HomeMy WebLinkAboutA6 ITEM#
DATE: 08/27/14
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-14-19
DATE PREPARED: August 14, 2014
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To reduce the required side yard setback from 75 feet
to 7 feet and the required rear yard setback from 75
feet to 24 feet for a new cell tower.
APPLICANT: New Cingular Wireless PSC, LLC (AT&T)
LOCATION: 116 Beedle Drive (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC)
BACKGROUND:
Ronak Desai, with Creospan, Inc., representing AT&T, is seeking to place a new
monopole cell tower at the property located at 116 Beedle Drive. The proposed tower is
identified as a "stealth" tower, meaning the antennas are mounted on the interior of the
monopole. The new tower and equipment shelter will be located at the northeast corner
of the property. The site is shown on Attachment A.
The proposed location of the tower is at 116 Beedle Drive, which is a property that is
zoned HOC (highway Oriented Commercial). The property is approximately 161feet
wide by 221 feet in depth. The property currently contains a car wash and Budget
Truck rental facility. A lease area of 20'-6" by 20' is proposed with a 20 foot access and
utility easement along the north property line. A 6 foot wood fence is proposed to
identify the extent of the lease area and for security of the tower and equipment shelter.
The applicant is proposing to pave the area within the leased area which is currently
gravel on the site. The location of the electric meter and disconnects is shown east of
and outside the fence area for service access.
APPLICABLE LAWS: Chapter 29, Section 29.1307(7)(d) of the Municipal Code states
the following:
"Setbacks from Base of Antenna Support Structure. The minimum
distance between the base of the support or any guy anchors and any
property line shall be the largest of the following:
(i) 50% of the antenna height;
(ii) The minimum setback in the underlying Zone, or;
1
(iii) 60 feet."
In this instance, the largest of the three distances is sixty (75) feet. The proposed
tower is 150 feet in height, therefore, the required minimum setback from any property
line to the base of the tower is half the height of the tower or 75 feet.
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "a variance shall be granted only
if all of the following standards are satisfied:"
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
(b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary
hardship exists when:
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions in the neighborhood.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
(c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
BASIS OF PETITION: The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria.
See the attached supporting information prepared by the applicant as part of the
"Variance Application Packet". Portions of this information in addition to the staff
findings are summarized below.
FINDINGS OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the six criteria:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150-foot high stealth
monopole on which an additional provider can be accommodated. An equipment
shelter (1 V-5"' by 16') will be located inside the lease area (20'-6" by 20) for the
monopole and will be enclosed by a 6' high wood fence. The property currently
contains an existing commercial use and is abutting a commercial property to the
2
north with a large vacant area just north of the tower location. See Attachment A.
The location of the tower on the property, the vacant area north of the tower site
and the vacant parcel to the east allows for high visibility from Lincoln Way,
Beedle Drive and Dotson Drive to the proposed tower and enclosure. The subject
property is also abutting residential uses to the south; however, the cell tower site
is located to the far northwest corner of the property furthest from the residential
uses.
CONCLUSION: The intent of the code for the location of a cell tower on a
property requires a substantial setback for not only safety purposes in the event
of a failure of the tower, but also for the purpose of buffering and screening
surrounding land uses from the visual impact of the use. The use itself when
appropriately separated from sensitive area is in the public interest due to its
contribution of improved communication options for the public. In this case,
because of the significantly reduced setbacks for the tower site on the lot, the
location allows for high visibility of the tower from the surrounding residential and
commercial properties and from the Lincoln Way right of way north of the subject
site. While the tower is being proposed with interior mounted antennas, little is
proposed and very few options are available in the proposed location, other than
the required fence, to buffer the use from surrounding properties. Staff believes
that the request does not meet this standard.
(b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.
Unnecessary hardship exists when:
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for
a purpose allowed in the zone.
FINDING: The existing cell site is located in an area of the community that is
zoned as HOC (Highway Oriented Commercial). The subject property is an
existing commercial use consisting of a car wash and Budget rental truck facility.
The proposed lease area on the property measures 20'-6" by 20' for the cell
tower and equipment shelter. The remaining majority of the site is being used for
existing commercial purposes. The applicant has noted that the owner of the
property will be able to secure a return on the vacant area of the property without
the use of the area for the cell tower.
CONCLUSION: To meet this standard, the property owner must show that all
beneficial use and enjoyment of the property would be lost and that the property
could not be used for any purpose, if the variance is not granted. That standard
cannot be met, since the property is currently occupied by other commercial
uses. It appears that this site is already being utilized to a great extent. If the
setback variance is not granted for this tower, the site will still yield a reasonable
return. Staff believes that the request does not meet this standard.
3
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: The property is approximately 161feet wide by 221 feet in depth.
The property currently contains a car wash and Budget Truck rental facility. The
north-south dimension (width) of the property is not adequate to meet location
needs of the tower at the proposed height while conforming to the minimum side
yard setback. The west-east dimension of the property does allow the proposed
tower to meet the required rear yard setback if located in a more central location
on the property.
The applicant states that the existing carwash and truck rental business on the
property requires a unique location of the tower on the site to avoid interference
with the existing businesses.
