The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA003 - Staff Report dated January 8, 2020 ITEM #: 2 DATE: 01-08-20 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE PREPARED: January 3, 2020 CASE FILE NO. ZBA-15-05 REQUEST: Special Use Permit to Allow a Communications Tower at 1420 Lincoln Way PROPERTY OWNER: City of Ames APPLICANT: Metro Fibernet. LLC (The business name is MetroNet) (Represented by John Greenbank.) ZONING: 'UCRM (Urban Core Residential Medium Density) BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION. MetroNet, is seeking to construct a 79-foot tall galvanized steel tower with lighting arrestors for the purpose of receiving broadcast communications for television signals on the property in conjunction with their planned internet service facility located at 1420 Lincoln Way. The existing building is a decommissioned water booster station that is no longer used by the City. (See Attachment A. Location Map.) The site is zoned as 'UCRM" (Urban Core Residential Medium Density) on a platted lot with frontage and access from Lincoln Way. directly east of the bridge that crosses Squaw Creek. The site is partially within the O-E Overlay as well. The O-E Overlay boundary is coterminous with the Floodway boundary on the west side of the property. No improvements are proposed within the O-E Overlay area. The property is currently owned by the City of Ames and MetroNet has proposed to purchase the property from the City, including the existing building to house network optical gear as the base station for the Metro Fibernet operation in the community. Metronet is an internet provider and service company that desires to establish their service in the community. City Council has a public hearing for the sale of the property scheduled for January 14`h. The proposal by MetroNet is to construct the 79-foot tall tower eight feet west of the existing building, but located outside the 100-year floodplain for Squaw Creek. The base of the tower will be approximately 21 inches in diameter with a slight taper to the top of the tower. An additional eleven feet of the tower will be below the ground level. A six-foot high cedar wood fence is proposed to enclose the site, including the building and the proposed tower. The fence would not extend closer to the street than the front of the building, and would not extend into the floodplain area on the site. The tower design includes lighting arrestors extending beyond the top of the tower (approximately five feet) and placement of antenna equipment approximately within the top ten feet of the tower. The antennas attached to the tower are proposed to be between four and eight feet in length projecting perpendicular from the pole, oriented generally to the south. The proposed design is depicted in Attachment C. The site will be accessed via the existing driveway from Lincoln Way. Improvements will also include paving of the driveway. 1 Construction of the tower is subject to the City's Additional Standards for Specific Uses of Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 29 of the Ames Municipal Code (AMC)) for Cell Site Facilities ((Sec. 29.1307(8)). The construction of the tower for communication purposes is subject to Section 29.1307, regardless of its use or non-use specifically for cellular communications. Construction and operation of wireless facilities (including permitting of towers) is also subject to federal and state laws. NOTIFICATION: Notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property, published in the Ames Tribune, and posted on the subject property in compliance with Chapter 29, Section 29.1500(2) of the Ames Municipal Code that requires noticing between 4 and 20 days prior to the hearing. Additionally, staff emailed the City's registered neighborhood contact for the Oak Riverside neighborhood on December 13'h to alert them to upcoming dates for discussion of the site, including the City Council dates for sale of the property and the likely ZBA hearing for January 8th Contacting registered neighborhood representatives is not a formal notification process, but is a courtesy notice process intended to help create awareness of proposed projects in specific areas. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED: Several written/emailed comments have been received from property owners in the neighborhood voicing concerns about the compatibility of the tower. The written correspondence received from each individual is provided to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their use as they consider the request for a Special Use Permit. APPLICABLE LAW: Chapter 29, Section 29.1307(8) of the Municipal Code includes "Cell Site Standards" stated as follows: (8) Cell Site Standards. The following standards and procedures, in addition to those contained in Section 29.1503, shall apply to the issuance of a Wireless Permit and issuance of a Special Use Permit for a cell site with antenna. (a) Tower Height. The applicant shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment that the antenna is the minimum height required to function satisfactorily. No antenna or tower shall be constructed, altered, or maintained so as to project above any of the imaginary airspace surfaces described in FAR Part 77 