HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-09-2016MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 9, 2016
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6 :00 p.m. on
November 9, 2016, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Kyle Perkins, Matthew Koehler, Susan Bradbury, and Amelia Schoeneman. City
Planner Justin Moore and Assistant City Attorney Mark Lambert were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes
of the meeting of October 12, 2016.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 16-09
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Matt Kundert, Pathway Solutions LLC,
Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit to allow a wireless communication tower at 310 SE
16th Street.
City Planner Justin Moore displayed a location map for the project. Matt Kundert, Pathway
Solutions LLC, seeks approval to construct a new cell tower on the property located at 310 SE
16th Street to accommodate future wireless communications carriers. The new tower and
associated equipment shelter would be located in a lease area approximately 63 feet north of the
southern boundary of the property and 63 feet west of the eastern boundary of the property. The
subject property abuts SE 16th Street on the north. Across SE 16th Street further north is located a
mobile home park. To the west are various low-scale commercial uses, to the east is a single
low-scale commercial use followed by agricultural uses, and to the south is vacant wooded land
bordered by an auto dealership. The site is located near the Highway 30 and Duff Avenue
interchange which is an identified gateway location in the Ames Land Use Policy Plan. The
property is zoned Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC) and is owned by Flummerfelt
Properties, LLC. The proposed tower will be visible in all directions of this location.
The property is 262.25 feet wide, 280 feet deep along the west property line, 280 feet deep along
the east property line, and includes approximately 1.69 acres (73,430 square feet). It has access
from the south side of SE 16th Street. The property is currently a gravel parking area that is used
for the temporary parking of mobile homes with existing trees on the south and east portions of
the site.
The applicant proposes to lease a 3,500 square foot portion of the property in the southeast
section of the property as the site for construction of the proposed 120-foot tall cell tower and
associated ground equipment structure. The diameter of the pole is approximately five feet with a
taper as it rises. The tower features a five-foot high lighting rod that extends from the top of the
monopole for an overall height of 125 feet.
The cell tower is a monopole with four antenna arrays sections mounted in three directional
sectors. Each array is proposed to extend out approximately six feet from the side of the
monopole for a total of 12’-6” across each directional sector with four antenna panels mounted in
each directional sector of the array. The four individual arrays are planned to be mounted
between 90 feet and 120 feet above the ground. There is also antenna space for future carriers.
The monopole is proposed to be constructed of gray galvanized steel. The tower is designed to
house the required cabling within the tower.
A six-foot high wood privacy fence is proposed to identify the extent of the lease area and for
security of the facilities. Rock is proposed to cover the ground inside the fence of the lease area.
Maintenance vehicles visiting the site would park on an asphalt parking space to be constructed
outside the fence and outside of the lease area to the immediate north abutting the access and
utility easement from SE 16th Street. A future generator is proposed shortly after any
construction.
The required site improvements include landscaping between the parking area and the property
line abutting SE 16th Street along the north side of the property as well as installation of sidewalk
within the right-of-way along SE 16th Street, as required in Chapter 22.31. The applicant has
stated there are no plans to remove any existing trees or vegetation on the site.
It was said that there has been no diagram or simulation of the structure and its visibility from the
surrounding area, specifically to the east or west along Highway 30 within one-quarter to one-
half mile. Staff was unable to determine the aesthetic impact on the surrounding area of the array
design in regards to harmoniousness with the surrounding area and its effect on a gateway entry
point into Ames. A flush mount design would minimize the view of the array from the
surrounding area and guarantee a more harmonious appearance of the antenna.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. He stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions, it is not consistent with Special Use Permit general criteria 29.1503(4)(a) i and ii;
therefore, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning
Board of Adjustment deny the Special Use Permit for Cell Site with Antenna at 310 SE 16th
Street, if the Board finds and concludes:
A. That the proposed Special Use Permit is not consistent with adopted policies and
regulations, or
B. That the Special Use Permit will impose impacts that cannot be reasonably
mitigated, or,
C. That the proposed site plan does not meet the minimum standards of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff notes that under state law, a decision on the approval or denial of the permit request must
be made within 150 days of the receipt of a complete application without a waiver from the
applicant. A final decision must be made by December 11, 2016.
Ms. Bradbury wanted to clarify if the height that the proposed tower is said to exceed is the 85
feet listed in the Zoning Code. Mr. Moore said that was correct. He said there is a set standard
regulation for maximum allowed structural or building height in the HOC zoning district and in
this case, a Special Use Permit would allow the tower to be the proposed 120 feet.
Ms. Schoeneman asked if Mr. Moore would speak about how the current use of the vacant
mobile home storage relates to the HOC zoning district, and asked what would be preferred for
the site in terms of making it into a gateway. Mr. Moore stated that the current use of t he site is
for a small business with the majority of the property being used for a parking area. Flummerfelt
Properties utilizes the rest of the property. He stated that the current use of the site is an allowed
use in the HOC zoning district.
