HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Public Response Emails Page 1 of 4
Fw: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit For MetroNet Tower As It Fails To Meet Evaluation
Criteria
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
12/30/2019 08:40 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
4 Attachments
Q
Special Use Permit General&Residential Zone Standards.pol backyard-kids playing..ipg backyard-family.JPG 107 S Riverside Dr.jpg
Rachel,
Please forward this email, including all attachments, to members of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment for their meeting to be conducted on January 8, 2020. The agenda item is a Special
Use Permit for a communications tower on the property at 1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
Aig W Ames -
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I - Caring People- Quality Programs- Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 12/30/2019 08:33AM -----
To: "Ray D Anderson" <randerson(cbcity.ames.ia.us>, "Kelly Diekmann"
<kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us>, sschainker@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Robert Howell" <robertlewishowellOgmail.com>
Date: 12/30/2019 07:20AM
Subject: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit For MetroNet Tower As It Fails To Meet
Evaluation Criteria
(See attached file: Special Use Permit General & Residential Zone Standards.pdf)
(See attached file: backyard - kids playing.jpg)
(See attached file: backyard - family.JPG)
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppDataiLocal/Temp/notesFFF692/—,�N.ebO871.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 4
(See attached file: 107 S Riverside Dr.jpg)
Dear Ray, Kelly, and Steve -
Good morning. Hope you had a nice weekend.
I am the owner of 107 S Riverside Dr and am writing in regards to the proposed 79-foot tower
installation at 1420 Lincoln Way and wish to register my opposition to it.
I only learned of this proposed tower last week from a neighbor, even though I am an adjacent
property owner. My understanding is that discussions have been going on for months without
informing the nearby property owners (one discussion at city council that wasn't announced
beforehand and others behind closed meetings at city offices), which I believe isn't a transparent
process and should be reviewed.
That being said, I would like to express the reasons that I oppose the tower which are aligned
with the ZBA evaluation criteria per the information that I received from a very helpful Ray
Anderson, Ames city planner. I will include an executive summary of my opinion here along with
additional details below.
The tower will be in close proximity to quiet residential neighborhoods, churches and to the
beautiful natural green space (Stuart Smith Park/Squaw Creek) in Ames. The installation of the
tower poses health risks and devaluation of real estate (among other issues). The plan to build
the tower was put into motion without the input or knowledge of nearby residents.
Why Should ZBA Vote No To A Special Use Permit?
I will reference sections included in the attached document (Special Use Permit General &
Residential Zone Standards.pdf).
Starting with the General Standards area, the presence of a tower FAILS to meet five of the
seven evaluation criteria.
1. Section 4(a)(i): The proposed tower is not in accordance with the Land Use Plan Policy
(linked here) and therefore the ZBA should not approve. Specifically from the Land Use
Plan Policy, communication towers are not considered "environmentally-friendly" (goal #3)
as both the construction and operations will have a negative impact on the surrounding
area (see research below). In addition, the construction of a tower adjacent my property
would not be aligned with goal #10 in the Land Use Policy. The house on my property was
built in 1900, has one of what people people is the oldest tree in Ames, and is considered
one of the significant historic buildings in Ames (and Iowa). Building a 79-foot tower mere
feet away from the house would greatly impact the historical nature of the property.
2. Section 4(a)(ii): I believe we can all agree that a 79-foot tower in a residentially zoned
area will not be harmonious in appearance with the indicated character of the general
vicinity AND the tower's presence would change character of the area.
3. Section 4(a)(iii): In order to pass the ZBA evaluation criteria, the tower should not be
hazardous to existing or future use of the general area. The health risks of a
communications tower in a residential area are potentially severe, especially to young
children and elderly (see research below). Even though MetroNet claims the tower will only
receive transmissions once you approve a special use permit for a tower the company will
have the option to use the tower for any purpose in the future. I encourage you not risk
the health of Ames residents today and in the future.
4. Section 4(a)(vi): The installation and operations of a tower could be detrimental to a
person and general welfare. Although radiation was not included in this criteria (as I
imagine it was overlooked), the threat of radiation clearly could be considered detrimental
as described in the previous point and research below.
S. Section 4(a)(vii): Placing a tower in a residentially zoned plot of land is not consistent with
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/"I'emp/notesFPF692/—web087Lhtm 1/24/2020
Page 3 of 4
the intent and purpose of the Zone.
Furthermore, the presence of a tower FAILS to meet at least six of the eight criteria:
1. Section 4(b)(ii - iv): Tower facilities require maintenance that may be performed at any
time, day or night. We will see an increase in trucks and service personnel that will be an
additional unnecessary public nuisance. Additionally, the operation of a generator and
cooling systems is quite likely to increase noise levels especially for those living close to and
in the building, and the back-up diesel generators will add to air pollution in our
neighborhood.
2. Section 4(b)(v): Studies have shown that buyers pay 20% less for houses located near
communication towers. It's a matter of opinion, but my belief is that the reduction of
property value for an entire neighborhood (Oak-to-Riverside) is not justifiable as compared
to the benefit.
3. Section 4(b)(vi): A 79-foot tower is not compatible in terms of height or scale in relation to
the building pattern in the area.
4. Section 4(b)(vii): The proposed lot for the tower is a small space. In my opinion, there
isn't enough space to meet the requirements (setback, landscaping) to minimize the impact
of adjacent properties.
In conclusion, I thought I should share a Facebook memory that popped up yesterday. This was
from 2017 when me and my kids were playing football in the backyard. I think this picture really
puts into perspective how close the proposed 79-foot tower would be to the residential area and
how it would impact the intent of residential zoning. I've also attached a picture of the
neighborhood kids playing in the backyard which helps to show the distance.
Thank you for your concern and support. I would appreciate if you could confirm receipt to
ensure my message was delivered. Please reach out should you have any questions.
Robert Howell
107 S Riverside Dr, Ames
Research For Reference
Health Concerns
Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation (one tower), there is evidence of
damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed
immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, fatigue, sleep disturbance and
numerous other serious illnesses.
For example, in "The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the
Incidence of Cancer" by Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit
(Published in Umwelt•Medizin•Gesellschaft 17,4 in 2004), the researchers found a fourfold
increase in cancer rates amongst people living within 350 meters (1148 feet) of a cell phone
tower. Amongst women there was a tenfold increase.
In 2011, The World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified EMR (microwave radiation) as a possible carcinogen to humans (the same
classification as DDT and lead) based on an increased risk for glioma (a malignant type of brain
cancer).
In 2015, Morgan, Miller, Sasco and Davies published a paper in the International Journal of
Oncology titled "Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a
probable human carcinogen (2A)." The title says it all in this case.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/"I'cinp/notcsFFl-692/--webO871.htm 1/24/2020
Page 4 of 4
In the past five years alone, about 1,800 new scientific papers have been published that show
adverse health effects. Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the
telecommunications industry's own study, which was mandated by congress, confirms that
exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is "potentially the biggest health
insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat
than cigarette smoking and asbestos.
There is robust evidence that children are more at risk. Children have thinner skulls and the
immaturity of their central nervous systems puts them at greater risk. See, for example, Morgan,
Kesari, and Davis, 2014, "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The
consequences", published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure.
Environmental Concerns
Trees are harmed by radiofrequency radiation. A 4-year experiment by Waldmann-Selsam et al
(2016) clearly demonstrated, with accurate RF emission testing, cell tower radiation causing the
death of nearby trees over time. He notes, "These results are consistent with the fact that
damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the
whole tree over time." These are truly alarming findings and serve as a dire warning on further
wireless expansion. Wildlife are susceptible to harm from manmade ambient electromagnetic
fields. Researchers are now attributing RFR from cellular telecommunications to be a contributing
cause of bee "colony collapse disorder", insect disappearance, the decline in house sparrows in
London, as well as the steady deterioration of the worlds bird population with now than 40% of
bird species under critical threat. Scientists note a serious lack of radiation monitoring and
protocols to study the impacts and call for precaution in the placement of cell towers and further
expansion of wireless broadband. In the United States, Section 704 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 does not allow consideration of environmental effects in the placement of cell towers.
Devaluation of Real Estate
In March, 2014 the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy's survey "Neighborhood
Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found that an overwhelming
majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a
building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it.
Studies by Dr. Sandy Bond, Ph.D. have shown that a cell phone tower negatively affects the real
estate values of homes surrounding it. Depending on proximity to the cell phone tower property
values can be reduced by up to 20% for properties within 200-300 meters of the tower. (See for
example https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/cell-tower-installation-plans-lower-
property-values/).
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Tenip/notesl-Fl,692/—webO871.htm 1/24/2020
(6) Minor Changes. Minor changes to the approved Major Site Development Plan may occur after
staff of the Department of Planning and Housing has determined that the proposed changes are minor in nature,and
revised plans have been provided to the Department for purposes of keeping the Major Site Development Plan
current.Minor Changes are defined as changes that:
(a) Do not constitute a change in the land use of the project;or the overall layout and design;
(b) Do not increase the density or intensity of use, and the number of buildings or a change in
dwelling unit types;
(c) Does not change the overall landscape design of the M-SDP project;or
Change the height or placement of buildings,or other major site features.
(Ord. 4279,11-15-16)
Sec.29.1503. SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
(1) Purpose. This Section is intended to provide a set of procedures and standards for specified
uses of land or structures that will allow practical latitude for the investor or developer, but that will, at the same
time, maintain sound provisions for the protection of the health, safety, convenience and general welfare. This
Section permits detailed review of certain types of land use activities that, because of their particular and unique
characteristics,require special consideration in relation to the welfare of adjacent properties and to the community as
a whole. Land and structural uses possessing these characteristics may be authorized within designated Zones by
the issuance of a Special Use Permit. This Section also provides for the use of Single Family Dwellings, Two
Family Dwellings,and Single Family Attached Dwellings by a Functional Family.