of the FAA guidance on airspace protection. (b) Setbacks from Base of Tower. The minimum distance between the base of the support or any guy anchors and any property line shall be equal to 50% of the antenna height. (c) Antenna Support Structure Safety. The applicant shall demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment that the proposed antenna and support structure are safe and the surrounding areas will not be negatively affected by support structure failure, falling ice or other debris, or radio frequency interference. All support structures shall be fitted with anti-climbing devises, as approved by the manufacturers. (d) Screening. Appropriate screening shall be installed composed of wood, masonry material or other substantial materials. Landscaping may also be required. 2 (e) Painting and Visual Aesthetics. The design of towers, antennas and base stations should minimize the visual impact of the facility through siting, landscape screening, and stealth techniques. (i) Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish (dull gray or white) or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness to the maximum extent possible. (ii) The design of the base station and related structures shall, to the maximum extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting and surrounding buildings. (iii) The wireless facility shall be designed to complement the physical landscape in which they are intended to be located. Examples of stealth techniques that may be compatible include but are not limited to faux trees, unipoles/slick sticks, bell towers, etc. New stealth towers shall be configured and located in a manner that shall minimize adverse effects including visual impacts on the landscape and adjacent properties. New freestanding structures shall be designed to be compatible with adjacent structures and landscapes with specific design considerations such as architectural designs, scale, color and texture. (iv) Conduit or cable must be concealed on towers with externally mounted equipment. (v) The use of internally mounted or flush mounted technology is encouraged when adjacent to residential areas, prominent commercial areas and prominent entryways to the city. (1] Air Safety. Support structures 200 feet in height or taller, or those near airports, shall meet all Federal Aviation Administration regulations. (g) Separation Requirements. Towers exceeding 50 feet in height, except those incorporation stealth techniques, shall be place at minimum one quarter mile apart. Wireless facilities in right-of-way are not subject to separation requirements. (h) Access. All access to wireless communications sites must be hard surface (PCC or HMA) unless approved otherwise subject to a special use permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Placement of a tower shall not affect the use or access to required parking of a principal use on site. Chapter 29, Section 29.1503(4)(a), (b) and (e) of the Municipal Code includes "General Standards", "Residential Zone Standards'; and "Conditions", stated as follows: (4) Review Criteria. Before a Special Use Permit application can be approved, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall establish that the following general standards, as well as the specific standards outlined in subsection (b) below, where applicable, have been or shall be satisfied. The Board's action shall be based on stated findings of fact. The conditions imposed shall be construed as limitations on the power of the Board to act. A mere finding that a use conforms to those conditions or a recitation of those conditions, unaccompanied by specific findings of fact, shall not be considered findings of fact for the purpose of complying with this Ordinance. (a) General Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed use meets the following standards, and in addition, shall find adequate evidence that each use in its proposed location will: (i) Be harmonious with and in accordance with the general principles and proposals of the Land Use Policy Plan of the City; (ii) Be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is 3 proposed; (iii) Not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future uses in the same general vicinity; (iv) Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage structure, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities, and/or schools; (v) Not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, (vi) Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person, property or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors; and (vi) Be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone in which it is proposed to locate such use. (b) Residential Zone Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed use meets the following standards, as well as those set forth in Section 29.1503(4)(a) above and, in addition, shall find adequate evidence that each use in its proposed location will: (i) Not create excessively higher levels of traffic than the predominant pattern in the area and not create additional traffic from the proposed use that would change the street classification and such traffic shall not lower the level of service at area intersections; (ii) Not create a noticeably different travel pattern than the predominant pattern in the normal to and from work travel pattern in the residential area; (iii) Not generate truck trips by trucks over 26,000 pounds g.v.w. (gross vehicular weight) to and from the site except for food delivery vehicles, waste collection vehicles and moving vans; (iv) Not have noticeably different and disruptive hours of operation; (v) Be sufficiently desirable for the entire community that the loss of residential land is justifiable in relation to the benefit; (vi) Be compatible in terms of structure placement, height, orientation or scale with the predominant building pattern in the area; (vii) Be located on the lot with a greater setback or with landscape buffering to minimize the impact of the use on adjacent property, and (viii) Be consistent with other applicable standards in the zone. (e) Conditions. The Board may impose such additional conditions it deems necessary for the general welfare, for the protection of individual property rights, and for ensuring that the intent and objectives of this Ordinance will be observed. Any development in the City is also subject to the Development Standards of Article 4 of Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code. 4 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the information submitted, the following findings of fact and conclusions may be made regarding the standards of approval. Cell Site Standards. (a) Tower Height. The applicant shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment that the antenna is the minimum height required to function satisfactorily. No antenna or tower shall be constructed, altered, or maintained so as to project above any of the imaginary airspace surfaces described in FAR Part 77 of the FAA guidance on airspace protection. Findings of Fact: The applicant states that: "MetroNet has determined through operational experience and television broadcast signal reception studies a 79' above ground level steel pole is the typical height required to receive television signals with a 99.999% reliability factor." The Traffic Engineer for the City has determined that there is no impact on airport operations with a 79-foot tall tower at the proposed location. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (a) for a Special Use Permit. (b) Setbacks from Base of Tower. The minimum distance between the base of the support or any guy anchors and any property line shall be equal to 50% of the antenna height. Findings of Fact: The proposed location of the tower meets the minimum required setback of 50% of the height of the tower (40 feet). The tower is approximately 53 feet from the closest property line, which is the east property line. The tower is proposed to be approximately 75 feet from the south property line and 70 feet from the north property line. (See Attachment B: Plan View Drawing of Proposed Site Features.) Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (b) for a Special Use Permit. (c) Antenna Support Structure Safety. The applicant shall demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment that the proposed antenna and support structure are safe and the surrounding areas will not be negatively affected by support structure failure, falling ice or other debris, or radio frequency interference. All support structures shall be fitted with anti-climbing devises, as approved by the manufacturers. Findings of Fact: The applicant states that: "MetroNet has performed a structural analysis using O-Calc pole loading software. The pole was using worst case NESC land case, 100 MPH wind, 125 MPH wind gust, 1 inch radial ice. The maximum structural pole utilization is 56.5% under these conditions. The pole will not structurally fail. The pole will not have any climbing attachments." The pole is also situated outside of the floodway and floodway fringe (100-year flood plain) and will not be exposed to unique structural impacts of direct flood currents. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (c) for a Special Use Permit. (d) Screening. Appropriate screening shall be installed composed of wood, masonry material or other substantial materials. Landscaping may also be required. 5 Findings of Fact: A six-foot high cedar wood fence (See Attachment D: Proposed Fence and Gate.) is proposed to enclose the existing building and the proposed tower. The fence will not extend closer to Lincoln Way than the front of the building, and will be constructed outside the boundary of the 100-year Flood Plain boundary on the property. As no new principal building is proposed for the site, it did not trigger mandatory front yard landscaping. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (d) for a Special Use Permit. (e) Painting and Visual Aesthetics. The design of towers, antennas and base stations should minimize the visual impact of the facility through siting, landscape screening, and stealth techniques. Findings of Fact: The proposed tower is of a monopole design as required for a residential area. No stealth techniques are included in the design of the proposed tower. There are not residential properties to the west of the proposed site, nor directly to the north. Properties in both directions are owned by Iowa State University, and are zoned as "S- GA" (Government/Airport). A duplex abuts the east property line of the site, as do two properties with single-family dwellings. The tower is proposed on a property that is located on the fringe of a residential neighborhood. The tower itself is located on west side of the site approximately 53 feet from residential properties located along the east property line. It will be approximately 100 feet from the closet residential structure to the east. There are existing mature trees located to the south and west of the proposed installation, however there is not significant landscaping in place along the north or east side of the site. Based upon the antennae technical needs it does not appear flush mounted or internalized antennae options are available for the tower to facilitate stealth design options. Additional landscaping could be added if deemed necessary to improve compatibility as part of a Special Use Permit criterion. (i) Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish (dull gray or white) or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness to the maximum extent possible. Findings of Fact: The proposed steel tower will have a galvanized finish coating. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (i) for a Special Use Permit. (ii) The design of the base station and related structures shall, to the maximum extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting and surrounding buildings. Findings of Fact: The base station is an existing brick building that would be repurposed for the MetroNet operations. The brick building has been located on the site for several decades, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, including the natural setting of Squaw Creek, and the single-family homes along S. Riverside Drive. The proposed tower would have a galvanized finish coating, which blends with the surrounding area. The proposed cedar wood fence is consistent with fence materials and design that fit with a residential area. 6 Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (ii) for a Special Use Permit. (iii)The wireless facility shall be designed to complement the physical landscape in which they are intended to be located. Examples of stealth techniques that may be compatible include but are not limited to faux trees, unipoles/"slick sticks", bell towers, etc. New stealth towers shall be configured and located in a manner that shall minimize adverse effects including visual impacts on the landscape and adjacent properties. New freestanding structures shall be designed to be compatible with adjacent structures and landscapes with specific design considerations such as architectural designs, scale, color and texture. Findings of Fact: The proposed tower includes externally-mounted antenna, and spline ball ionizer lightning terminals. The antenna project out from the side of the tower near the top between 4 and 8 feet. The spline ball ionizer lightning terminals extend above the top of the tower (See Attachment C: Proposed Communications Tower).No stealth techniques have been used in the design of the tower, antenna, and lighting terminals to minimize adverse effects including visual impacts on the landscape and adjacent properties. The applicant indicates the antennas must be directed toward the broadcast signal to serve their intended purpose. The siting of the tower is at this location is in the only suitable location located outside of the flood plain when factoring in existing conditions and setback requirements. Existing trees on the site or in the vicinity are affected by the proposed design. The monopole design is relatively thin at less than 21 inches in diameter, however concealment of the antennas on the tower is not feasible as described by the applicant. Conclusions: Minimizing the appearance of a new tower is goal of the ordinance's design standards. Towers are typically taller than abutting uses in all areas of the City, including this area where there are two story homes to the east. However, to the west and north the area is open/natural areas related to ISU land and Squaw Creek. The tower will be visible from the residential property to the east, but its appearance from vantage points along Lincoln Way do to its setback from the road and intervening trees. The proposed location on the site address the efforts to minimize impacts on the surrounding and the Cell Site Standard (III) can be found to be met. (iv)Conduit or cable must be concealed on towers with externally mounted equipment. Findings of Fact: The cable for the tower is externally mounted on the tower from the ground level to the top of the tower. This is contrary to the City's standards. Conclusions: Staff recommends a condition to modify the design to include full concealment of the cable and wiring, either internally or within matching conduit. With this condition the project can be found to meet Cell Site Standard (IV.) (v) The use of internally mounted or flush mounted technology is encouraged when adjacent to residential areas, prominent commercial areas and prominent entryways to the city. 7 Findings of Fact: The antenna, and the spline ball ionizer lightning terminals are mounted on the outside of the tower. No internally or flush mounted technology has been used in the proposed