Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA2 Selective Site Development, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, Inc. ZBA-14-34 Applicant's Proposed Alternative Conclusions (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. New 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 and E-911 service in the area. Applicant has undertaken numerous iterations of its plan to mitigate the visual intrusion of the project. The only setback sought is to property under the same ownership and control as the parent parcel upon which the project is proposed, and the owner has authorized the filing of the application.Applicant meets all other setbacks. Granting the setback will ensure the future preservation of the Story County tax base by allowing for more orderly future development on the overall balance of property under the control of the property owner.The Board believes the request meets this standard. (b) That without granting 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. New Conclusion: B Staffs own observation,the property has been and remains undeveloped for many years.The property Y p p Y is of such a unique character and shape that its future development will be difficult, and the placement of the tower allows the owner to yield a reasonable investment on the property at this time. The project does not alter the development potential of the Northern portion of the property.The Board believes the request meets this standard. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to the unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. New Conclusion: The Applicant has demonstrated that the property owner could hypothetically combine two adjoining parcels and erect the tower in the exact same place without the need for a variance, and this creates a unique circumstance that is certainly unique and not a general condition of the neighborhood.The Board believes the request meets this standard. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. New Conclusion: As noted previously the proposed location of the cell tower allows for high visibility of the tower from Highway 30, south of the proposed cell tower site. Towers are common along high traffic corridors and are appropriate in such corridors to ensure drivers stranded in inclement weather and persons who have recently witnessed auto accidents can timely report such accidents to authorities by using mobile handsets.Automobile accidents are the number one cause of preventable death nationally. Further, Applicant has continually worked with Staff to improve on the aesthetic design of the site, and is offering among the least visually intrusive facilities that Ames has seen in the wireless industry, from a bulk, height and color schematic perspective.Applicant is willing to paint the tower a mute brown or gray to further mute the visibility of the structure. Last, applicant has produced compelling evidence to document its technical need for this project. The parent parcel is zoned HC Highway Commercial and it is anticipated that commercial development will occur in and around the parent parcel. Given the proposed project is located as far from residential development as the Applicant could place it,the character of the locality will not be altered by the project. The Board believes the request meets this standard. (c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. New Conclusion: The Applicant's variance request is not into the Highway right-of-way or a parcel that is not under the same ownership or control of the parent parcel.The only setback Applicant seeks to property that is under the same ownership and control as the parent parcel. Further, the applicant has demonstrated through a letter signed by a professional engineer working in the tapered tubular steel industry (monopole cell towers) that setbacks in excess of setbacks required for buildings of similar height are without basis as these towers rarely fail (it is noted that in this zoning district the Ames Code allows an 85 foot tall building with 5' side yard setbacks on this parcel). To the contrary, Applicant has demonstrated by evidence that implementation of this project will improve life safety by ensuring Verizon Wireless' network is viable in severe weather conditions.Applicant has located its project in zone where towers are encouraged, as far from residential land uses as possible. Applicant's stealth monopole design reduces the surface area of equipment and greatly reduces the possibility that sheeting ice could fall from the tower and pose harm outside beyond the Applicant's lease area.The Board believes the request meets this standard. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. New Conclusion: Because of the truly unique circumstance of both the parent parcel and the adjacent parcel being under the same ownership and control,justice will be served by authorizing this variance. As previously stated, the property owner could adjust its lot boundary and construct the tower in the exact same place. Further, there is no prohibition in the Ames Code prohibiting on-site construction of a building directly adjacent the tower, so the property line setback stated in the Code is only marginally effective for protecting improvements of whatever kind in the highly unlikely event of a tower collapse. The proposed location of the tower preserves a greater portion of land under the control of the property owner for future development, and this preserves Story County's future real estate tax base. In fact, it is of paramount importance to Ames and Story County that such parcels in close proximity to highways retain their design flexibility, and commanding the tower industry to place a tower in the middle of a parcel to enforce this setback does not advance that interest. The Board believes the request meets this standard.