(2) Submission Requirements. An application for a Special Use Permit, filed in accordance with
Section 29.1503,shall be accompanied by:
(a) A statement of supporting evidence that the general and specific standards as delineated
in this Article will be fulfilled;
(b) A Site Plan meeting all the submittal requirements stated in Section 29.1502(2);and
(c) Preliminary plans and specifications for all construction,as applicable.
(3) Procedure for Special Use Permits.
(a) Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall consider the
application at a public hearing conducted as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of the public
hearing shall be made by mail, posting, and publication, in accordance with Sections 29.1500(2)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii)
above. The Zoning Board of Adjustment must approve, deny, or modify the Special Use Permit application within
60 days of the public hearing.
(Ord.No. 3815, 12-21-04; Ord. No. 3983, 2-10-09)
(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
subsections (b), (c), and (d) 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 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
Sup 2019-1 Chapter 29,Article 15 Page 8 01-01-19
traffic,noise,smoke, fumes,glare,or odors;and
(vii) 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 in a residential zone 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;
(i i) 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;
(iii)Not generate truck trips by trucks over 26,000 pounds g.v.w(gross vehicular weight)
to and from site except for food delivery vehicles,waste collection vehicles and moving vans;
(Ord. No. 4159, 9-24-13)
(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 predominate 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 all other applicable standards in the zone.
(c) Commercial Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application
for the purpose of determining that each proposed use located in a commercial zone 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) Be compatible with the potential commercial development and use of property
planned to occur in area;
(i i) Represent the sufficiently desirable need for the entire community that the loss
of commercial land is justifiable in relation to the benefit; and
(iii) Be consistent with all other applicable standards in the zone.
(d) Special Use Permits for Functional Families.
(i) Purpose. This Section is to provide for the regulation of Functional Families
that may request to reside in a Single Family Dwelling,Two Family Dwelling or Single Family Attached Dwelling.
The regulations are also intended to prohibit larger groups of unrelated persons from residing in Single Family
Dwellings,Two Family Dwellings, or Single Family Attached Dwellings. Larger groups of unrelated persons have
frequently shown to have a detrimental affect on Single Family neighborhoods since larger groups of unrelated
persons do not live as a family unit and do not have significant economic or emotional ties to a neighborhood.
(i i) Standards of Functional Families. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall
review each application for a Special Use Permit for a functional family as provided for in this section after having
determined that the application meets the following standards:
a. The functional family shares a strong bond or commitment to a single
purpose(e.g.religious orders);
b. Members of the functional family are not legally dependent on others
not part of the functional family;
C. Can establish legal domicile as defined by Iowa law;
d. Share a single household budget;
e. Prepare food and eat together regularly;
f. Share in the work to maintain the premises;and
g. Legally share in the ownership or possession of the premises."
(e) Conditions. The Board may impose such additional conditions as 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.
(Ord.No. 3591, 10-10-00; Ord. No. 3983, 2-10-09)
Sup 2019-1 Chapter 29,Article 15 Page 9 01-01-19
t
PM, 44
Iq
r
0..
s
1�
t`
r
�f
•rye. ',; �j •�- �.
' , ,' •� •, fie• � ! �.-� llJll�A; ,� ��1��.�j�Lc � � � t. �+V���.t` � � rat `'
7 �
IN
v
R JrA
.►+ � F-T
---
r �
�I
F
-_1.r
+ J� r ✓�Y}�♦ i [
,,. r� [+➢ 'fir;
i
�` R f10�t, I •r
ii`�•a
u
t
1 y
-
ties
Page 1 of 3
Fw: OPPOSE Special Use Permit For INIctroNet Tower
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
12/30/2019 11:59 A M
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA ,COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
2 Attachments
l�l
backyard2JPS backyard-kids playingjpg
Rachel,
Please forward this email, including all attachments, to members of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment for thr,;r meeting to be conducted on January 8, 2020. The agenda item is a Special
Use Permit for a c..mmunications tower on the property at 1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
AC.TY OF
�� A m es'"
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 ma ' 515.239.5404 faz
rnderson@city.am es.ia.us1 City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes. rg I -Caring Peop' _ - Quality Programs - Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 12/30/2019 11:55AM -----
To: randersonC: y.ames.ia.us, "Kelly Diekmann" <kdiekmannCabcity.ames.ia.us>,
sschainker(-@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Emily Howell" <emilysmother_showellCagmail.com>
Date: 12/30/2019 11:31AM
Subject: OPPOSE Special Use Permit For MetroNet Tower
Good afternoon Pay, Kelly, and Steve -
I am the owner of 107 Riverside Dr in Ames and would like to voice my opposition to the
proposed 79-foot tower at 1420 Lincoln Way. Do not recommend a special use permit and please
vote NO to the permit.
L-- file:///C:/Users/Racli�l.Knutsen/ikppD.ila/Local/Temp/notesl�I-F692/-web9345.htin 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 3
The tower isn't appropri,-ite for a re�id.2ntially zoned property or area for the following reasons:
1. The tower is not in accordance with the Land Use Policy
2. A 79-foot tower is not harmonious in appearance with the general vicinity - residential,
nature, and park area just across Squaw Creek.
3. The health risks of a tower receiving and emitting radiation are unknown at best and could
be harmful -o Arr s re,-. -'ent : genera' ns to come.
4. The tower is not consistent with the residuntially zoned plot and intended purpose of the
land.
In addition, the tower doesn't meet any of the evaluation criteria for residentially zoned areas
that you have to ;pass in order to offer a special use permit:
1. Vehicles will come and go at odd hours. Currently, there is very limited traffic to the
water treatment l-wilding. We RnRFLY s— anyone there.
2. Property ,es v. . d crease end therefe , the new use of the land is not justifiable.
3. The tower isn't compatible in terms of heinht or scale compared to the surrounding area.
I'm asking you to please do the right thing and not recommend / accept the special use permit for
the MetroNet tower.
Thank you so r,i. i for -our r--nsir'
Emily Howell
107 S Riverside nr, Ames
PS - I've included a few pictures below to give you perspective on how close the tower would be
to a residence and children playing. In addition, see how close it would be to my neighbors?M
Just a few feet.
file:///C:/Users/Raclicl.Knutsen/z\ppl),it,i/Local/Temp/notesl7FF692/—web9345.htm 1/24/2020
Page 3 of 3
a.
.. Alum76
/..: ►h
a
kt
7
r t
file:///C:/Usei 1 to Tcn :F6't2) -\vc)934.Iitm 1/24/2020
i Y
f
.+fir, r,� � ...1 � � __ i.�►i.• �T tti• ;� -
•.7i � �' �4s �' �`�•-sue' _' ._
YF+a+y,
a
.� w � fig� �� ��•+ Y til',�.,• `.�,r �s r'r''�s. i �, y
,
• `,`'. -• .,��f,,, '�., `F I'% it �''
-
t-
e
:i
Page 1 of 2
Fw: NO Power on Lincoln Highway!
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
12/31/2019 08:56 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA a COA
History: This message has been forwa: 1.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zonincc Board of Adjustme•it for their January 8, 2020 meeting
packet. The email received is addre si g the proposal to construct a communications tower at
1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
C: - t0i
P) n� .
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1 515.239.5404.;:r_c
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org ^ Caring People —Quality Programs " Exceptional Service ^'
-----ForwaAed by P-v D '\r( rrson/Cn 1 on 12/31/2019 0,':53AM -----
To: "randersonCc -y.ar,,: n a@c us' 'ersoity.ar •-s ia.us_>
From: "Paschke, Teresa A [AV C]" :schkeCiastat lu>
Date: 12/31/2019 08:46AM
Subject: NO Tower on Lincoln Hig',,.•. �y!
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I'm contacting you to communicate my opposition the proposed (79 foot!!) tower near
Squaw Creek. This is a ridiculous location for such tall structure—Ames' waterways
should be reserved as community assets used for i' iblic enjoyment and recreation (and
wildlife) and not for unsightly commercial ventures. Lincoln Highway is also an historical
roadway. Ames >c:' : ' Ir limong c )mm ,i ties located along this route by
limiting or o.:tric L.. ; ; trL: .tic th- Jds to the blight already existing at
many points throughout this cor c..,r (p,.:wr, shop , .;heck cashing, fast food signs, etc.).
file:/HC:/Users/]'achcl.Knutsen/Appl).it:i/Local/'I'emp/notesl-'!-'F692/—web9992.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
I am unable 'o attend the upc �r'n - mec.' -n iry 8 but want to go on record with
my opposition to tiie proposes PIot� oNet to..�-r p, j, LL at 142,) Lincoln Way.
Teresa Paschke
225 South Hazel Ave.
612-271-3232
Ifile:/HC:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/nhhl)at:t-'I.ocnl/'1'eninitiotesI -�P692/—web9992.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Proposed Tower in Oak-Riverside neighborhood
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
12/31/2019 10:4 Y AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D AndersondCOA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zoning Eoard of Adjustme it for their January 8, 2020 meeting
packet. The email received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications tower at
1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
Aoww P m e ,.;-
Ray Andersen
Planner
515.239.5400 main I 515.239.5404 f i.v
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usi City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I An es, IA 50010
www.CitVofAmeLorg I -Caring People - Quality Programs - Exceptional Service '"
-----Forv. d ! iy D Andc—o-ICOA on 12/31/2019 1' :47AM -----
To: "rande y.ames.i - --r , lerson@city.ame .ia.us>
From: "Blake:.,�y, Barbara J" <blakely':Liastate.eclu>
Date: 12/31/2019 09:16AM
Cc: "M:.yor' icil(,-Dcityofames.org" <f'- oY rCot!nrilr:-_'� ofames.org>, "jhaila@city.ames.ia.us"
<ihaila@city.ames.ia- .us>, "gbetcI-,t- _i y.amc_ . ;.0 " Ibetcher@city.ames.ia.us>,
"tgartin@city.ames.ia.us" <tgartin@�-city.ames.ia.us>, nartin@city.ames.ia.us"
<dmartinr`citv.am,,.ia.,,s>, "rL!^r'-:'-i)city.ames.ia.us" <iunck@city.ames.ia.us>,
"acorrieri")(-ity.ames.ia.us" <acorrk^ iacity.ames.ia.us>, "bbatt -hansen@city.ames.ia.us"
<bbeatty-i i,i!iz�en(wcity.ames.ia.us>
Subject: Prl:p sed Tower in Oak-Riverside neighborhood
live at 112 N. Riverside Drive, two houses from the corner of Lincoln Way and N. Riverside. The
proposed tower will be well within my sight and will consti:ute a blight on the neighborhood.
We are ile heavy game-day parking and traffic,
which, whit: . nlcCimcs cone ':)t, is L: Iderstandable given our location relative
file:///C:/Users. l_icIicl.Knutscn,'.\;gyp; 1. t.l notc� 10' , \� 9560.1itm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
to Hilton and Jnck Trice.. Ilowever, p'.-in, a 79-foot tewe.r I or: neighborhood is not reasonable.
did not purchase my home 13 years aj;o to view a comma cations tower from my yard. The City
needs to find a location for the tower that will not affect many people in an established, residential
neighborhood.
Please take into account the qu;rlity ,,f life of those who lip in the Oak-Riverside neighborhood.
Dr. Barbara Blakely
Associate Professor Emerita of rnglish
327 Ross I fall
Iowa State l►nivor-ity
http://wwsy.
file:///C:/Uscrs/RaclieLKnutsen/AppData%Local/Temp/notesl17692/—web9860.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 3
Fw: Re: Proposed Tower in Oak-Riverside neighborhood
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
12/31/2019 10:50 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January 8, 2020 meeting
packet. The email received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications tower at
1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
C: Y OF
m le s"
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 wain I 515.239.5404 fat
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue At tes, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org ^ Caring People - Quality Programs " Exceptional Service ^'
-----For,,�ia D A ic' .-on/COA on 12/31/2019 1C:49AM -----
To: "rang,,_ .amc-;.,. us" <randerson@city.ames-ia.us>
From: "Burke, Brianna R [ENGL]" <brburke@iastate.edu>
Date: 12/31/2019 09:35AM
Cc: "MayorCcuncil@eityofames.org" <MayorCouncil@cit Dfames.orQ>, "ihaila@city.ames.ia.us"
<ihaila@city.ames.ia.us>, "gbetcher!,acity.ames.ia.us" < _tbetcher@city.ames.ia.us>,
"tgartin@city.ames.ia.us" <tgartin@city.ames.ia.us>, "d nartin@city.ames.ia.us"
<dmartinno citya,mes.ia.s>, "riunck@city.ames.ia.us" <-iunck@city.ames.ia.us>,
"acorrieri@city.ames.ia.us" <acorrieri@city.ames.ia.us>, "bbeatty-hnnsen@city.ames.ia.us"
<bbeatty-hansenc,icity.�iines.ia.us>
Subject: Re: Proposed Tower in Oak-Riverside neighborhood
Hello,
I'm writirf, rh*,s eri�;l rnnr- —ing the communications tower proposed for 1420 Lincoln Way. I live at
118 N. Ri,. ar I Ichose this neighborhood r- cisely because of how quiet, peaceful,
and beoutifu. t A communications tower in this neigh'. -hood is ridiculous-- the blocks
file:///C:/Users,,i::rch�:l.Knutsen/.\ppData/Local/"hem.;'notesl :F692/-%�c1)7372.htin 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 3
surrounds-,;", our hone are residential and quiet. Our house faces the woods that run along the creek;
we choose this location because we knew the hnuse value would increase in value as long as the
neighborhood remained in the condition it is in. There are i lenty of locations surrounding Ames to
build a tower and no reason it needs to go right in the cer• r of a community of homes.
There is a lot c)` —scarch that shows that these to,.vers RE JCC PROPrRTY VALUE. (Here is just one of
those articles: _ =_//r(,searchexchange.iaao.org/assessm, nt journal/vol10/iss3/3/)
Reconsider. B:..... on this site is not a wise choice.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brianna Pu--
Brianna Burk-
Assoeic,,e , i
Envirorrmc.nt d A,rican ` 'inn 1'tu:,.
English Depar`.
Iowa State Ur
brburke@iastate.ec. i
From: Blakely, Barbara J <blakely@iastate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:16 AM
To: randersonn, city.a i,.us <nnderson@city.ames.ia.us>
Cc: M �r'o <May -Council^- tl.:ofames.c,Tg>; ihiil�^city.ames.ia.us
<]hai- ly -s.ia.us>; pb,,rher city mes.ia.us < ` etchers':�i mes.ia.m>; tgartin@city.ames.ia.us
<tgartin@city.ames_ia.us>;dmartin@city.ames.ia.us<drnartin{L :ity.ames.ia.us>; riunck@city.ames.ia.us
<rjunck@city.. �.i ,.us>; acorrieri@city.ames.ia.us <_-.orrieri _ity.amesJ 1.us>; bbeatty-
hansen@cit,•. i..l.us<bbeatty-hansen@city.ames.ia.us>
Subject: Pro; ver in Oak-Riverside neighborh d
I live at 112 rside Drive, two houses from the corner of Lincoln Way and N. Riverside. The
proposed to. I be well within my sight and will consti,ute a blight on the neighborhood.
We are a zoned re idential neighborhood. We already handle heavy game-day parking and traffic,
which, while somet"rnos concerning and inconvenient, is understandable given our location relative
to Hilt-n and 1-ck Tare. ilmvever, plac*,n a 79-frot tower i-i our neighborhood is not reasonable.
did nc : rrrc` lj r,,, t,nruo 1 3 ears ar•,, to viMN 1 cc�mmun'cations tnv.,e from my yard. The City
need. , ;in J..; f, r :�ie ,,jwer :',at will tic-. ; i`ect ( mare ire 'In an established, residential
neigh) : -`,o
Pleas , - • !',e grr,ility c ` 'ife of _.•.•ho liv, in the Oak-Riverside neighborhood.
Dr. Barbara f,..:.._ .y
file:///C:/users/It:ich�-I.Knui,;en/AppDat:i/l,ocal/"I'chin!notesi-l-'l�61)2/—N\,eli7372.htm 1/24/2020
I
Page 3 of 3
Assoc' i!e Pr,i`t-:snr I'm(.,rita of FngliOi
327 P—:s Mill
Iowa StIte 11!1:vvrSitv
http:/,
file:///C:/Users!l\).icliel.Kiititsen/Al-)i-il),it,t/l.oc,ilfl'ciiip/iiotes]:i-'1--6()2/—xveb7372.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Opposition to the approval of the special use permit for MetroNet to build a 79-foot tower in the
Oak-to-Riverside neighborhood.
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/01/2020 04:39 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January 8, 2020 meeting
packet. The email received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications tower at
1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
CITY OF
Ames "
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 far
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I —Caring People - Quality Programs - Exceptional Service ^'
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/01/2020 04:38PM -----
To: randersonOcity.ames.ia.us
From: "Carlette Paulson" <ciudpaulson@yahoo.com>
Date: 01/01/2020 12:08AM
Subject: Opposition to the approval of the special use permit for MetroNet to build a 79-foot
tower in the Oak-to-Riverside neighborhood.
Dear Ray,
My name is Carlette and I live in the Oak-to-Riverside neighborhood. I am writing you today to oppose
the approval of the special use permit for MetroNet to build a 79-foot tower in a residential area. I
believe this tower should not be approved for the following reasons:
o There are potentially harmful effects of the radiation that are not truly known at
this time which may pose numerous unknown health concerns in the future.
file:///C:/Users[Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—webO833.htm 1/24/2020
Pa e " oI 2
c The construction of a tower adjacent to an important environmental area is
concerning. There are sure to be negative consequences for Squaw Creek and the
surrounding park areas for years to come.
o As you know, research has shown that property values in the residential areas will
decrease in the future. Just like you do not have a desire to live next to a tower, home
buyers looking for houses in Ames would rather not live next to a tower and therefore
will not be looking to pay full price for homes in the Oak-to-Riverside neighborhood.
o The construction of a 79-foot tower in a residential area is not in line with the intended
use of the property. Further, I do not believe that the tower appearance would be in
line with the masterplan for Lincoln Way that the City has worked so hard to develop.
Thank you for your consideration.
Carlette Paulson
file:///C:[Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web0833.htm 1/24/2020
Page I of 1
Proposed Communications Tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/02/2020 11:58 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
1 Attachment
123_S_Riverside_Kathranne Knight_01-02-20.pdf
Rachel,
Please forward the attached letter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January 8, 2020
meeting packet. The letter received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications
tower at 1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
AMMk Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 far
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People - Quality Programs - Exceptional Service
file:///C:ILJsers/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/-web7076.htm 1/24/2020
January 2, 2020
To All Concerned,
I am writing to express my opposition to the special permit being sought by MetroNet regarding the property
at 1420 Lincoln Way.
