2. If the SWECS is allowed in the subject zone, no more than one freestanding system is allowed, and only one is being proposed here. • The maximum energy generation allowed is 100 kilowatts, and what is being proposed is 95 kilowatts. 3. The minimum lot size is one acre. • The Pearson lot size is fifty acres. 4. The minimum setback requirements are one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the height of the tower. • The required 115% setback equals 164,34 feet. 5. Additional Siting Standards a. No portion of a vertical axis SWECS blade shall extend within 12 feet of the ground. b. No portion of a horizontal axis SWECS blade shall extend within 30 feet of the ground. • 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. The site plan indicates that they are not within 20 feet of those areas. d. No part of a SWECS shall be located within or over drainage, utility, or other established easements. • 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. 0 They are not within twenty feet of electrical power lines. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 3 of 12 f. A SWECS shall be located in compliance with the guidelines of applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations as amended. • The applicant has indicated that they are, but they will have to provide evidence of that at the time they apply for a building permit. 6. The height standard is limited to 150 feet maximum. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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 Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 4 of 12 the utility company in accordance with Section 199, Chapter 15.11(5) of the Iowa Administrative Code, as may be subsequently amended. • 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 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. g. 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 Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 5 of 12 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. 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. 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. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 6 of 12 Walz said what the specific criteria do is get at the remaining general standards because they address those issues of safety and the effects that it's going to have on adjacent properties. She said the Comprehensive Plan doesn't address this specifically but in general, the City does encourage the efficient use of resources. She said that staff is recommending approval of EXC12-00014, an application to install a Small Wind Energy Conversion System in the Office Research Park zone (OPR) at 2510 North Dodge Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan that the applicant presented the Board with the location for the wind turbine. 2. Approval of the 142.9 foot Windmatic 17S that they describe in their application 3. There are no lights, signage or advertising permitted on the system, advertising meaning printing. 4. Approval of the building official of the clearly marked and easily accessible shut-off for the wind turbine. 5. The applicant must apply for a building permit at which time they must provide the following documentation: Certificate of insurance for the system Demonstrated compliance with FFA regulations Approval of the manual automatic braking system as required by the special exception Engineering analysis for the system and certification by an Iowa licensed professional engineer as required by the specific criteria for the special exception to insure the structural integrity of the system A signed maintenance agreement to ensure the long-term functionality and safety of the system Jennings asked how staff determined that the applicant's assertion, for example, that "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" is true versus a case in which they need to produce a certificate. Walz said her understanding is that the wording is meant to put the applicant on notice that the turbine has to be constructed of materials that don't interfere, and staff relies on them to be honest. She said that if it does cause interference, the applicant is agreeing that the turbine can be removed. Jennings asked if that is similar in instances of flicker if a hotel or other transitory residency should be built closer than 2500 feet to the turbine. Walz said a hotel would not be considered a residence. She said in this situation there aren't going to be any residences that come any closer to the subject site because they are prohibited in all of the zones until you get to the far west. Jennings asked if the Iowa Department of Transportation is convinced that flicker won't cause any kinds of traffic hazards. Walz said it is the assumption that it won't. Baker and Walz had an extended discussion about the new standards that are being set up in general for wind turbines. He wanted to know if in the future the Board would have to determine on a case by case basis whether it recommends or requires a feasibility study to balance the harm and the negative externalities to residential property close by with the ability for the wind Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 7 of 12 turbine to generate power. Walz said the Board of Adjustment would want to decide on a case by case basis whether to recommend or require a feasibility study. Baker wanted to know if there is the potential that there's another location on this subject property for a comparable turbine. Walz said they could have one of lesser height than the building, or have a small one on the roof. She said if the applicant would decide to put one on the building, they would have to come before the Board of Adjustment and go through this process again. Baker said the wind turbine will be off grid so for the standards, does this mean this particular wind turbine would be off grid but if they weren't using all of its power could it be then put on grid. Walz replied that in this case it would not be put back in the grid. Baker asked if in the standards there is a setback requirement relevant to buildings. Walz said she didn't believe there was. She said she was not part of the drafting of this ordinance. She said most of this ordinance was taken from other, similar ordinances. She said that in the winter, wind turbines can throw ice and snow, so you wouldn't the wind turbine located where a person or object would get hit. Baker asked if they had a height standard for free standing wind turbines on lots smaller than 15 acres. Walz said she thought they did. Baker asked if there is a possibility that residential development could occur at other locations with existing wind towers. Walz said the idea is that if the wind turbine is there first, the person purchasing property knows it's there and can make the decision whether or not to invest. Baker asked if the City would need to know where the turbine can be shut off in case of emergency and does the City have the power to do that shut off. Holecek said that would be part of the Special Exception. Baker asked if in general a business has a wind turbine, and the business shuts down, who becomes responsible for the removal. Walz said it would be the property owner's responsibility. Jennings asked if there was anything in the standards regarding the vibrations created by wind turbines and how they may affect the underlying geologic formations. Walz said there was not. Baker asked Jennings to expand on this question. Jennings said because this project vibrates and it is tied to an underlying geologic structure it can carry audible and sub -audible range vibrations some distance. He said it could disrupt and disperse some distance away but not be readily identifiable. Walz said that is not included in the standards. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Mike Pugh, counsel for the applicant, said that a wind turbine is an allowed accessory use in the OPR zone, but the ordinance says if the tower is in excess of 45 feet, the applicant must comply with the specific criteria of the ordinance and come before this Board for a special exception. He said the specific criteria are the most important regarding the installation of these turbines, and he believes this application meets all those criteria. Pugh said for the record he would like to adopt Pearson's application, those responses to those specific criteria as well as Walz's detailed staff report and her responses to those specific criteria as well as her verbal report that was provided to the Board this evening. Pugh said the application did include a reference to signage on the wind turbine, and they are deleting that from their application. He said that Pearson has read the specific criteria that were read into the record by Walz and is in complete agreement with them, with the exception that it's a142.9 foot tower rather than 143.9 feet, which is set out in the staff report. Pugh referred back to Jennings first question and said that that almost all the building criteria require the building official at the time the building permit is issued to verify those things. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page S of 12 Walz and Holecek explained that if the applicant were not complying to the standards it's not only that the applicant would fail to get the permit but they would fail the special exception and that could start a municipal infraction enforcement process. Wetherell, Director of Facilities for Pearson in Iowa City, said they feel that their wind turbine does meet the City's specific and general criteria as outlined in the ordinance. Baker asked if it possible for cell towers and wind turbines to be joint uses. Wetherell said it's not technically impossible but that Pearson doesn't intend to do that. Grenis opened public hearing. Stephen Moss said he is representing the family who owns the land west of Pearson's property. He said the tower was proposed after the family asked for a road on the south side of the building. He said he didn't understand the discussion about flicker, because in the Moss development they intend to have residential and a four story hotel, both of which would be affected by flicker. Walz explained that the requirement with shadow flicker is that the system can't cause shadow flicker to fall on or in any existing residential structure. Moss said they have working for four years to get this project started, and they are about two months away from having the final plat accepted. He said he is not hear to stop the wind turbine, and he wants to be a good neighbor, but he wants to share some thoughts on this. He said they have spent an exorbitant amount of money on this project so they can create jobs in Iowa City. He asked if the shadow flicker and ice throw zone are based on the height of the turbine. Walz said he is not inhibited from developing his property in the way in which it's zoned. Moss replied that there are many companies that will not locate next to a wind turbine, including some Fortune 500 companies, because it creates an adverse effect. He said within the 170 acres on his property there will be some living quarters because the Council has indicated that they want people to be able to live and work in the park. He said he has questions about the vibrations a wind turbine will create and the effects of them. Crischilles asked on the zoning map what parcels Moss is talking about and how much land he owns. Moss said he owns all 170 acres. Crischilles asked Walz to clarify the zoning designations on the map. Walz explained the zone designations. She said in the zoning code it doesn't list residential uses for Office Research Park (ORP) or Research Development Park (RDP), which are two of the zones in the parcel. Moss said he is talking about hotels. Walz said those would be considered commercial uses. Moss said he understands that but wants to know what the difference is between a person in a hotel or a house or a restaurant. Holecek answered that the uses are quite different. Baker asked since currently the nearest residential structure is 2500 feet away and is not a factor, but wanted to know if they have quantified the extent of that shadow flicker. Walz said on this particular one in this location, but she said the applicant could speak to that and they addressed it in their application. Moss asked how the ice throw zone was determined. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 9 of 12 Holecek said the insurance as well as the setback requirements are to allow adequate space for ice throw. Moss asked is 167 feet from his property is determined to be far enough. Holecek replied that by the standards it is. Moss said they are not trying to stop the installation of the turbine, but they are trying to make it right. Baker asked the applicant where the end of the shadow flicker would be on this turbine. Wetherell said that firms doing ice throw studies look at a value that is typically ten times the height of the tower, and they then use every sensitive receptor within that area to do a specific study on to see what the effects of those are. He said in this case, since there are no residential structures, they are not able to do a shadow flicker study because they don't have anything to model it on. Baker asked for some clarification. Wetherell said when they do a shadow flicker study, they use a ratio of ten to one. Walz said that would encompass anything within 1400 feet. She said the Moss property is less than 200 feet from the location of the wind turbine so eventually he will be within that 1400 feet. Walz said if there was a structure there now, it would be within the flicker area. Baker asked if the flicker with the turbine. Walz said it's the shadow of the blades turning Holecek said it moves with the season and time of year and time of day. Grenis closed public hearing Baker said as far as this application goes, based on the criteria of the City, this seems acceptable. He said his concern is not about this particular application but rather about the process and the standards that seem to be first in is granted some sort of priority over any future development. He said once these are established, a future development adjacent to these properties where the turbines are, by this criteria will have to adapt its own development plans to the existing already approved development. Walz said within the General Standards there is criterion #3 that says "establishment of this 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." She said staff is comfortable that this won't, but the Board has to decide whether it has a concern based on what Mr. Moss said that makes them feel uncomfortable approving that. Crischilles asked if the issue of the flicker ever apply to commercial buildings and/or hotels and motels. Holecek said the ordinance addresses only residential because of the transient nature of a hotel or motel. Grenis asked if it never applies to those other structures. Holecek said the specific criteria do not. Crischilles said in regards to the first in issue, those buying in should be well aware that a wind turbine or a parking lot may already exist adjacent or close to them. Grenis wanted to know if this hasn't been addressed in the new standards for wind turbines will it ever be addressed in terms of commercial buildings, hotels and motels, or will that always be a decision of the Board of Adjustment. Walz said she thinks it is not atypical for the Board to regard the location of certain uses and accessory uses as not appropriate next to residential but are appropriate next to other types of uses. She said the City's wind turbine standards were based on extensive research into other ordinances. Grenis asked if this will ever be look at further or will it always just be the job of the Board on a case by case basis. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 10 of 12 Holecek said that zoning can be changed by the Council at any time so if something in these standards does not address an identified, negative externality that could arise in the future, it could be amended by the Council to make it not allowed in certain zones, allowed only by special exception or add more standards and criteria. Grenis asked how that would get started. Holecek said it either gets started by Council or this Board and basically goes through the Planning and Zoning Commission or it can be directed by Council. Grenis said he thought it was difficult to leave it up to the Board on a case by case basis because they are not experts in terms of how much flicker is going to bother people, whereas the building permit staff would have a better idea. He said he thinks it should be addressed in the standards for future cases. Jennings said this is similar to discussions the Board has had in the past regarding cell towers and the changing picture of technology. Holecek said since last year's appeal as to whether or not a wind turbine is customary and incidental to as an accessory use this standard has given specific criteria for one to assess whether or not it is an appropriate use, so it's gone beyond just the issue of whether it's customary use. She said it's gotten better, but the Board have the responsibility of making that assessment. Grenis said with the information the Board is provided with, which is what they are basing their decision on, and the fact that staff should know future uses, and they recommended their approval, he is comfortable supporting the application as presented. Baker said if the adjacent property were already developed with residential within 200 feet of the property line, so within 400-500 feet of the proposed wind turbine, is there a specific criteria that determine that that location is not an acceptable one for the wind turbine. Walz said the applicant would have to provide evidence that the shadow flicker does not fall on or in any existing residential structure. She said this is not a zone that allows residential use. She said if he has a real concern that there may be such shadow flicker that it does diminish the opportunity to develop the adjacent zone, then you would look to General Standard #3 and ask the applicant to produce more evidence and a shadow study. Baker moved to approve EXC12-00015, an application to install a small wind energy conversion system in the Office Research Park zone at 2510 North Dodge Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and location submitted 2. The approved system is a 142.9 feet high Windmatic 175. 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. A certificate of insurance b. Demonstration of compliance with FFA standards or regulations c. Approval of the automatic and manual 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 insure the structural integrity of the system Board of Adjustment January 9, 2013 Page 11 of 12 e. A signed maintenance agreement to insure the long-term functionality and safety of the system Crischilles seconded the motion. Baker said regarding item EXC12-00015 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of January 9, 2013, and conclude 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 approval of this proposal. He said in particular he finds that a. the discussion of the shadow flicker standard to be applicable in this case considering that there is no other residential structure currently within 2500 feet of the location b. Jennings added that the applicant provide sufficient information for the building official regarding invisibility to radio frequency transmissions such that they do not cause interference c. Baker added that he finds it relevant that only one such turbine is proposed and allowed on this property and will preclude any comparable turbines in the future Grenis said he concurred with the findings. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. Grenis 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: None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Bakerseconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. z w N V) D 0 Q U. O Q' Q O m N T M T r r T O � O T i I r r T r OD � 0 T n N to W 0 N O ' r a M M M T N r X X X x N w r- CO V LO m CD CD 0 0 NN'NN wd CD F- X w O O O O d1 L N V_ N L � v E c `L mY z- J1.F- f1 u