HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-14-2015MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA JANUARY 14, 2015
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on
January 14, 2015, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Sandra McJimsey, Susan Bradbury, Shelby Ebel, Michael Davis, and Matthew Koehler. Staff
members Ray Anderson, Charlie Kuester and Mark Lambert were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Ebel to approve the minutes of
the meeting of December 10, 2014, as written.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Board Member Koehler requested that Item 3 be heard before Item 2. Chairperson McJimsey
asked if there were any objections by the other Board Members. Hearing none, and as it is her
prerogative to reorder the agenda, Ms. McJimsey announced that Item 3 would be heard next.
CASE NO. 14-33
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – First Christian Church, 611 and 613 Clark Avenue, 515 6th
Street, and 516 7th Street
Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit for First Christian Church to allow
within the existing buildings office space for four social service providers and to conduct
the Food at First program on the properties at 611 and 613 Clark Avenue, 515 6th Street,
and 516 7th Street*
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. First Christian
Church, located at the corner of 6th Street and Clark Avenue, is requesting approval of a Special
Use Permit to allow four social service providers to locate on the property. The church is looking
for approval to allow Good Neighbor Emergency Assistance, Food at First, Assault Care Center
Extending Shelter & Support (ACCESS), and Raising Readers Book Storage to locate within the
existing church building as well as within the existing house owned by the church, previously
used as a church parsonage. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan to indicate the location of all
the proposed entities on the property.
Mr. Anderson noted that the existing church building is proposed to house the Food at First
program on the lower level in the kitchen and fellowship hall. The existing parking area will be
utilized for patrons and staff, as well as allow for two deliveries a week. The existing parsonage
building, located north of the church, is proposed to house offices for the Good Neighbor
program on the first floor and the offices for the ACCESS program on the second floor. Raising
Readers will utilize a single storage room on the upper floor of the church building. Currently no
site changes are proposed with the Special Use Permit application and no additional parking is
required for the property since parking requirements are based on the seating capacity of the
sanctuary as the primary use of the site. There are 36 existing parking spaces within the two
parking lots owned by the church.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve this request for a Special Use Permit with the understanding
that the inclusion of a dumpster on the site, as indicated on the site pan, will require a refuse
enclosure to meet the screen requirements of the zoning code and all permit requirements.
Ms. McJimsey inquired if there was any public comment. Mr. Anderson noted that no public
comments were received in relation to this case.
John Lott, representing First Christian Church, expressed the longstanding continuation of the
Christian Church to provide service to others. He informed the board that they have had a day
care program for a number of decades which has continued to grow and now the church has
another use for their facility. Mr. Lott noted that he and the rest of the board have thoroughly
investigated the use of the building. The traffic at and around the church will actually be less
traffic than previously but they will still be able to provide a great opportunity for the programs
to thrive.
Ms. Ebel questioned if the dumpster was already at the location and if the change to the code is
just that the dumpster be screened. Mr. Lott replied that the dumpster is already at a location on
site and that they are very open to screening around the dumpster to comply with code.
Moved by Koehler, seconded by Davis to adopt ORDER NO. 14-33, thereby approving the
request for a Special Use Permit at 611 and 613 Clark Avenue, 515 6 th Street, and 516 7th Street,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report with the condition that the
dumpster is on the location and screened properly.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared adopted unanimously.
CASE NO. 14-28
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – Brent Haverkamp, 1204 S. 4th Street
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a
Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the
property located at 1204 S. 4th Street (Public Hearings were held 11/12/2014 and
12/10/2014, and closed at the 12/10/2014 meeting)*
This item was deferred by the board at the December 10, 2014 meeting due to a motion made by
the City Council on December 9, 2014 which deferred action on a minor final plat for a proposed
two-lot subdivision at 1204 S. 4th Street. Council deferred action on this item and passed a
motion referring this item back to staff asking for a third party evaluation of the hydraulic effects
of the proposed project on the Oak-Riverside neighborhood north of the site and to explore what
level of oversight is needed to ensure that the project be built as approved. The Zoning Board
decided to wait to make a motion or decision on the Conditional Use Permit until after receiving
the results of the independent hydraulic analysis of Riverside Manor at 1204 S. 4th Street.
Mr. Kuester gave a brief overview of the results of the study, which was conducted in November
of 2014, noting that HR Green was subcontracted with HDR for a hydraulic analysis of existing
conditions to set a baseline for analysis of the bridge design. HDR used a 2-D model which
provides a more accurate hydraulic analysis than the traditional 1-D model used for the FEMA
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) that led to the adoption of our regulatory flood maps. The HDR
model results showed increases in the water surface level of a 100-year flood upstream from
South 4th Street of between 0.02 and 0.07 of a foot (0.24 to 0.84 inches). It should be noted that
these numbers are preliminary data used for a project unrelated to Prairie Village. However, in
order to properly evaluate the impacts of the Grand Avenue extension, this analysis was made to
determine the 100-year water surface level based on post-fill at Riverside Manor topography.
Mr. Kuester noted that the City Council considered the 100 year flood flow and decided they
wanted additional information. Council deferred their decision until additional work has been
done to find out the difference between a pre-fill and post-fill in a 500 year flood event.
Mr. Koehler expressed that it’s not their decision to allow the subdivision to go through or not go
through because the wall will be there no matter what. The board’s decision is whether or not the
building is built on the edge of the wall or if it’s moved 18 feet back. He noted that the
evacuation procedure is for the people to go away from the river to evacuate. He feels that
putting up the building on the edge of the wall, rather than moving it back 18 feet, is the best use
of the project.
Mr. Davis agreed that putting the building on the edge of the wall will give more room for
people to stand and evacuate. He stated that it is only the board’s decision to decide where they
put the building and whether or not it’s safe in the event of a flood.
Ms. McJimsey expressed that she sees the 18 foot space differently. She agrees that the
alternative method is reasonable in some situations; however, this site is more precarious than
others that have been before the board. She expressed her concern for the limited amount of
space and high ground, as well as the concentration and number of people in the space that is
being increased by the project. She feels that many of the neighbors are unable to fend for
themselves and that it will be less open space for residents and emergency personnel, in the event
of a flood. Ms. McJimsey also noted that giving up more than 800 square feet is contrary to the
public interest because the extra open space could be a valuable asset if it’s part of the area that
isn’t flooded, because it is the highest ground, and believes it is contrary to the interest of the
public to give up the 18 feet.
Mr. Koehler questioned if space would be gained on the north side just by shifting the building.
Ms. McJimsey said it is her understanding that they don’t have the space to shift the building.
Ms. Bradbury noted that if there are a lot of cars and people trying to exit with items, the area
would most likely become very congested with people, personnel, emergency vehicles, etc. in a
space that is already very confined and limited. Mr. Koehler feels the 18 feet could be used as a
staging area for people to wait for help rather than space that will be taken up by emergency
vehicles, resident vehicles, etc. Ms. McJimsey feels the public interest is less well served when
losing the open space.
Moved by Koehler, seconded by Bradbury, to adopt ORDER NO. 14-28, thereby approving the
request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential
Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the property located
at 1204 S. 4th Street, based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Vote on Motion: 2-3. Voting Aye: Davis, Koehler. Voting Nay: Ebel, McJimsey, Bradbury.
Motion declared failed.
CASE NO. 14-34
VARIANCE – Selective Site Development (SSD) and Verizon Wireless, 310 S. 17th Street
Public Hearing on application for Variance to the minimum required setback for a new cell
tower
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. He informed
the board that Trevor Wood with Selective Site Consultants, representing Verizon Wireless, is
seeking to construct a new monopole cell tower on the property located at 310 S. 17th Street,
which is currently vacant. The new tower and associated equipment shelter would be located in a
lease area approximately 56 feet north of the southern boundary of the property which abu ts the
right-of-way for the Highway 30 on-ramp from Duff Avenue.