Matt Kundert, Pathway Solutions LLC, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Kundert
displayed a map of past wireless efforts and compared them to the proposed cell tower. He said
that the proposed cell tower would be completely screened from highway views and
neighborhoods. Mr. Kundert described the lengthy process to meet all guidelines and federal
standards. Mr. Kundert then discussed the importance for cellular towers and the uses for cell
phones through several statistics.
Mr. Kundert proceeded to point out some areas in the staff report that were of concern. He stated
that by using the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) for evaluating tower placement, unless the
towers are specifically listed, is not appropriate. He mentioned this represents a departure from
the other sections of the Municipal Code to tell placement and the performance standards for the
Special Use Permit. He also mentioned that a diagram was provided, when the staff report says
otherwise. Mr. Kundert believes that several areas in the staff report are in violation of the Iowa
Cell Siting Act, Section 8C.4 – Uniform Rules. He said it is not permitted to discriminate
between types of infrastructure.
Ms. Bradbury said Staff has identified which areas of the Code no longer adhere to the new
legislation. Mr. Moore added that the criteria affected by the Iowa Cell Siting Act have been
noted in bold in the staff report.
Mr. Kundert replied that those areas have been addressed, but there are parts of the LUPP that
are also being addressed as reasons to look at the project for a denial which were not referenced
correctly.
It was said that the application was submitted in July, and was discussed with the Development
Review Committee (DRC) in late July. Mr. Lambert asked Mr. Moore if a notice was sent asking
for more information on the project in order to make the application complete. Mr. Moore said
Staff reviewed the application for completeness, and during the DRC meeting in late July, Staff
gave comments to a representative of the company. The representative also met with various
City departments to review the development criteria.
Mr. Lambert expressed his concern regarding Section 8C.3 of the Iowa Cell Siting Act which
states “An authority shall not…dictate the type of transmission equipment or technology to be
used by the applicant or discriminate between different types of infrastructure or technology.” He
stated his concern about denying on that basis.
Mr. Kundert pointed out that after the initial documents are submitted, the Iowa Cell Siting Act
puts a limit on how long additional information can be requested. After that point, Staff cannot
ask for additional information, and the application would be complete. If additional information
was needed, a decision cannot be based on the lack of.
Ms. Bradbury asked if that meant they could not ask for any more information. Mr. Lambert said
that was correct.
Mr. Moore said that the application was deemed complete in July, but after meeting with the
applicant and the DRC, Staff indicated the need for additional information or potential changes
that had to be made. He said the applicant was aware of this in July. Mr. Kundert stated that the
requested items were provided, and because no letter of deficiency was sent, the application was
deemed complete.
Ms. Bradbury stated that the height of the tower is an issue because the area is a gateway to the
City. She mentioned that trees in that area would not screen the proposed tower and the visibility
of it is a concern. Ms. Bradbury asked the applicant if the cellular tower did indeed need to be
the proposed 125 feet. She said that other towers have been high, but not quite that high.
Mr. Kundert stated his belief that the City does not want more towers. He said this tower would
address the issue in the area, and mentioned that there are already two carriers waiting to go on
the proposed tower. It was said that the tower would accommodate four arrays, each belonging to
a specific wireless provider. Mr. Kundert explained that four antennas would be on each sector
of the arrays, allowing for multiple spectrum bands. He mentioned the City can dictate the height
of the tower, but cannot dictate the technology.
Ms. Bradbury restated her concern for the height of the tower, and encouraged the idea of co -
location. She mentioned that antennas are sometimes placed on a tall structure, rather than
building a new tower.
Mr. Kundert said if there was a building in the area similar to the height of the proposed tower,
they would consider it an option. He stated that this specific area is where the demand is, and if
the height of the tower were limited to 80 feet, multiple towers would be needed to accommodate
the demands from cellular carriers.
Ms. Bradbury asked what the height of the most recent tower built was. It was said the tower was
120 feet tall with three arrays, and it is located in a wooded area. It is zoned Special Government
Airport (SGA).
Ms. Ebel asked if the tower would be built with all four arrays on it initially or would they be
slowly added over time. Mr. Kundert stated that it would be built with compliance as a multi-
carrier tower. It would be built for what is needed, but have capacity for more. He said there is
very high demand in this area.
Mike Flummerfelt, Flummerfelt Properties, LLC, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr.
Flummerfelt stated that he had spoken with several of the residents living in the area of the
proposed cell tower and they did not show any concern. He mentioned that the main concern
seems to be the aesthetic value, and the landscaping with future development would add to the
aesthetic improvement. Mr. Flummerfelt stated that there is a need for wireless service, and one
tower would address the needs in a more efficient way rather than having to build multiple cell
towers.
Mr. Koehler confirmed the dictation of arrays, height, stealth, and technology is not permitted,
but said there is still a desire to be aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Schoeneman said that she agreed that future development in the area could be catalyzed with
the proposed tower.
Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve ORDER NO. 16-09, thereby approving the
request for a Special Use Permit to allow a wireless communication tower with antennas at 310
SE 16th Street based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, as detailed on the
submitted Site Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Schoeneman, to adjourn the meeting at
7:12 p.m.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair