Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 8-27-2014 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA AUGUST 27, 2014 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on August 27, 2014, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Susan Bradbury, Shelby Ebel, Matthew Koehler, and Patrick Brooks. Board Member Sandra McJimsey was absent. Staff members Karren Marren and Jessica Spoden were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 23, 2014, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 14-23 VARIANCE – Kum and Go, LC, 2801 E. 13th Street Public Hearing on application for Variance to rear minimum setback requirement on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street Vice Chairman Ebel announced that this item was pulled from the agenda and would appear on a future meeting agenda. CASE NO. 14-19 VARIANCE – New Cingular Wireless PSC, LLC (AT&T), 116 BEEDLE DRIVE Public Hearing on application for Variances to rear end side setback requirements for a new cell tower on the property located at 116 Beedle Drive City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Ronak Desai, with Creospan, Inc., representing AT&T, is seeking to place a new monopole cell tower at the property located at 116 Beedle Drive. The proposed tower is identified as a “stealth” tower, meaning the antennas are mounted on the interior of the monopole. The new tower and equipment shelter will be located at the northeast corner of the property. Ms. Marren noted that the proposed tower location is at 116 Beedle Drive, which is a property that is zoned HOC (Highway Oriented Commercial). The property is approximately 161 feet wide by 221 feet in depth. The property currently contains a car wash and Budget Truck rental facility. A lease area of 20’-6” by 20’ is proposed with a 20 foot access and utility easement along the north property line. A 6 foot wide fence is proposed to identify the extent of the lease area and for security of the tower and equipment shelter. Ms. Marren explained that the applicant is proposing to pave the area within the leased area which is currently gravel on the site. The location of the electric meter and disconnects is shown east of and outside the fence area for service access. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were reviewed in detail by Ms. Marren. She explained that City staff has reviewed the request and 2 recommends that the Board deny this request for a variance because none of the four criteria have been met. CASE NO. 14-18 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Ronak Desai, Creospan, Inc., 116 BEEDLE DRIVE Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit for a new cell tower City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Ronak Desai, with Creospan, Inc., representing AT&T, is seeking to place a new monopole cell tower at the property located at 116 Beedle Drive. The proposed tower is identified as a “stealth” tower, meaning the antennas are mounted on the interior of the monopole. The new tower and equipment shelter will be located at the northeast corner of the property. Ms. Marren noted that the proposed tower location is at 116 Beedle Drive, which is a property that is zoned HOC (Highway Oriented Commercial). The property is approximately 161 feet wide by 221 feet in depth. The property currently contains a car wash and Budget Truck rental facility. A lease area of 20’-6” by 20’ is proposed with a 20 foot access and utility easement along the north property line. A 6 foot wide fence is proposed to identify the extent of the lease area and for security of the tower and equipment shelter. Ms. Marren explained that the applicant is proposing to pave the area within the leased area which is currently gravel on the site. The location of the electric meter and disconnects is shown east of and outside the fence area for service access. Ms. Marren also noted to the Board that a corresponding variance request is also pending on tonight’s agenda for the project. Staff has recommended denial of the variance request, but has approached the Special Use Permit application independent of the variance recommendation. In the event that the Zoning Board of Adjustment denies the related variance, the proposed Special Use Permit may not be approved as the submitted Site Plan does not comply with zoning requirements. Ms. Marren explained that City staff has reviewed the request and recommends that the Board act to approve the Special Use Permit for a Cell Tower with antennas at 116 Beedle Drive based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, as detailed on the submitted Site Plan, if the required setback variations are approved for the property, and with the following conditions: a) a fully paved access drive be installed to the cell tower lease area, and b) the required landscape screening be installed for the parking area required for the cell site. Gail Maty, site acquisition agent for Creospan who represents AT&T, explained the need for an AT&T tower in the Ames area to better serve and provide coverage to their customers. Ms. Maty also discussed that the site would be available to other carriers who wish to use the tower, it would not only serve customers with AT&T coverage. Board Member Bradbury inquired about the height of the tower at 150 feet tall. She pointed out that the U.S. Cellular is lower, so she wondered if it would it be possible to lower the height of the tower that they are proposing to build. 3 Ms. Maty is not sure whether or not the height could be lowered; however, she can go back to the engineers and further study the frequency to see if there is a possibility they could lower the height. Ms. Maty noted that some towers do not provide the same type of service or coverage they are aspiring to achieve and explained that the height allows them to provide a better frequency and level of coverage to their client; service and coverage are not as efficient at a lower height. The height of the tower also allows AT&T to provide better equipment in case there is a need to provide service to a larger area or number of customers in a short period of time. Board Member Bradbury would like to find a way to protect the residents, as well as allow AT&T to provide better service and coverage to their customers. Board Member Brooks inquired about the tower’s anchor distance requirements and expressed concern about safety with the anchors, especially with the anchors being placed very closely to residential homes. Ms. Maty explained that the tower is a monopole which means that the tower is anchored to the ground with concrete and goes down 20 feet into the ground. A monopole tower has sections like a lego and falls into itself, if it were to fall. Board Member Bradbury believes it would be preferable to locate the tower on something else that is already very tall, such as a water tower. She inquired if options had been explored to put the tower closer to the water tower located near this location site. Ms. Maty explained that they are very interested in this particular site because of the high elevation and the opportunity for the most height and best coverage possible. She explained that sometimes moving a location even three blocks can drastically affect the positivity of the signal. Board Member Brooks expressed his legitimate concern for the surrounding neighbors and adjacent property owners near the tower location site. Moved by Brooks, seconded by Bradbury, to deny ORDER NO. 14-19, thereby denying the request for a variance to rear end side setback requirements for a new cell tower, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Vote on Motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: Ebel, Brooks, Bradbury. Voting Nay: Koehler. Motion declared approved. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Brooks, to continue the hearing for ORDER NO. 14-18 to a date, as requested by the applicant, to re-submit a site plan that would accommodate setbacks, as required by code. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. 4 ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Brooks, seconded by Bradbury, to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. _________________________________ _________________________________ Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Sandra McJimsey, Chair