design. The tower is located in a residential zone that includes two-family and single-family dwellings in close proximity to the proposed tower. It abuts open space to the east and north. Conclusions: The applicant indicates that other than the use of the monopole to minimize its appearance, they are unable to internally mount the equipment. An internally or flush mounted design is more desirable in this area than the external option, but it is not technically feasible. Additionally internally mounted equipment would require a wider diameter pole to fit the equipment. (f) Air Safety. Support structures 200 feet in height or taller, or those near airports, shall meet all Federal Aviation Administration regulations Findings of Fact: The proposed tower height is 79 feet, plus lighting arrestors. The Federal Aviation Administration regulations would not apply. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (fl• (g) Separation Requirements. Towers exceeding 50 feet in height, except those incorporation stealth techniques, shall be place at minimum one-quarter mile apart. Wireless facilities in right-of-way are not subject to separation requirements. Findings of Fact: The nearest tower is a 129 foot tall tower located at 600 Maple Avenue, which is more than one half mile from the subject property. In the past a temporary tower has been permitted on a property south of the site along 4ch Street approximately 1,400 feet away, this tower is no longer present. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (g)• (h) Access. All access to wireless communications sites must be hard surface(PCC or HMA) unless approved otherwise subject to a special use permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Placement of a tower shall not affect the use or access to required parking of a principal use on site. Findings of Fact: The current site has a legal nonconforming gravel driveway that leads to the existing building. The applicant proposes to pave the driveway from Lincoln Way with concrete for the first twenty feet, and with asphalt for the remaining portion of the drive leading to the proposed fence and gate. Vehicles used by MetroNet personnel to visit the site will have space to park inside the fence. No additional front yard paving is permitted. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Cell Site Standard (h). Special Use Permit General Standards. (i) Be harmonious with and in accordance with the general principles and proposals of the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) of the City. Findings of Fact: The neighborhood in which the communications tower is proposed, is 8 an older residential area that provides a broad range of housing choices, including single- family detached, two-family, and multiple-family residences. Occupancy includes a mix of both owner-occupied and rental units. The LUPP supports conservation of this type of residential area in the community as part of the "Urban Core." Use of the site has historically been for a use other than residential, and for a more public purpose involving city utilities next to the residential use on the fringe of the neighborhood. The proposed use does not reduce the range of housing choices, nor does it limit maintenance of the older housing stock in the community, and continues use of the site as a facility to serve a broader area of the community. The site also has frontage along Lincoln Way and is within the general planning area of the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan. There are no specific issues identified for the site within the Corridor Plan, in general the Plan supports investment in the Oak Riverside neighborhood with additional housing options, transportation system changes and aesthetic enhancements to the roadway. This site itself is not conducive to residential development due to a number of limitations on building placement and access. The tower location does not directly impact the issues described within the LUPP or Lincoln Way Corridor Plan, although it will be visible at time from Lincoln Way. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use does meet General Standard (i) for a Special Use Permit. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed. Findings of Fact: Approval of a Special Use Permit allows a tower to be constructed that exceeds the maximum permitted height for a principal building in the "UCRM" zoning district, which is 40 feet, or three stories, whichever is lower. The height of the proposed tower (79 feet, plus lighting arrestor) exceeds the height of any other structure in the neighborhood. The design proposed by the applicant is the best location on the site for such a facility and it includes the lowest profile design available, but will have externally mounted equipment. Setbacks and existing vegetation located off site help to mitigate its appearance from the west, but there is limited opportunities to create additional screening to the east for the immediately abutting three properties. Conclusions: Due to the fringe neighborhood location, setbacks from abutting properties, and existing vegetation the tower can be found to be consistent in reference to the character of the general vicinity referenced in General Standard (ii) for a Special Use Permit. Not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future uses in the same general vicinity. Findings of Fact: MetroNet has performed a structural analysis using O-Calc pole loading software, as described in this report. The proposed location of the tower is outside of the floodway and floodway fringe (100-year flood plain) and will not be exposed to unique structural impacts of direct flood currents. The overall height of the structure could be disturbing to existing and future uses in the same general vicinity. Conclusions: Without the use of stealth techniques, or antennae that are flush mounted to the tower, the applicant's proposal does not meet General Standard (iii) for a Special Use Permit. 9 (iv) Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities, and/or schools. Findings of Fact: This property is adequately served by essential public facilities. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets General Standard (iv) for a Special Use Permit. (v) Not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities or services. Findings of Fact: There will be no additional public costs for public facilities or services to accommodate the proposed use. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets General Standard (v) for a Special Use Permit. (vi) Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Findings of Fact: None of the disturbing factors noted above should result from this site or conduction of the tower. The only traffic to the site will be staff accessing the building on the site, and there will be no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors as result of this use. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets General Standard (vi) for a Special Use Permit. (vii) Be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone in which it is proposed to locate such use. Findings of Fact: The zoning designation of the subject property is "UCRM" (Urban Core Residential Medium Density) with an O-E Overlay (Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay). This zoning district is intended to accommodate and conserve the existing medium-density, one- and two-family residential properties that exist in the Urban Core near the Downtown. The predominant land use pattern is one- and two-family structures, with several existing apartment dwelling structures that create the character of this portion of the City. The O-E Overlay is in relation to the floodway that traverses the west side of the property, but no improvements are proposed within the overlay. Permitted uses in the "UCRM" zone include residential, religious institutions, and personal wireless communication facilities, among others. The single-family dwellings are permitted, without any additional approval needed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment nor by the City Council. Two-family dwellings, single-family attached dwellings (2 units only), and apartment dwellings (12 units or less) are permitted only if they existed at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted in May, 2000. The religious institutions, and personal wireless communication facilities are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It is not the intent of the 'UCRM" zone to allow additional two-family, single-family attached dwelling, and apartment dwellings than what existed in May, 2000. However, the use of land in areas zoned as "UCRM' is designed to accommodate religious institutions and personal wireless communication facilities, as such uses meet the criteria to locate on property within the zone. Placement of the tower is not contrary to the range of uses intended for the zone. 10 Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets General Standard (vii) for a Special Use Permit. Residential Zone Standards. (i) Not create excessively higher levels of traffic than the predominant pattern in the area and not create additional traffic from the proposed use that would change the street classification and such traffic shall not lower the level of service at area intersections. Findings of Fact: The applicant states that, "One network technician service vehicle will access the site to commission new customers, install networking equipment or maintain equipment approximately once a day." Initial startup may have more activity compared to ongoing operations. One trip per day is no greater of an impact on traffic than that of properties occupied by single-family homes in the neighborhood. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (i) for a Special Use Permit. (ii) Not create a noticeably different travel pattern than the predominant pattern in the area. Special attention must be shown to deliveries or service trips in a residential zone that are different than the normal to and from work travel pattern in the residential area. Findings of Fact: Operation of the wireless communications tower will not follow the to and from travel pattern in the residential neighborhood; however the travel pattern of approximately one visit to the site each day will not create a noticeably different travel pattern. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (ii) for a Special Use Permit. (iii) Not generate truck trips by trucks over 26,000 g.v.w. (gross vehicle weight) to and from the site except for waste collection vehicles, food delivery vehicles, and moving vans. Findings of Fact: The operations related to the wireless communications use of the property will not include truck traffic by vehicles that exceed 26,000 g.v.w. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (iii) for a Special Use Permit. (iv) Not have noticeably different and disruptive hours of operation. Findings of Fact: The subject property is located on the outer edge of the neighborhood, next to the bridge that crosses Squaw Creek. There are no residential properties to the west across Squaw Creek, nor directly to the north across Lincoln Way. The adjoining property to the east (101 and 103 S. Riverside Drive), which is also accessed from Lincoln Way is a duplex with a four-car detached garage. Visits to the subject property by personnel of MetroNet, stated by the applicant to be approximately one visit per day, is far less disruption to the neighborhood that a residential property occupied by a duplex and a four-car detached garage. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (iv) for a Special Use Permit. 11 (v) Be sufficiently desirable for the entire community that the loss of residential land is justifiable in relation to the benefit. Findings of Fact: Use of the site has been for public utility purposes. Although the utility function of the site is no longer in operation, there is no loss of residential land to the community, since the property is not used for residential purposes. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (v) for a Special Use Permit. (vi) Be compatible in terms of structure placement, height, orientation, or scale with the predominate building pattern in the area. Findings of Fact: The applicant is not proposing any changes to the height, orientation, nor scale of the existing principle building on the site. The tower is an accessory structure and not a principle building. The tower as described above does exceed the 40-foot height limit of the zone, which is permissible with approval of a Special Use Permit. Towers themselves are not in scale to their surroundings by the nature of the use, however the placement on this site is consistent with or exceeds prevailing setbacks of homes in the area. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (vi) for a Special Use Permit. (vii) Be located on the lot with a greater setback or with landscape buffering to minimize the impact of the use on adjacent property. Findings of Fact: The proposed location of the communications tower is on the west side of the existing building, furthest from the houses along S. Riverside Drive. There are no houses west, and directly north of the site, which is land owned by Iowa State University. Residential properties on the west side of Riverside Drive that are adjacent to the site include the duplex at 101 and 103, the single-family dwelling at 107, and the single-family dwelling at 115 S. Riverside Drive. There are thirteen residential properties east of the site along S. Riverside Drive. The vacant land is owned by Iowa State University, the City of Ames, and a parcel of land that includes approximately 4.5 acres at the end of the street, and zoned as "A" (Agricultural). The tower will be visible from the rear yards of properties on the west side of S. Riverside Drive. A six-foot high cedar wood fence, with a locked gate for vehicular access to the site is proposed to surround the existing building, and the proposed tower on the site to provide security and screening of the base station (existing building), and the base of the tower. The impact of the tower will be limited for the properties owned by Iowa State University, which are almost entirely located within the 100-year flood plain for Squaw Creek. The impact of the tower will be greatest for those properties located along the west side of S. Riverside Drive, particularly those that are adjacent, or have rear yards that abut Squaw Creek. Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (vii) for a Special Use Permit. Some additional landscaping could be required as a condition in the front yard of the site, but due to the location of the existing building it would be difficult to add landscaping along the east property line to create a landscape screen in addition to the setback. (viii) Be consistent with all other applicable standards in the zone. Findings of Fact: The use is allowable within the UCRM zoning district and it meets or exceeds the minimum wireless facility tower standards with the exception of requiring 12 concealment of cabling. Stealth design is encouraged. but not able to be accomplished due to the reception needs for an exterior mounted antennae The height of the tower exceeds UCRM's 40 foot height limit, but this is permissible through the approval of the Special Use Permit to address the unique attributes of a communication tower. Conclusions Therefore, it can be concluded that the use meets Residential Standard (viii) for a Special Use Permit with conditions. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the Special Use Permit for a communications tower with antennas at 1420 Lincoln Way. based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, with the following conditions: a.) Modify the tower design to conceal cabling per the requirements of Section 29.1307(8) of the Zoning Ordinance. b.) Work with staff to add front yard landscaping, including trees and shrubs or grasses. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the Special Use Permit for a communications tower with antennas at 1420 Lincoln Way, based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, with additional conditions. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny the Special Use Permit for a communications tower. if the Board finds and concludes: a) That the proposed Special Use Permit is not consistent with adopted policies and regulations, or b) That the Special Use Permit will impose impacts that cannot be reasonably mitigated, or, c) That the proposed communications tower does not meet the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may continue this request to a future meeting of the ZBA for to allow the applicant to revise the proposal to mitigate any identified impacts or to meet all minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #1 with the conditions noted. However, in the event that the Board does not find the proposed tower to meet the general or residential standards of the Special Use Permit due to the overall design of the tower, the application would need to be denied as Alternative #3 as the applicant has indicated and alternative height or design would not meet their needs. 13 Attachment A: Location Map f A r`:r It 1420 Lincoln Way i iNro:N V.AY— - ff ► ,t, `'` i.a s ; wLU ,!24 ,,1y" �' ,11�'�P dn'�; rL�l�• -0 T ,4"'+ Kt_ �J 3% 133 V. � k..,, �` � '� •t(a- � �A`e -fir r 4 � i 'K 7 1 9" Y •. a R . Location Map 1420 Lincoln Way r — 0 4rj 90 180 270 Feet 14 Attachment A Birdseye view to the south, ••• - Earth '� � � t. ^�� t •� rho, '•,�� - ,lit I .4 "rY ~•� tt - �.� ~ _ � 4 ANTENNA STEEL UTILITY POLE PLACEMENT SITE PLAN LINCOLN WAY CONSTRUCT PCC DRIVE TIED EXISTING CONCRETEZ TO EXISTING PCC DRIVE APRON U) DRIVE APRON RO0 N w r-48.6,_ EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK w(9 LL x a (D EJ )l 122.N0'� BOUNDARY NOTE: I MINIMUM DISTANCE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION(BFE) Z 20'ROW E BASE OF REGULATORY Ft OODWAY Lu I BETWEEN THE WWI EASEMENT 20 THE SUPPORT POLE AND 12 DO*VIDE ANY PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE EOUAL TO 50% P _PR OF THE ANTENNA 0 HEIGKT. CL PARCEL ID-. v 2. NO GRADING OR D9.10-12e-010 7 W CLOSED SLAT FENCING[SHALL OCCUR 0 12WOE CEDAR V400D WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIP ZONING:UCRM 3 CONSTRUCT PCC 101 URBAN CORE R- SWING GATE ASPHALT DRIVEWAY WITHIN 2(r W j ES ROW IN ACCORDANCE MED DENSITY OF SUDA 7030.101 0 )*,<o 20 40 ------ TH CLOSED i3 r 14'W CLOSED SLAT SCALE FEET SLAT CEDAR I CEDAR WOOD DOUBLE WOOD FENCE II SWING GATE co 3-SIDES 1420 79'ABOVE GROUND LEVEL STEEL EMBEDDED 39.50' ANTENNA UTILITY POLE 10.2 LOODPLA SERVICE VEHICLE PARKING I Q. EXISTING WOOD D. D. 2V WL FENCE EASEMENT PROPOSED w PERMANENT CL§ J; ca �107 Wil SURFACE WATERV) DRAINAGE 20.W t-u �.�0.0 - W1. sit FLOWAGE AND EASEMENT -flSE NT WATER MAIN 0 EASEMENT w 44, 01 PROPOSED ELECTRIC FASEMENT IAR, L lm7 NOTES 1. POLE SHAFT.GOVFRNING REACTIONS 00•NJ T MOWN, 120L T- PS (S ` uMrr � -4 �i 2 COLMONENTIDENTIFICATION TAGLOCATIONS -AC:5�u _ DIGIT ML INDIC TE SE Off CRCE OF SUSSEOUENT �—Ult$MI:IIIY DIGITS WILL INDICATE SEQUENCE OF MANUFACTURE r _ J. ASSEMBLY MD ERECTION GUIDELINES SEEVALMONT SPL-CE —_,� SRAJOINTJACKING FORCE FTGUiDEIINE Iroz -N T St IP JOINT JACKING F(MCE W MA%SI't ICF T— I 3 M0 - MAXIMUM 00F 1UM 90000. LU W U• 3. _ MIK Z❑ Q rrlr .r--U BF AO� 1 � � -J J bsj�b D:O E ya , I WZ{. ...,.L.ae c....r REFER TO ELEVATION VIEW FOR MINMIM AND EU O MAXIMUM SPLICE VALUES NOTE. INSTALL CAP BEFORE SHIPPING W 0 ~ - - s. 45100' E SPUME BALL IONIZER 0 0 LIGHTNING TERMINALS RIII G=- N'A I=NIAI GFR HUNK I OS) sTN y ' -WADE UHF AfG7na scat a6YYmr she ^O >"+ ANTENNA 1Y 69/S MYL ! SLC M;v a.vYR Y__ 6w I Orrrr.rdr - ` L --wADEVHF - - a HIGHBAND ANTENNA W VA 7 11r$ - J go_ UNIVERSAL PIPE P MOUNT UPC 2 =YALMUN Oi Sf]71PT:CM O _ AJI nA'tilNA�• V NI I (� S'AINLESS STFI'1 G C STRAPS E - COAX CABLE SUPPORT 2 a 47.er , A ........ $$ �j .0 y W 8 - I Q _ ' FILE I -1 _ MY JTM D NW OR "Will NYC]2 G 'I ` A G n.w dr1 n - LL Ij ' R NCHr Rru ]x son p u ASS COOC(1) CLASS$ND (A)_s_ V401 90cz I L am ll.00' 9C C1 NGJnO. it iD JDIn:, SNP -- 0]-1'-n NCM ,rrvliN -NFORMATTCN Lw _...-_- .. . I I M I IJ I I NBTH BASF fMl TCP OD i HL MA1_ ' L 1 4i' R.00' ?7 iO" 13.53' C I33' AD 2 6D 951 ELEVATION VIEW 7 45'- 0.00' :4.28' 6.00" C T33_ AFA 2 66 K51 I 11-12 _ 14s1 u � I = E 1 �I I fl 4 I I I� Ii ac F i i (D Ujj - — FRONT ELEVATION HEW '■tyil� U 1 t rr ■-rr■■m■wan■ 1 1 ma R■5�'PYII LL.. LLTIL la® rr Am 1'06f � 1'r 1gTK■01�6 A r C1G (n 0 ' r-0-QG m I co CL N/ 0IT a Yr■Om v+W! a gum to rr rust m+[rrr atsan Q y } e•.r t+ooc rcn +r rr•+fmm■atos r at. � W U x Yr t000 swan rr roar W J .m Isar WAM WW -C ntma all" O V Qs� .'a. a rool■p rt scwuj O�2s-'n t. 1LL mm R R m.+M+n[WA r U f1Q o�cC�x,K ova.w[�s.wr+�m Rwrt J I■■m■oIm magic a o.,�w.c }{{ i k MIYOY R R IOI mHu vavMunil U��3 attom�am tnw*.o can snm ru1 cc�w ro u.I.ocn e+ g t�iso■+.■a ro■ca+nnm a Kzow«a wm rw..Kvrc+n srtorwmrs i m+o+scar.awwcz. ,TIMBER SOUND ATTENUATION +v+