The ZBA should vote No to a special use permit because MetroNet fails to, "Be harmonious with and in
accordance with the general principles and proposals of the Land Use Policy Plan of the city."
According to the LUPP, "The City of Ames aspires to enhancing Lincoln Way to recognize it as a place and
desirable area within the City that is contextual to its surroundings. The City of Ames objectives for enhancing
the Corridor include: Enhancing overall aesthetics and continuity of the Corridor with improved streetscapes
and gateways."
Erecting a 79' tower and operating a storage facility for fiber optic cable will not enhance aesthetics and is not
contextual to its surroundings. The surroundings include open spaces, parks, greenways, stream corridor and a
residential neighborhood.
l• _
3y 4
In addition, The Lincoln Way Corridor Plan states: "In terms of development, the Plan identifies strategic
opportunities for mixed-use, commercial, and residential development and redevelopment, with a focus on
improving the character of the corridor and providing greater living and retail options for residents.
Erecting a 79' tower and operating a storage facility for fiber optic cable will not improve the character of the
corridor, nor will it provide greater living or retail options for residents.
The intended character of the general vicinity is "a distinct residential neighborhood on Lincoln Way that
should be a point of local pride."—from the Land Use Policy Plan Documents.
The development plan for the oak-riverside area says, "This focus area plan illustrates how residential
redevelopment along Lincoln way can be done in a way that increases residential density, enhances the
character of the corridor, improves access and safety, supports pedestrians and bicyclists, and minimizes
impacts on existing residential block."
' _7
Erecting a 79' tower and operating a storage facility for fiber optic cable does not enhance the character of the
corridor, improve access and safety, support pedestrians and bicyclists, nor minimize impacts on existing
residential blocks. Erecting the tower will negatively impact the existing residential blocks by virtue of its
function and operation as a utility, physically fenced-in on the ground, and rising up 79' among the canopy of
trees along the creek.
In Land Use Policy Plan, Appendix A Vision-Statements; Technical Memorandum No. 2, it states, "...Our
planning and management priorities include the following: • Existing resource use maximization involving
more compatible intensification, conservation and preservation; • Transportation systems integration
including alternative modes; and, • Overall community integration and linkage through a parks and open
space system. Environment. Our vision of Ames by the year 2030, is one of a community whose design and
function are well integrated with the environment. In assuring environmental safety, stewardship and
attractiveness, we envision a community that protects its resources, conserves its energy and recycles its
products. Our environmental priorities include the following: • Natural streamway preservation and water
quality enhancement for supporting human and aquatic life; • Stormwater run-off management through land
use design and other protective measures; • Air quality preservation through the avoidance of pollutant
emitting uses; • Energy conservation through the use of more efficiently operating transportation systems and
alternative modes; • Vegetation maintenance and enhancement for its beautification, air cleaning, water run-
off reduction and climate modification qualities; and, • Natural resource areas conservation."
- t
- .s
These are just a few examples of where the special permit sought by Metronet is inconsistent with current
goals and policies of the City of Ames.
I urge all who have the ability to guide the placement of the telecommunications tower to find another
location that follows the stated land use policy plan.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Best,
Kathranne Knight
Kathranne Knight
123 S. Riverside Dr.
413-386-7386
kathrannek@yahoo.com
i
Pagel of 2
Fw: Note to ZBA members regarding proposed tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/02/2020 02:44 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
1 Attachment
lug
Note to ZBA re proposed tower construction at 1420 Lincoln Way Jan 2020.docx
Rachel,
Please forward this email, and attached letter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January
8, 2020 meeting packet. The letter received is addressing the proposal to construct a
communications tower at 1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
AOW Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usL City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I —Caring People - Quality Programs- Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/02/2020 02:41PM -----
To: "Ray D. Anderson" <randerson@city.ames.ia.us>
From: "Debra Lee" <deblee580yahoo.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 02:21PM
Cc: "Kelly Diekmann" <kdiekmann(&city.ames.ia.us>
Subject: Note to ZBA members regarding proposed tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
(See attached file: Note to ZBA re proposed tower construction at 1420 Lincoln Way Jan
2020.docx)
Good afternoon, Ray,
Please share the attached note with the ZBA members. I realize that I am writing this without having seen the staff
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web2933.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
report or details of the tower appearance. I have proceeded with providing these comments based on my general
sense of how I would feel about a tower of that height being located in close proximity to my own home.
Thank you for your assistance in forwarding these comments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment members.
Sincerely,
Debbie
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web2933.htm 1/24/2020
Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
I am writing to encourage your denial of the request for permission to construct a tower at 1420 Lincoln
Way.
I understand that towers are a necessary part of communication technology. However, we seem to
have reached a time when these towers are no longer a novelty. I believe that it is time for the
community to have a plan for tower location. Community property owners and residents should not be
hostage to tower placement wherever and whenever a piece of property is available.
In relation to this specific request, the proximity of the proposed tower to residential homes is a
significant concern. I believe that none of us would be positively receptive to construction of a tower so
close to our home. I believe that the property owners in this area are rightfully concerned about the
impact of the proposed tower on their enjoyment of their homes and the impact on potential appeal of
their property to a future home buyer.
I urge you to vote to deny this request.
Sincerely,
Debra Lee
214 S Maple Ave
Ames
Page 1 of 1
Fw: Tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/02/2020 02:50 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January 8, 2020 meeting packet.
The email received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications tower at 1420 Lincoln Way.
Thank you,
Ray
CITY OF
Ames-
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us L City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People-Quality Programs- Exceptional Service"
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/02/2020 02:48PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Kurt Plagge" <kurt@ecity.net>
Date: 01/02/2020 01:52PM
Subject: Tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray
My wife and I have been living at 133 S. Riverside Dr. for the past 30 years. We love this neighborhood
and the families that live in the area.
We would like to express our concern about the proposed communications tower. First and foremost, it is
not in accordance with the Land Use Policy. It is fruitless and wasteful to develop these plans only to
ignore them when the pressure is put on. Secondly, this part of Lincoln Way, a section of the original
Lincoln Highway, is a gateway to the university, a nice natural area, and shouldn't be allowed to be made
to look like an industrial zone. Surely MetroNet can find a more appropriate location for the tower.
We hope you understand our concerns and will act to promote a more pleasing, more natural
way forward. Thank you!
Kurt Plagge and Mary Brunet
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web9242.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 1
Fw: Zoning input
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/02/2020 03:04 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their January 8, 2020 meeting packet.
The email received is addressing the proposal to construct a communications tower at 1420 Lincoln
Way.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
A99W Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People -Quality Programs-Exceptional Service ^'
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/02/2020 03:03PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Dana Kline" <danalkline@gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 02:56PM
Subject: Zoning input
Mr. Anderson,
My family and I live on North 2nd Street, not far from the proposed location for the
new communication tower by MetroNet, and I want to strongly express our disapproval of
this proposal. There is not sufficient evidence available regarding the safety of this
type of technology existing so close to homes, and I believe the city would be putting
a significant portion of its population at risk by allowing the installation of this
tower in a neighborhood.
Please communicate our thoughts to the ZBA members, and consider joining us in
opposing this proposal.
Thank you,
The Kline Family
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web2639.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Opposition to proposed property sale, zoning changes and tower at Squaw Creek & Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:19 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the ZBA for their consideration.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
AMOW Am es',
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 far
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People- Quality Programs- Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:18PM -----
To: randersonO)city.ames.ia.us
From: "Joseph Leisz" <josephmleisz(d)gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 04:14PM
Subject: Opposition to proposed property sale, zoning changes and tower at Squaw Creek &
Lincoln Way
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed property sale, zoning
changes and tower at Squaw Creek & Lincoln Way. As a resident of the
neighborhood that will be most impacted from this proposal (I live
within 250 feet of the tower location) , I have not yet been informed
of this proposal by the City of Ames and instead have only heard about
it from neighbors. I believe this is a violation of the city planning
codes. I am opposed because the proposed tower is not in accordance
with the Land Use Policy. Indeed, it runs contrary to the expressed
directions of the City Council in discussion regarding the greater
Lincoln Way Improvement plans (adopted only a few years ago) that the
area is to be maintained as single-family residential neighborhood,
recognizing the 100+ year old home in the immediate area (my property,
file:///C:fUsers/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—webO846.htm 1/24/2020
I
Page 2 of 2
114 S Riverside, was built in 1900) . I am opposed to this plan
because it carries significant health risks, and would represent a
serious devaluation in the value of my property (negatively impacting
the status of my home mortgage, a home improvement loan I took out in
2019, and the resale value of my home) . I am opposed to this plan
because of the negative environmental impacts it would cause to Squaw
Creek and the surrounding neighborhood. The city just spent several
hundred thousand dollars in stream bank and stream bed stabilization
efforts -- work that would be negatively impacted by heavy equipment
needed to build a tower on this site. Soil compaction and pavement
would increase the runoff and potentially further destabilize the
creek and water-main that crosses there, and emissions/transmissions
from the tower itself will have a negative impact on birds, bats and
bees in the neighborhood. Additionally, I am opposed to the tower
because of the health risks identified by the World Health
Organization that have been associated with cell tower emissions. A
significant number of children live within the range where prolonged
exposure to these emissions would be considered harmful, and exposing
them to these transmissions for at least 16-18 hours (on school days) ,
and more time when school is not in session, is an unacceptable health
risk.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, and thank you
for relaying my opposition to this proposed property sale, zoning
changes and tower at Squaw Creek & Lincoln Way.
- Joe Leisz
515-291-4402
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—webO846.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 1
Fw: Communications tower
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:21 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this to the ZBA for their consideration.
Thank you,
Ray
CITY OF
Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue ( Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People —Quality Programs- Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:20PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Bob watson" <imtribob@gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 04:19PM
Subject: Communications tower
Hello Ray Anderson,
I live in the Oak-Riverside Neighborhood and also within 200 feet of the purposed MetroNet
Communications Tower. I am against the special use permit necessary for construction of the 79
foot tower. Please add my name to the list of Ames residents that are against the construction of
this tower in the purposed location.
Thanks a lot for your help!
Bob Watson
129 S Riverside Dr
Ames IA 50010-5961
515-290-1428
file:///C:/Users/Rache1.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web2896.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 1
Fw: 1420 Lincoln Way, Metronet
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:22 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
CITY OF
Ames -
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I - Caring People -Quality Programs- Exceptional Service ^'
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:21PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "deborah thurmond" <deborah.thurmond@icloud.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 04:26PM
Subject: 1420 Lincoln Way, Metronet
Ray, I would like to state my opposition to the special zoning request permit
being sought by MetroNet at the 1420 Lincoln Way property.
Thank you,
Deb Thurmond
515-686-1574
Sent from my iPad
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web4547.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 1
Fw: 1420 Lincoln Way, opposition to Metronet
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:22 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
CITY OF
Am e s-
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fa_r
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I - Caring People - Quality Programs- Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:22PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "darrell reeves" <dreeves643@gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 04:29PM
Subject: 1420 Lincoln Way, opposition to Metronet
> Ray, I would like to state my opposition to the special zoning request permit
being sought by MetroNet at the 1420 Lincoln Way property.
> Thank you,
> Darrell Reeves
> 515-657-3405
> Sent from my iPad
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web3506.htm 1/24/2020
Pagel of 3
Fw: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit For MetroNet Tower As It Fails To Meet Evaluation
Criteria
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:23 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
A— CITY OF
AMOW Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I —Caring People — Quality Programs— Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:23PM -----
To: rnderson@city.ames.ia.us, kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us, sschainker@city.ames.ia.us
From: "D Hendrickson" <hendrickson.home@gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 08:46PM
Subject: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit For MetroNet Tower As It Fails To Meet
Evaluation Criteria
Dear Ray, Kelly, and Steve,
I am the owner of 101 S Riverside Drive and am writing in regards to the proposed 79-foot tower installation
at 1420 Lincoln Way and wanted to let you know that I am opposed to it.
I found out about the proposed tower this week from my neighbor Robert Howell even though I am an
adjacent property owner. I just today received a notification of the January 8th meeting but didn't receive any
previous notifications although I heard discussions have been going on for months with one discussion at city
council that wasn't announced beforehand while others were closed meetings at city offices. Not a
transparent process at all and I believe should on it's own should be enough to stop the development.
The tower will be in close proximity to quiet residential neighborhoods, churches and natural green space
(Stuart Smith Park/Squaw Creek) in Ames. The installation of the tower poses health risks and devaluation of
real estate (among other issues).The plan to build the tower was put into motion without the input or
knowledge of nearby residents.
Thank you for listening and I would appreciate your support. Please reach out should you have any questions.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/-webO6O8.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 3
David Hendrickson
101 S Riverside Drive, Ames
Robert Howell summarized his objections which I have copied below and I agree with all points:
Why Should ZBA Vote No To A Special Use Permit?
I will reference sections included in the attached document (Special Use Permit General & Residential Zone
Standards.pdf).
Starting with the General Standards area, the presence of a tower fails to meet five of the seven evaluation
criteria.
Section 4(a)(i): The proposed tower is not in accordance with the Land Use Plan Policy (linked here) and
therefore the ZBA should not approve. Specifically from the Land Use Plan Policy, communication towers are
not considered "environmentally-friendly" (goal #3) as both the construction and operations will have a
negative impact on the surrounding area (see research below). In addition, the construction of a tower
adjacent my property would not be aligned with goal #10 in the Land Use Policy. The house on my property
was built in 1900, has one of what people people is the oldest tree in Ames, and is considered one of the
significant historic buildings in Ames (and Iowa). Building a 79-foot tower mere feet away from the house
would greatly impact the historical nature of the property.
Section 4(a)(ii): a 79-foot tower in a residentially zoned area will not be harmonious in appearance with the
indicated character of the general vicinity and the tower's presence would change character of the area.
Section 4(a)(iii): In order to pass the ZBA evaluation criteria, the tower should not be hazardous to existing or
future use of the general area. The health risks of a communications tower in a residential area are potentially
severe, especially to young children and elderly (see research below). Even though MetroNet claims the tower
will only receive transmissions once you approve a special use permit for a tower the company will have the
option to use the tower for any purpose in the future. I encourage you not risk the health of Ames residents
today and in the future.
Section 4(a)(vi): The installation and operations of a tower could be detrimental to a person and general
welfare. Although radiation was not included in this criteria (as I imagine it was overlooked), the threat of
radiation clearly could be considered detrimental as described in the previous point and research below.
Section 4(a)(vii): Placing a tower in a residentially zoned plot of land is not consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Zone.
Furthermore, the presence of a tower fails to meet at least six of the eight criteria:
Section 4(b)(ii - iv): Tower facilities require maintenance that may be performed at any time, day or night. We
will see an increase in trucks and service personnel that will be an additional unnecessary public nuisance.
Additionally, the operation of a generator and cooling systems is quite likely to increase noise levels especially
for those living close to and in the building, and the back-up diesel generators will add to air pollution in our
neighborhood.
Section 4(b)(v): Studies have shown that buyers pay 20% less for houses located near communication towers.
It's a matter of opinion, but my belief is that the reduction of property value for an entire neighborhood (Oak-
to-Riverside) is not justifiable as compared to the benefit.
Section 4(b)(vi): A 79-foot tower is not compatible in terms of height or scale in relation to the building pattern
in the area.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web0608.htm 1/24/2020
Page 3 of 3
Section 4(b)(vii): The proposed lot for the tower is a small space. In my opinion, there isn't enough space to
meet the requirements (setback, landscaping)to minimize the impact of adjacent properties.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—webO6O8.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: zoning board of adjustment, Metro Net Tower
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:24 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
A— CITY OF
iow Ames
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 JUX
randerson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I - Caring People - Quality Programs - Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:23PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us, kathrannek@yahoo.com, debbielee585)yahoo.com, "Jackie
De Lay" <istockdaledelay@yahoo.com>, MayorCouncil@cityofames.org, lhaila@city.ames.ia.us,
rjunk@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Matthew DeLay" <railroadcard@gmail.com>
Date: 01/02/2020 09:30PM
Subject: zoning board of adjustment, Metro Net Tower
Mr. Andersen, Zoning Board of Adjustment:
In conversation with Mr. Andersen today, 2 January 2019, it was relayed to me that the Board of
Adjustment, holds the power of decision over whether,or not, the proposed Metro Net Tower is in
violation of codes, an/or if it is worthy of exemption.
Like you, then, I would like to see the specifics on what the tower is, what type of energy it fields
it generates, and what impartial scientists and engineers have to say about the proposed type of
communications tower. No doubt these vary enormously, do we know what is proposed, and are
we certain this is what they would install? What are the medical and environmental studies, and
who is supplying them. This feels quite rushed from a health standpoint.
As to zoning: perhaps the construction of a 79 foot tower is not prohibited by law--simply
because it was not foreseen. It's omission by default, as no one imagined such a structure.
This would be a slippery way to "approve" any structure.
Further, I think the city should provide you, a volunteer committee, as I understand it, with
revenue projections the city may gain from allowing the erection of a 79 foot tower, valued at 25
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/-web9920.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
- 35 million dollars, What would this generate for the City?. One may guess this is revenue
beyond what an art studio may generate.
As a volunteers on a Board of Adjustment for the City of Ames, likely none of you imagined being
tasked with making a decision governing the welfare of residents, their health and their home
values, versus the desires of large corporate money. But here we are. The City can absolve its
responsibility to tax payers by off-shoring the decision to a volunteer committee who is tasked
with review and seeing if the proposed tower passes the letter of the law (as written or not
written--yet).
I ask this of you: park in my neighborhood, walk the multi-purpose trail along Squaw Creek, look
up, and consider, on an intuitive level, does this make any sense whatsoever? Is communal spirit
being violated? Under what rational sense of design or normalcy is a high energy 79' tower
doing in this landscape? There is only one way this tower makes sense in this environment: the
moneyed interest of those who do not live here.
Further I would like to ask the board to indulge in a mental exercise: Could one imagine the City
and Metro Net even attempting to place this tower up high at Moore Park near Northridge.?
There is only one answer to that question. It is from this framework I ask you to reflect on how
this proposed tower has even gotten this far, this fast, to you, as an external committee at arms
length from the elected City employee, to even consider.. I am sure elected officials are glad not
to own this decision. But that it has gotten this far, and the property has not gone up for bid,
raises serious questions on what the City preference is here.
In speaking with City Planner Mr. Andersen today, it was presented as such: you are tasked to
see if it violates written codes, It sounds quite clinical, objective, and impersonal. As if, in fact,
I don't even live here, and the Abraham Lincoln Highway at the edge of State College were only
waiting, these long years, for corporate interests to plant their high energy pole in the ground,
provided, simply, we could see no reason why not within our codes.
Likely you are hearing from various parties. I wish you well.
Matthew DeLay,
129 South Russeel Avenue, Ames
20 years, 5 months. 1940 Colonial home. Built by true craftsmen, who had a sense of proportion
and honored the integrity of materials. well maintained.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/--web9920.htm 1/24/2020
I
Page 1 of 1
Fw: MetroNet tower @ Lincoln Way and Squaw Creek
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 12:24 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
CITY OF
Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I —Caring People —Quality Programs'" Exceptional Service ^'
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 12:24PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Kathryn Maxwell" <kdm@iastate.edu>
Date: 01/02/2020 10:30PM
Subject: MetroNet tower @ Lincoln Way and Squaw Creek
Good evening Mr. Anderson,
My husband tried to contact you by phone today but was unable to reach you so he left a message. Since he hasn't
heard from you I decided to email you. As taxpayers and homeowners on S. Riverside Dr. we were surprised (to say
the least) to find that there were plans to put in a tower at Lincoln Way and Squaw Creek. I had to find out about this
through an article in the Ames Tribune that there were plans for this to happen in our neighborhood.
I want to make it perfectly clear that my husband and I are both opposed to this tower going in at this location. I
feel that there are better locations in Ames for it to be placed rather than in a residential neighborhood and along a
waterway/nature area. With all the businesses which have been razed along Lincoln Way near downtown, I don't
understand why it is not being placed there - away from any residential neighborhoods.
I just wanted to make clear what our stance was on detracting from a park and neighborhood vs. a more
commercial location.
Sincerely,
K. Diane Maxwell
Double Major in Animal Ecology and Forestry, Minor in sustainabiiity at Iowa State University
515-451-6241
kdm@iastate.edu
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell"-Edward Abbey
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web3l52.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 3
Fw: City Council, concerning Metro Net Tower, Lincoln Way and University Blvd. and zoning board
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 01:26 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
A— CITY OF
A00W Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planter
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People —Quality Programs— Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 01:25PM -----
To: gbrtcher@city.ames.ia.us, tgartin@city.ames.ia.us, dmartin@city.ames.us,
acrrieri@city.ames.ia.us, bbeatty-hansen@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Matthew DeLay" <railroadcard@bgmail.com>
Date: 01/03/2020 12:26PM
Cc: randerson@city.ames.ia.us, "Jackie DeLay" <lstockdaledelay@yahoo.com>
Subject: City Council, concerning Metro Net Tower, Lincoln Way and University Blvd. and zoning
board
Dear City Council Members: and Zoning Board of Adjustment
Below is a copy of my recent email to the Board of Adjustment concerning the proposed multi
million 79 foot Metro Net Tower.
In addition to concerns below, I would like to highlight the strategic geographic coup this tower
presents for Metro Net.
This physical structure will eclipse all other reference points as it lands in the heart of Ames: at
the nexus of downtown and campus. This tower will dominate the landscape and become a
reference point (whether one likes it or not) for directions and the city itself. Its height and
visibility will dominate from all cardinal directions. There is little doubt that the executives at
Metro Net were well aware of this ongoing marketing bonus when they approached the City of
Ames with this plan. The exposure this gives them is enormous. Make no mistake: they want
that priceless commodity: visibility. For whatever progress and convenience Metro Net is
peddling: This tower could do its job from outside of this town. The question becomes: what is
the value of our integrity in giving a corporation such exposure in the heart of our city.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web4358.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 3
Metro Net executive members decided to plant their Stratego Flag in the heart of Ames. How
gratifying this must be! They must relish at the thought of game day itself. A proposal comes, a
city caught off guard says, "hmm. Maybe." Courtship ensues. Perhaps we should all step back,
and think about the legacy of such a corporate monument in the middle of our city and exactly
what it means to each of us. .
In stepping back let us remember another legacy: Edgar Stanton Memorial Campanille. Shall we
say, now: Campanille: step aside, Mr. Stanton, your monument to the memory of your wife is
old news. Metro Net is ready to give us internet and never let us forget it is doing so.
This tower, due to its height and location, will come to represent this city.
As council members I ask you to seriously consider the legacy that this tower gives to our future.
Thank you for your time.
Matt DeLay,
Ames
Mr. Anderson, Zoning Board of Adjustment:
In conversation with Mr. Andersen today, 2 January 2019, it was relayed to me that the Board of
Adjustment, holds the power of decision over whether,or not, the proposed Metro Net Tower is in
violation of codes, an/or if it is worthy of exemption.
Like you, then, I would like to see the specifics on what the tower is, what type of energy it fields
it generates, and what impartial scientists and engineers have to say about the proposed type of
communications tower. No doubt these vary enormously, do we know what is proposed, and are
we certain this is what they would install?
As to zoning: perhaps the construction of a 79 foot tower is not prohibited by law--simply
because it was not foreseen. It's omission by default, as no one imagined such a structure.
This would be a slippery way to "approve" any structure.
Further, I think the city should provide you, a volunteer committee, as I understand it, with
revenue projections the city may gain from allowing the erection of a 79 foot tower, valued at 25
- 35 million dollars, What would give the city. One may guess this is revenue beyond what an
art studio may generate.
As a volunteers on a Board of Adjustment for the City of Ames, likely none of you imagined being
tasked with making a decision governing the welfare of residents, their health and their home
values versus the desires of large corporate money. But here we are. The City can absolve its
responsibility to tax payers by off-shoring the decision to a volunteer committee who is tasked
with review and seeing if the proposed tower passes the letter of the law (as written or not
written--yet).
I ask this of you: park in my neighborhood, walk the multi-purpose trail along Squaw Creek, look
up, and consider, on an intuitive level, does this make any sense whatsoever? Is communal spirit
being violated? Under what rational sense of design or normalcy is a high energy 79' tower
doing in this landscape? There is only one way this tower makes sense in this environment: the
moneyed interest of those who do not live here.
Further I would like to ask the board to indulge in a mental exercise: Could one imagine the City
file:///C:/Users[Rachel.Kntitsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web4358.11tm 1/24/2020
Page 3 of 3
and Metro Net even attempting to place this tower up high at Moore Park near Northridge.?
There is only one answer to that question. It is from this framework I ask you to reflect on how
this proposed tower has even gotten this far, to you, as an external committee at arms length
from the elected City employee, to even consider.. I am sure elected officials are glad not to own
this decision. But that it has gotten this far, and the property has not gone up for bid, raises
serious questions on what the City preference is here. In speaking with Mr. Andersen today, it
was presented as such: you are tasked to see if it violates written codes, It sounds quite clinical,
objective, and impersonal. As if, in fact, I don't even live here, and the Abraham Lincoln
Highway at the edge of State College were only waiting, these long years, for corporate interests
to plant their high energy pole in the ground, provided, simply, we could see no reason why not
in our codes.
Likely you are hearing from various parties. I wish you well.
Matthew DeLay,
129 South Russeel Avenue, Ames
20 years, 5 months. 1940 Colonial home. Built by true craftsmen, who had a sense of proportion
and honored the integrity of materials. well maintained.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web4358.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 1
Fw: Communications tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 02:00 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Please forward to ZBA for their consideration.
A— CITY OF
AMOW Ames -
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People— Quality Programs— Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 01:59PM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us, kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us, sschainker@city.ames.ia.us,
bphillips@city.ames.ia.us, MayorCouncil@cityofames.org
From: "Kelli Watson" <klwatson8290gmail.com>
Date: 01/03/2020 01:42PM
Subject: Communications tower at 1420 Lincoln Way
I am sending you this message to express my concern over the application for a special use
permit to erect a 79-foot communications tower at 1420 Lincoln Way and the proposed sale of
the site to MetroNet. I am against the granting of this permit for the land, as it is not in
accordance with the Land Use Plan and Policy Zoning and I was not aware that this land is
available for sale. Have any other offers on this land been considered? This neighborhood has
been negatively impacted by previous special use permits(i.e. the Randall owned field that is
used as a parking lot for home football games) and I fear that this would have the same impact.
It would also be an eyesore for the land. I thought the City wanted to improve the look of our
Lincoln Way corridor and this would not be an improvement. With this area being part of the
Squaw Creek Watershed area, what kind of impact would this tower have on it. I am also
concerned about the potential decrease in property values. This neighborhood has seen an
increase in property values and property taxes in the last few years and the unsightly tower
would have the opposite effect.
Thank you,
Kelli Watson
resident & homeowner at 129 S. Riverside Dr.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web7542.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 4
Fw: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit for MetroNet Tower as it Fails to Meet Evaluation Criteria
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/03/2020 02:01 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
1 Attachment
Special Use Permit General&Residential Zone Standards.pdf
Please forward to the ZBA for their consideration.
A— CITY OF
A0Wk Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.C!tVofAmes.org I —Caring People — Quality Programs— Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/03/2020 02:OOPM -----
To: randerson@city.ames.ia.us, kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us, sschainker@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Glenn Wiedenhoeft" <gwiedenhoeft@gmail.com>
Date: 01/03/2020 01:49PM
Cc: rseaueira@amestrib.com, robertlewishowell@gmail.com, iosephmleiszOgmail.com
Subject: Do Not Recommend Special Use Permit for MetroNet Tower as it Fails to Meet Evaluation
Criteria
(See attached file: Special Use Permit General & Residential Zone Standards.pdf)
Ray, Kelly, and Steve:
I am the owner of 211 S Riverside Dr in Ames Iowa. I am writing in regard to the proposed 79-
foot tower installation at 1420 Lincoln Way and wish to register my opposition to it.
My understanding is that discussions have been going on for months without informing the nearby
property owners (one discussion at city council that wasn't announced beforehand and others
behind closed meetings at city offices), which is not the kind of transparency our City Council
aspires to.
The proposed tower would be in close proximity to quiet residential neighborhoods and to the
beautiful natural green space (Stuart Smith Park/Squaw Creek) in Ames. The installation of the
tower poses health risks and devaluation of real estate (among other issues). The plan to build the
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6226.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 4
tower was put into motion without the input or knowledge of nearby residents.
Why Should ZBA Vote NO to a Special Use Permit
Below, I reference sections of the document Special Use Permit General & Residential Zone
Standards (see attached PDF).
Starting with the General Standards area, the presence of a tower FAILS to meet five of the seven
evaluation criteria and therefore the ZBA should not approve.
1. Section 4(a)(i): The proposed tower is not in accordance with the Land Use Plan Policy and
therefore the ZBA should not approve. Specifically from the Land Use Plan Policy,
communication towers are not considered "environmentally-friendly" (goal #3) as both the
construction and operations will have a negative impact on the surrounding area (see research
below). In addition, the construction of a tower adjacent to the property at 107 South Riverside
Dr. would not be aligned with goal #10 in the Land Use Policy. The house on this property was
built in 1900 and is considered one of the significant historic buildings in Ames (and Iowa); the
land has one of the oldest trees in Ames. Building a 79-foot tower a few yards away from the
house would have a detrimental impact on the historical nature of the property.
2. Section 4(a)(ii): A 79-foot tower in a residentially zoned area will not be harmonious in
appearance with the indicated character of the general vicinity, AND the tower's presence would
change the character of the area, and therefore the ZBA should not approve.
3. Section 4(a)(iii): The tower should not be hazardous to existing or future use of the general
area, and therefore the ZBA should not approve. The health risks of a communications tower
in a residential area are potentially severe, especially to young children and elderly (see research
below), thus the proposed tower is hazardous to existing and future use of the area. Even though
MetroNet claims the tower will only receive transmissions, if a special use permit is approved, the
company will have the option to use the tower for any purpose in the future, including the
establishment and expansion of a 5G wireless network. I encourage you not to risk the health of
Ames residents today and in the future. The health risks are real and not worth the trade-offs the
proposal offers.
4, Section 4(a)(vi): The installation and operations of a tower could be detrimental to a person
and general welfare, and therefore the ZBA should not approve. Although radiation was not
included in this criterion, the threat of radiation clearly should be considered detrimental as
described in the previous point and research below.
5. Section 4(a)(vii): Placing a tower in a residentially zoned plot of land is not consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Zone, and therefore the ZBA should not approve.
Furthermore, the presence of the proposed tower FAILS to meet the following criteria and
therefore the ZBA should not approve.
1. Section 4(b)(ii - iv): Tower facilities require maintenance that may be performed at any time,
day or night. We will see an increase in trucks and service personnel that will be an additional
unnecessary public nuisance and incompatible with the residential character and zoning of the
area. In my opinion, the industrial use of the driveway to access the tower will be a threat to
smooth traffic flow on Lincoln Way. Additionally, the operation of a generator and cooling systems
is likely to increase noise levels especially for those living close to the tower, and the back-up
diesel generators will add to air pollution in our neighborhood.
2. Section 4(b)(v): Studies have shown that buyers pay 20% less for houses located near
communication towers. The reduction of property value for an entire neighborhood (Oak-to-
Riverside) is not justifiable as compared to the proposed benefits of the tower.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/--web6226.htm 1/24/2020
Page 3 of 4
3. Section 4(b)(vi): A 79-foot tower is not compatible in terms of height or scale in relation to the
building pattern in the area.
4. Section 4(b)(vii): The lot for the proposed tower is a small space. There may not be enough
space to meet the requirements (setback, landscaping) to minimize the impact to adjacent
properties.
Research for Reference
Health Concerns
Studies have shown that even at low levels(from one tower) of this microwave radiation (variously
referred to as RF, EMF, and EMR), there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has
been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage,
Alzheimer's disease, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and numerous other serious illnesses.
For example, in "The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the
Incidence of Cancer" by Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit
(Published in Umwelt•Medizin•Gesellschaft 17,4 in 2004), the researchers found a fourfold increase
in cancer rates amongst people living within 350 meters (1148 feet) of a cell phone tower.
Amongst women there was a tenfold increase.
In 2011, The World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified EMR (microwave radiation) as a possible carcinogen to humans (the same
classification as DDT and other dangerous chemicals) based on an increased risk for glioma (a
malignant type of brain cancer).
In 2015, Morgan, Miller, Sasco and Davies published a paper in the International Journal of
Oncology titled "Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable
human carcinogen (2A)." The title says it all in this case.
In the past five years alone, about 1,800 new scientific papers have been published that show
adverse health effects of electromagnetic frequencies/radiation (EMF/EMR). Dr. George Carlo, a
public health expert who coordinated the telecommunications industry's own study, which was
mandated by congress, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless
technology is "potentially the biggest health insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes
microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos.
There is robust evidence that children are more at risk. Children have thinner skulls and the
immaturity of their central nervous systems puts them at greater risk. See, for example, Morgan,
Kesari, and Davis, 2014, "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The
consequences", published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure.
Environmental Concerns
Trees are harmed by radiofrequency radiation. A 4-year experiment by Waldmann-Selsam et al
(2016) clearly demonstrated, with accurate RF emission testing, cell tower radiation causing the
death of nearby trees over time. He notes, "These results are consistent with the fact that damage
afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree
over time." These are truly alarming findings and serve as a dire warning on further wireless
expansion. Wildlife is susceptible to harm from manmade ambient electromagnetic fields.
Researchers are now attributing microwave radiation from cellular telecommunications to be a
contributing cause of bee "colony collapse disorder", insect disappearance, the decline in house
sparrows in London, as well as the steady deterioration of the worlds bird population with more
than 40% of bird species under critical threat. Scientists note a serious lack of radiation monitoring
and protocols to study the impacts and call for precaution in the placement of cell towers and
further expansion of wireless broadband. In the United States, Section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow consideration of environmental effects in the
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6226.htm 1/24/2020
Page 4 of 4
placement of cell towers.
Devaluation of Real Estate
In March 2014, the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy's survey "Neighborhood
Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found that an overwhelming
majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a
building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it.
Studies by Dr. Sandy Bond, Ph.D. have shown that a cell phone tower negatively affects the real
estate values of homes surrounding it. Depending on proximity to the cell phone tower property
values can be reduced by up to 2011/o for properties within 200-300 meters of the tower. (See for
example https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/cell-tower-installation-plans-lower-
property-values/).
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6226.htm 1/24/2020
(6) Minor Changes. Minor changes to the approved Major Site Development Plan may occur after
staff of the Department of Planning and Housing has determined that the proposed changes are minor in nature, and
revised plans have been provided to the Department for purposes of keeping the Major Site Development Plan
current.Minor Changes are defined as changes that:
(a) Do not constitute a change in the land use of the project;or the overall layout and design;
(b) Do not increase the density or intensity of use, and the number of buildings or a change in
dwelling unit types;
(c) Does not change the overall landscape design of the M-SDP project;or
Change the height or placement of buildings,or other major site features.
(Ord. 4279,11-15-16)
Sec.29.1503. SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
(1) Purpose. This Section is intended to provide a set of procedures and standards for specified
uses of land or structures that will allow practical latitude for the investor or developer, but that will, at the same
time, maintain sound provisions for the protection of the health, safety, convenience and general welfare. This
Section permits detailed review of certain types of land use activities that, because of their particular and unique
characteristics,require special consideration in relation to the welfare of adjacent properties and to the community as
a whole. Land and structural uses possessing these characteristics may be authorized within designated Zones by
the issuance of a Special Use Permit. This Section also provides for the use of Single Family Dwellings, Two
Family Dwellings,and Single Family Attached Dwellings by a Functional Family.
(2) Submission Requirements. An application for a Special Use Permit, filed in accordance with
Section 29.1503,shall be accompanied by:
(a) A statement of supporting evidence that the general and specific standards as delineated
in this Article will be fulfilled;
(b) A Site Plan meeting all the submittal requirements stated in Section 29.1502(2);and
(c) Preliminary plans and specifications for all construction,as applicable.
(3) Procedure for Special Use Permits.
(a) Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall consider the
application at a public hearing conducted as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of the public
hearing shall be made by mail, posting, and publication, in accordance with Sections 29.1500(2)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii)
above. The Zoning Board of Adjustment must approve, deny,or modify the Special Use Permit application within
60 days of the public hearing.
(Ord. No. 3815, 12-21-04; Ord. No. 3983, 2-10-09)
(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
subsections (b), (c), and (d) 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 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
Sup 2019-1 Chapter 29,Article 15 Page 8 01-01-19
traffic,noise,smoke,fumes,glare,or odors;and
(vii) 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 in a residential zone 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 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;
(iii)Not generate truck trips by trucks over 26,000 pounds g.v.w(gross vehicular weight)
to and from site except for food delivery vehicles,waste collection vehicles and moving vans;
(Ord.No. 4159, 9-24-13)
(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 predominate 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 all other applicable standards in the zone.
(c) Commercial Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application
for the purpose of determining that each proposed use located in a commercial zone 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) Be compatible with the potential commercial development and use of property
planned to occur in area;
(ii) Represent the sufficiently desirable need for the entire community that the loss
of commercial land is justifiable in relation to the benefit;and
(iii) Be consistent with all other applicable standards in the zone.
(d) Special Use Permits for Functional Families.
(i) Purpose. This Section is to provide for the regulation of Functional Families
that may request to reside in a Single Family Dwelling,Two Family Dwelling or Single Family Attached Dwelling.
The regulations are also intended to prohibit larger groups of unrelated persons from residing in Single Family
Dwellings,Two Family Dwellings, or Single Family Attached Dwellings. Larger groups of unrelated persons have
frequently shown to have a detrimental affect on Single Family neighborhoods since larger groups of unrelated
persons do not live as a family unit and do not have significant economic or emotional ties to a neighborhood.
(ii) Standards of Functional Families. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall
review each application for a Special Use Permit for a functional family as provided for in this section after having
determined that the application meets the following standards:
a. The functional family shares a strong bond or commitment to a single
purpose(e.g.religious orders);
b. Members of the functional family are not legally dependent on others
not part of the functional family;
C. Can establish legal domicile as defined by Iowa law;
d. Share a single household budget;
e. Prepare food and eat together regularly;
f. Share in the work to maintain the premises;and
g. Legally share in the ownership or possession of the premises."
(e) Conditions. The Board may impose such additional conditions as 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.
(Ord.No. 3591, 10-10-00; Ord. No. 3983, 2-10-09)
Sup 2019-1 Chapter 29,Article 15 Page 9 01-01-19
Pagel of 2
Fw: Re: Purposed MetroNet Tower
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/07/2020 12:50 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please provide the email from Mr. Watson to the ZBA members for their consideration at the ZBA
meeting tomorrow night.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
,iiiiiF1111111111111111W A m e s -
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I —Caring People- Quality Programs — Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/07/2020 12:48PM -----
To: Ray D Anderson/COA@COA
From: John Haila/COA
Date: 01/07/2020 11:38AM
Cc: "Bob Watson" <imtribob@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Purposed MetroNet Tower
Ray,
Please see below.
John A. Haila
Mayor
ACITY OF
A01W Ames-
515.239.5105 main
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/--web4374.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
jhaila@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org — Caring People " Quality Programs — Exceptional Service ^'
-----"Bob watson" <imtribob@gmail.com> wrote: -----
To: jhaila@city.ames.ia.us
From: "Bob watson" <imtribob@qmail.com>
Date: 01/07/2020 11:28AM
Subject: Purposed MetroNet Tower
Hello John Haila,
I live in the Oak-Riverside Neighborhood and also within 200 feet of the purposed MetroNet
Communications Tower. I am against the special use permit necessary for construction of the 79
foot tower. Please add my name to the list of Ames residents that are against the construction of
this tower in the purposed location.
Thanks a lot for your help!
Bob Watson
129 N Riverside Dr
Ames Ia 50010
515-290-1428
imtribob@gmail.com
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web4374.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Cell tower and 5G
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/07/2020 06:53 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the ZBA members for their consideration at the meeting tomorrow
evening.
Thank you,
Ray
CITY OF
Ames
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main j 515.239.5404 /ict,
rnderson@city.ames.ia.usI City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I — Caring People — Quality Programs — Exceptional Service "
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/07/2020 06:52PM -----
To: randerson(�)city.ames.ia.us
From: "Douglas Reed" <douq.reed2019@gmail.com>
Date: 01/07/2020 06:02PM
Cc: MayorCouncil@cityofames.org
Subject: Cell tower and 5G
Dear Mr. Anderson,
If it isn't clear to you and the ZBA members—in spite of whatever MetroNet has
written or said or not written or said (and such companies are very adept at
dissembling and obfuscating on this matter)—it seems radiantly clear to me that
this MetroNet cell tower matter has *everything* to do with the impending 5G
wireless technology rollout, which has been royally trumpeted in recent full page
ads in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
If you and the ZBA members and City Councilors are unaware of this or uninterested
in it, you are not giving the matter due diligence, and are thereby doing a
Jisservice to the City and its residents. There are very serious health and safety
concerns expressed and, in places, acted upon nationally and internationally about
tile:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web7385.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
the matter of 5G technology, which goes very far beyond anything currently
existing. (Congressional hearings this past year can bear this out. )
If you approve this sale in spite of the objections of serious and sincere Ames
City residents (whether due to 5G concerns or the other serious concerns that have
been raised) and without allowing time for yourselves and them and others to
adequately research this matter (of 5G technology) , you will be rushing to
judgment, or so it would appear.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Reed
1211 N 3rd St
Ames, IA 50010
515-715-3724
doug.reed20l9@gmail.com
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web7385.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Re: Proposed Communication Tower and Land Purchase at 1420 Lincoln Way
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/08/2020 09:32 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email from Mr. Green to the ZBA members for their meeting this evening.
Thank you,
Ray
CITY OF
Ames "
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People- Quality Programs - Exceptional Service ^'
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/08/2020 09:22AM -----
To: "randersonOcity.ames.ia.us" <randerson@city.ames.ia.us>
From: "David IS Green" <davisgreen@protonmail.com>
Date: 01/08/2020 09:11AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Communication Tower and Land Purchase at 1420 Lincoln Way
Mr. Anderson,
I am the owner of 103 S. Russell Ave., within the Oak-Riverside neighborhood. I am writing to
express my opposition to the potential sale of city land to MetroNet for the development of a
proposed 80-ft communication tower. This proposed tower is incongruous to the character of our
neighborhood, and will be a visual blight, potentially resulting in the depression of neighborhood
home resale values. As far as I'm aware, ours will be the only neighborhood in the city with a 80-
ft communications tower positioned directly in the middle of it, which seems like a fairly unfair
distinction.
I am alarmed to have heard of this potential development only a week before the Zoning Board
of Adjustment and the City Council vote on it's approval. The lack of communication by the City
regarding this project has denied myself an my neighbors the opportunity for timely public input
into a plan that could significantly affect the quality of our lives and the values of our homes.
Please pass my sentiments onto the Zoning Board of Adjustment and to the City Council.
Thank you,
David Green
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppDataALocal/'Femp/notesFFF692/—webl81 Lhtm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
103 S. Russell Ave.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web1811.htm 1/24/2020
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Tower at Lincoln Way and Riverside
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/08/2020 10:28 AM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Rachel,
Please forward this email to the ZBA for their consideration at the meeting this evening.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
AAVW Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
rnderson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue I Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org ^'Caring People- Quality Programs— Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/08/2020 10:27AM -----
To: <randerson(d)city.ames.ia.us>
From: "Kevin Kurschner" <kevin@salesgroupinc.com>
Date: 01/08/2020 10:06AM
Cc: <MayorCouncil0cityofames.org>, "'Steven K. Schalig"' <skschalig@hirep.net>
Subject: Tower at Lincoln Way and Riverside
Mr. Anderson and the rest of the zoning board,
Good morning. We are the owners of 1326 Lincoln Way and would like to state our
opposition to the tower being proposed at 1420 Lincoln Way by Metro Net. A tower
of this height and configuration is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood
and would be much more appropriate in an area zoned for commercial or industrial
use.
We would ask the board, how would you vote if this 8 story tower was being
proposed across the street from your residence?
Would you have concerns about seeing it every day when you go out your front door
to head to work?
Would you have concerns about how this tower would affect your property values?
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web7916.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
Would you have concerns about possible health issues due to living that close to a
5G broadcast?
Would you have concerns about how this would affect the "feel" of your
neighborhood?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we would strongly encourage
you to put more thought into where a more appropriate place for this tower might
be within the city of Ames.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Thank you,
Kevin Kurschner and Steve Schalig
file:///C:/Users[Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web7916.htm 1/24/2020
r
Page 1 of 2
Fw: Proposed Tower at Lincoln Way and Riverside Drive
Ray D Anderson
to:
Rachel Knutsen
01/09/2020 02:40 PM
Hide Details
From: Ray D Anderson/COA
To: Rachel Knutsen/COA@COA
History: This message has been forwarded.
Hi Rachel,
Please forward this email to the ZBA members.
Thank you,
Ray
A— CITY OF
AOOW Ames ,
Ray Anderson
Planner
515.239.5400 main 1515.239.5404 fax
randerson@city.ames.ia.us I City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org I -Caring People — Quality Programs - Exceptional Service
-----Forwarded by Ray D Anderson/COA on 01/09/2020 02:39PM -----
To: "randerson@city.ames.ia.us" <rnderson@city.ames.ia.us>
From: "Blakely, Barbara Y' <blakely(5)iastate.edu>
Date: 01/09/2020 10:58AM
Subject: Proposed Tower at Lincoln Way and Riverside Drive
Hello Ray,
Please forward this to the members of the ZBA. I am unable to locate their individual email addresses
on the city website.
Best regards,
Barb Blakely
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web9004.htm 1/24/2020
Page 2 of 2
1 am writing to express strong opposition to the sale of the land on which MetroNet is interested in
erecting a 79-foot communications tower. Allowing sale of this land, when there is clearly an
interested buyer with intentions of which the neighborhood does not approve and about which many
questions remain to be answered to everyone's satisfaction-- including the city's-- would seem to
open the door prematurely to MetroNet's tower plan. Yes, they want the building, but they want the
building only because they want to build a 79-foot tower on the property. Why sell the land/building
before the concept has been more satisfactorily discussed and before other sites are considered?
I attended the ZBA last night (January 8, 2020) and it was obvious that there are many unanswered
questions, including, importantly, whether other sites were explored for this 79-foot tower.
MetroNet was also uncertain about the answers to some questions, including if the tower would have
lights on it and if such towers had been erected in residential neighborhoods before. They had done
no studies about the impact of digging and drilling so close to the creek, work on which was done
recently to stabilize the banks.
Disappointingly, we were shown a rendering of the proposed tower relative to the existing building,
but the scale accuracy of that rendering could not be verified at the meeting.
Fortunately, the representatives of MetroNet stated more than once that they would be willing to
locate the tower somewhere else, so selling that land now seems premature. The city has expressed a
long-range vision for improving the aesthetics of Lincoln Way, and to now consider placing a 79-foot
tower in such a prominent location, at what is surely a "gateway intersection" to Ames and ISU, is
counter to that future plan.
Dr. Barbara Blakely
112 N. Riverside Drive
file:///C:/Users/Rachel.Knutsen/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web9004.htm 1/24/2020