Mr. Anderson explained that the applicant is proposing to lease a portion of the property as the
site for construction of the proposed 90-foot cell tower and associated equipment structure. The
applicant is specifically proposing a variance to the required 60 -foot setback of the cell tower to
the east property line. The lease area for the cell tower site includes approximately 4,640 square
feet. An access easement, 20 feet wide, is located on the property abutting the east property line
to be used by maintenance vehicles to access the cell tower and equipment shelter. An 8-foot
high wood fence is proposed to identify the extent of the lease area and for security of the
facilities. Crushed stone is proposed to cover the ground inside the fenced area and maintenance
vehicles visiting the site would park on concrete in a parking space to be constructed outside the
fence, yet inside the lease area. The electric meter and disconnects in the north part of the lease
area would be located outside the fenced area for service access.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny this request for a Variance to reduce the side yard setback for
the property at 310 S. 17th Street for the construction of a cell tower.
Ms. Bradbury noted that it was mentioned that the property owner could adjust the property line
between 300 and 310 S. 17th Street and questioned if both properties were owned by the same
owner. Mr. Anderson replied that both properties do have the same owner. Ms. Bradbury
questioned if adjusting the property line or combining the two properties together could be a
possibility. Mr. Anderson expressed that might be best answered by the applicant.
Mr. Davis noted that there would be a financial cost associated with a plat of survey to make the
two lots into one and wondered what that cost might be to do so. Mr. Anderson noted that a plat
of survey would need to be approved to combine the two lots into one, but that he was unsure
what the costs associated with doing that would be.
Mr. Koehler noted that there are three setback options and inquired if the lot needs to be the
maximum of the three options. Mr. Anderson replied that the setback does need to be the largest
of the three options at 60 feet.
Ms. McJimsey noticed that the application referenced a black chain link fence but the staff report
indicated a wood fence and wondered which was correct. Mr. Anderson informed the board that
the fence was changed to wood because fencing was needed that couldn’t be seen through.
Trevor Wood, 9900 West 109th Street, Overland Park, KS, representing Selective Site
Development (SSD), as well as Verizon Wireless, informed the board that the two properties are
under common ownership. The property owner used those parcels as one common parcel.
Regarding the inquiry of the possibility of a plat of survey, Mr. Wood noted that the owner is not
willing to participate in adjusting the property lines or doing a plat of survey. Mr. Wood said that
SSD would participate in a plat of survey if the owner was willing. Mr. Wood expressed that
they are seeking a variance for property under common ownership and said that the owner is
willing to participate in the variance and special use permit. Mr. Wood noted that there is a
safety concern for the City, as well as an aesthetic issue. He feels that as far as safety is
concerned, they are obligated to meet the same codes for the monopole as if they were
constructing a building on the site and must meet adopted codes to do so. He expressed that the
towers are nearly indestructible and that it is very uncommon for monopole towers to be
destructed or damaged even by very strong winds, tornados, etc. In his opinion, he feels that it
would be safe to wave the 60 feet setback requirement.
As far as aesthetics are concerned, Mr. Wood continues to work with staff to improve on their
site application to make the tower as sleek as possible; they can’t reduce the visual aesthetic any
more than they already have. In the case that the board would approve the variance, Mr. Wood
agreed to follow the conditions that staff has set out. He thoroughly endorsed the location and
site they are seeking approval for and feels that if their site was near residents, there would be
many more issues and opposition to the site plan. Mr. Wood emphasized that this site is proper
development for the City of Ames and that it is the best location for a monopole tower in terms
of retaining flexibility for both parcels. Mr. Wood believes they meet all of the criteria for the
variance and provided his own findings and conclusions for each of the six criteria describing
how he believes they meet the criteria at hand.
Ms. Bradbury agreed with the applicant that City staff knows additional service is needed in this
part of Ames and believes that that is not a bone of contention with City staff or the board.
Mr. Wood expressed his opinion that he feels networks are turning into utilities meaning almost
everyone needs network services, and in an emergency situation a reliable network is even more
important and could be very frustrating if service is not accessible. Mr. Wood noted that he
wants to help Ames be viewed as a progressive community and that he would really like the
support of the board on this project.
Ms. Bradbury said that because the properties are side by side, and considering that the property
to the east is quite larger and both properties are owned by the same individual, she inquired if
there was discussion about putting the tower in the back corner of the larger lot. Mr. Wood noted
that there was discussion of changing the lot lines but that the owner was not interested in doing
so. Ms. Bradbury wondered if that given that the properties are side by side, were they at one
time one parcel and then property lines were severed. Mr. Anderson did not have the answer and
said he would need to look at previous platting documents to determine whether or not the
properties were previously one parcel. Mr. Wood said that the current plat shows that the lot
lines were established in 1993; however, he is not sure whether or not the current owner was
responsible for those lot lines.
Mr. Davis said he understands not wanting to place the tower in the eastern lot, but that the plight
of the owner is the owners themselves and not wanting to combine the two lots.
Mr. Wood informed the board that the owner has not shared the long term development plan, so
he is unsure of what plans are for the western lot. He inquired to the board what it is that they are
trying to achieve with the setback requirement.
Ms. McJimsey noted that the plight of the board is that they have to work with the code that the
City has established; the board has denied cellular towers in the past because of setbacks in
commercial areas. She expressed the difficulty for the board to be able to approve the variance
when the difference is so significant.
Mr. Wood expressed that he doesn’t want to look at what could be in the future but what the
current situation is today, which is that the same owner owns both properties. Mr. Davis
questioned if it might be a possibility that the additional land be leased on the eastern portion of
the land. He also noted that the access easement is on the eastern side of the property line and
wondered if that means that anyone they sell the property to will be made to keep the access
easement. Mr. Anderson replied that that would be correct or they could vacate the access and re-
locate it. Mr. Wood stated that he is not sure what the setbacks are designed to protect nor is he
sure what it is that the board is trying to protect.
Ms. Ebel said that it might be okay to do that to a neighboring property but not when the
neighbor isn’t the same owner and these properties may not always have the same owner.
Mr. Wood again expressed his belief that the property owners are the same and, therefore, that’s
the distinguishing factor.
Mr. Anderson noted that the property could be used for a variety of commercial uses; it does not
have to be used for a cellular tower. Staff does not agree that standards are met nor do they feel
that the variance should be granted to the applicant.
Mr. Wood concluded that he feels they meet the overall criteria. From a practical perspective, he
can only see the positive impacts that the tower would have on the City of Ames. Although Ms.
Ebel feels the applicant has made several very valid points, she still doesn’t feel they have
enough as a board to be able to justify the variance. Mr. Davis believes it again goes back to the
plight of the owner because there is a perfectly viable way for Verizon to get the cellular tower
built on the eastern lot if the owner was open to it.
Ms. Bradbury agreed that it would be easy to move forward if the owner really wanted the
cellular tower on the property. She indicated that it is difficult for the board to feel comfortable
passing the variance because for them the property line is not invisible, it’s visible, and if the
ownership were to change, the future ownership of the other lot would not be protected.
Moved by Ebel, seconded by Bradbury, to deny ORDER NO. 14-34, thereby denying the request
for a Variance at 310 S. 17th Street, based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff
report.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 14-30
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Selective Site Development (SSD) and Verizon Wireless, 310 S.
17th Street
Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit for a new cell tower
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Trevor Wood
with Selective Site Consultants, representing Verizon Wireless, is seeking approval for a Special
Use Permit to allow a new cell tower on the property located at 310 S. 17 th Street. However, in
the event that the board denies the related variance, the proposed Special Use Permit may not be
approved as it will not comply with zoning requirements.
Mr. Anderson informed the board that the applicant proposes to lease a portion of the property as
the site for construction of the proposed 90-foot tall cell tower and associated ground equipment
structure. The cell tower is a monopole with antennas mounted on three sides. The antenna for
Verizon Wireless extends out 4 feet from the side of the monopole; the antennas for two future
carriers are shown as flush-mounted.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the Special Use Permit for a cell tower with antennas at 310 S.
17th 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 code
Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Davis, to deny ORDER NO. 14-30, thereby denying the
request for a Special Use Permit at 310 S. 17th Street, based on the findings of fact and
conclusions in the staff report.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: Ms. Ebel mentioned a training opportunity coming up in April through the ISU
Extension. She believes it would be helpful for board members who don’t have a planning
background to attend the training.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Ebel to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m.
_________________________________ _________________________________
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Sandra McJimsey, Chair