Coralville Board of Adjustment

City of Coralville Board of Adjustment Meeting March 18, 2013 Staff: Jim Kessler, Building & Zoning Official Dee Marshek, Administrative Assistant Item #1: Meeting called to order 6:00 PM Acknowledge new Board of Adjustment member, Eric Boucher. Item #2: Member present: Wells, Szczech Nicola and Boucher. Absent: Rice Others present: Rich Kotite, Agent with The Wireless Group Szczech serves as chairperson in Rice’s absence. Letter received from neighboring property owner distribute to Board of Adjustment members. Item #3: Approval of October 15, 2012 Minutes. Motion to approve with corrections by: Nicola 2nd by: Wells Motion carried: 3-0 (New member Boucher abstains) Item #4: Election of Co-chair. Szczech offers his services as co-chair for 2013. Motion to elect Szczech as co-chair by: Nicola 2nd by: Wells Motion carried: 4-0 Item #5: Public Hearing request by AT & T Mobility for a Variance to the Coralville Code of Ordinance Section 165.31 Light Industrial District. Specifically Section 165.31(6)(B) Building Setback: Front Yard. This request is located near 320 2nd Street. Public Hearing opened: Rich Kotite Site Assessment Agent with Wireless Group presents his request for the placement of a cell tower at this location. Kotite explains this is an AT& T cell tower. AT&T will be the owner and operators of this 120’ monopole tower and equipment shelter. Coralville’s Code of Ordinance limits the placement of such towers and shelters in an Industrial Zoned District. He states that there is another US Cellar tower about 200 yards from this location and that he unsuccessfully tried to co-habit with that location. Kotite shared with the members that he had been in contact with other property owners in the area, Peterson Scrap Metal, the car lot dealership, and then The Iowa Lodge. Mike Cooper of the Iowa Lodge would allow the use of a back corner of his lot. This is an unused, yet out of the way, still within the Light Industrial District area. He shares that the AT & T tower is necessary for the new network for Johnson County. Kotite adds, the request for this Variance is to allow the equipment shelter for this tower to be setback just 4’ from the property line. Boucher: Questions what would happen if the Variance was denied? Kotite: Explains the limited Light Industrial area, towers are in clusters, this would be a great location for service, and a definite public benefit. Wells: Questions the required setback? Kessler: They are asking for only 4 foot, as opposed to the required 25 foot for a front yard setback. Kotite: Expresses that he was unaware of the setback requirements, or the shelter setback issues. He adds that Mike Cooper with the Iowa Lodge would only allow placement in this corner, he has future plans of selling the property and want to retain the ability of installing a driveway in this area. Wells: How long would the lease be? Kotite: 30 years. Kessler: Adds, this also falls within a stormwater easement area. Nicola: Asks, what about moving the equipment shelter? Kotite: The owner would say no. This would be the only location he would allow them, this is an otherwise unusable area. Members openly question and discuss the plans submitted, the 4 foot setback issue, placement of the towers equipment shelter and another existing transformer tower near the location. Kotite: Referring to the other transformer on site, that can’t be used either. The property owner proposes installing a new drive and the existing transformer would have to be moved. Kotite states that he is working with another neighboring property owner to acquire an easement. Boucher: The Code of Ordinance states, (taken from previous meetings minutes) no variance be granted unless the property owner demonstrates the following elements: A. Not contrary to the public interest and B. Unnecessary hardship. Kessler: This hardship would be of their own making. Boucher: Comments, in reading Section 165.54 Variances, all conditions have to be met. **See Section 165.54 below: Variance Findings: No variance to the strict application of any provision of this chapter shall be granted by the Board of Adjustment unless the property owner demonstrates that all of the following elements are present. A. Not contrary to the public interest: (1) The proposed variance will not threaten neighbor integrity or have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. (2) The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not contravene the objective of the Community Plan. B. Unnecessary hardship: (1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the requested variances is allowed; and (2) The owner’s situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question; it is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood; and (3) The hardship is not of the landowner’s own making or of a predecessor in title. Kessler: As the City Official, I would ask for this to table this until the setback issue is resolved and the neighboring easement is acquired. Kotite: I’ve been talking to the neighboring property owner, Dean Moore. He may be selling this property next door. Members continue discussing the location of the tower and equipment shelter, the street location in proximity to the shelter, and the setback issues and including Dean Moore’s property. Boucher: We have a letter form Dean Moore opposing this Variance request. He concerns are of the long term lease and the effects to improvements and development in the future. Kotite: Begins reading from a copy of the Variance Finding. Not contrary to the public interest….. Szczech: We have a letter from Moore. Kessler: We received the letter late this afternoon. Kotite: Again begins reading…..The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not contravene the objective of the Community Plan. Wells: Yes, what about the Community Plan, how would this fit in? Kessler: The City is in the process of developing a new Community Plan. We will concentrate on 3-4 area of the City. This area and the West Land Use area are two that will be focused on for sure. It’s hard to grant a variance, it’s hard to prove a hardship not of your own making. Szczech: Questions the hardship. Kotite: There’s a lot of work that’s goes into this, we’ve worked on design, and the design has been approved. Kessler: Moore wrote the letter, and it’s in question as to if the easement will to forth coming. Kotite: We worked and planned with Mid-American as t the best location. What about a outdoor cabinet on a platform, and not a building the shelter? Kessler: It’s still a structure; it can’t encroach into the front yard setback. Front yards adjoin the street right-of-way. Kotite: Will we have minutes in detail; this is going to be hard to explain. Public Hearing closed: a) Consider approval of the Variance. Motion to approve by: Nicola 2nd by: Wells Aye – 0 Nays – 4 Motion Denied Item #6: Public Hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Lawn & Garden Center for Hy-Vee located at 2008 8th Ave. Public Hearing open: Public Hearing closed: Kessler: Let me explain for our new member that these Conditional Use Permits for the Lawn & Garden Center have been issued to the same four businesses for the past several years. The requests are the same as in the past, and are based according to location and size of the center. We have had no problems or complaints in the past regarding these centers. a) Consider approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Motion to approve by: Wells Item # 6- Hy-Vee Item #7- Lennoch & Cilek Item # 8- Theisens Item # 9- Wal-Mart 2nd by: Nicola Motion Carried: 4 - 0 Item#10: Motion to Adjourn Motion by: Nicola 2nd by: Boucher Motion Carried: 4-0 Meeting Adjourned: 6:30 PM Respectfully submitted, Dee Marshek