CONCLUSION: The Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from all
property lines for a tower 150 feet in height. The lot measures only 161 feet in
width, therefore, it is impossible to meet the setback requirement on this parcel
for this tower at a height of 150 feet. However, the dimensions and shape of the
subject property are not unique in this vicinity as the site is nearly 3/ of an acre in
size. Although the width of the lot is a circumstance that contributes to the
problem, the height of the proposed tower and the existing commercial uses on
the site also contribute. Staff believes that the request does not meet this
standard.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: The proposed location of the tower is within an existing commercially
zoned district and the subject site contains two existing commercial uses.
Residential properties abut the site to the west across Beedle Drive and to the
south of the subject property. Residential uses are also located across Lincoln
Way to the north. The property abuts a vacant parcel to the east and an open
area to the north allowing for high visibility of the tower and enclosure from the
residential neighborhoods which surround the few properties within the
commercial zoning district.
The applicant notes that the tower has been designed at 150 feet to provide the
needed cell service to the area. The applicant also notes that the tower has
been designed with interior mounted antennas to minimize the visual impact of
the tower to the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION: As noted previously the proposed location of the cell tower
allows for high visibility of the tower from the surrounding residential and
commercial properties and from the Lincoln Way right of way north of the subject
site. There is a similar style and height of a tower located along South Dakota
Avenue located behind buildings that has not changed the transition character of
4
residential and commercial around it. Staff finds that at the proposed height and
location it is appropriately situated away from residential homes, but has a
prominent position towards Lincoln Way without a buffer of buildings or
vegetation. Under these circumstances, Staff finds that the tower does alter the
surrounding character in that the structure is not buffered from the surroundings
despite its location in a commercial area. Staff believes that the request does
not meet this standard.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: The Zoning Ordinance, Section 29.1307(7)(d) of the Municipal Code,
requires a minimum setback of seventy-five (75) feet for the proposed 150-foot
tall cell tower. The height of the tower and the dimensions of the property allow
for the proposed tower to meet the minimum dimensions from the tower to the
west and south property lines, but the setbacks of the proposed tower from the
north and east property lines do not meet the minimum required setback. The
proposed setback to the north property line is 7 feet, and the setback to the south
property line is 24 feet.
CONCLUSION: Granting of this variance will be contrary to the spirit and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance in that the ordinance establishes minimum setback
standards as a safety measure for adjacent properties, in the event the tower
should fail and for the purpose of protecting the surrounding properties from the
visual impact of such uses.
While the nearest residential structure is approximately 150 feet away from the
proposed location of the tower, the commercial structure to the north of the
subject site is only approximately 60 feet away. At the present height and
proposed location on the property, the tower will be seen from all surrounding
property, which is unavoidable, however, even the equipment enclosure will be
visible from all sides of the structure in the present location. At a reduced height,
and in a more centrally located area of the site, the owner may be able to
minimize the impact of the tower from the surrounding properties and meet the
minimum required setbacks for the site. For these reasons, staff believes that
the request does not meet this standard.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: The applicant has noted that existing cell towers in this area of the
community do not allow for co-location and other potential sites in this area are
those which are zoned low density residential. The proposed location, while
adjacent to some residential development, is zoned commercial and is permitted
with Special Use Permit to allow the construction of cell towers. The location of
the tower on the property, while benefitting the owner with an additional use for
5
the property, allows the tower to be located at a distance equal to the height of
the tower away from any residential structures. The applicant is also proposing a
stealth tower in an effort to minimize the impact to the surrounding area.
CONCLUSION: In this circumstance the setback based upon the height of the
tower cause a challenge to locating the use on this site. The site has not been
deprived of its economic use by the setback standard for this use and therefore
does not create an injustice for the land owner. For these reasons, staff
believes that the request does not meet this standard.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to reduce
the required side and rear setbacks for the construction of a new cell tower, based
upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to reduce the
required side and rear setbacks for the construction of a new cell tower, if it makes
findings that support the criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Although the circumstances in this case allow for the proposed cell tower to meet some
of the standards required for approval of a variance, staff concludes that the standards
such as, the owner will be out full benefit of the property without the variation, that there
are unique circumstances that cause the need for the variance, and that the spirit of the
ordinance will still be met with the approval of the requested variance, have not been
met for the Zoning Board to approve the proposed setback variations. Staff believes
there are other options for a cell tower in this area of the community to provide the
service needed in the area, while still meeting the intent and requirements of the zoning
code.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that
the Zoning Board should act in accordance with Alternative #2, which is to deny
this request for a variance to reduce the rear yard and side yard setbacks for the
property at 116 Beedle Drive for the construction of a cell tower, based upon the
above findings and conclusions.
6
Attachment A
Location Map
won
191 a
{
�w
� okTAGE Ro Mcao�Ato ort
n
s '
} _., m ........ -
--- ". -.__UNCOLN<WAY
- ----UNCOLN-WAY.�...
J ,
w
fl, ' + '
Ir
r
' Subaect Site a;
-• 116 0.
to
2NC? 116
n A , 77
ro?a 132
16,
77' y
....,_....BAUGHMAN RO...�.....,.._aw � <
i
Aw
201 . , 2
LU
00
,
� a
Location Map
116 Beedle Drive
7