Minutes_Zoning Board of Adjustment 2 26 15 Dubuque
DUB E I1 �
Masterpiece m the Mississippi ,®. ..,, D TO
MINUTES
CITY OF DUBUQUE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR SESSION
5:00 p.m.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building
Board Members Present: Chairperson Eugene Bird, Jr.; Board Members Jonathan
McCoy, Bethany Golombeski, and Jeff Cremer; Staff Members Guy Hemenway, Kyle
Kritz, and Wally Wernimont.
Board Members Excused: Board Member Joyce Pope.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bird at 5:00 p.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the
meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law.
MINUTES: The minutes of the January 22, 2015 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting
were approved unanimously as submitted.
Docket 02-15: Application of Chris Ershen, 370 Hill Street, for a conditional use permit
to allow an off-premise garage as a conditional use 75 feet from the subject property.
Chris Erschen, 370 Hill Street, explained that he has purchased a detached garage
located across the alley from his home. He said that he intends to use the garage to
park his car and store items such as lawn mowers and bikes.
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Staff Member Hemenway presented the staff report noting that Mr. Erschen's request is
for an off-premise residential garage located with 75 feet of his home. He said that the
Conditional Use Permit approval binds the detached garage located on a separate lot
with the property and the house associated with it. He explained that the detached
garage and property could not be sold to another individual at a different location unless
another CUP has been obtained. He noted that there was a previous approval for the
same off-premise garage associated with the property to the south. He said that as the
applicant is in the process of purchasing the garage from the former property owner, a
new conditional use permit is required.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2
February 26, 2015
Board Member McCoy said the Board has reviewed the same garage at a previous
meeting and that he does not see any issues arising from changing the ownership of
the off-premise garage.
Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the conditional use permit. Motion
carried by the following vote: Aye Bird, Cremer, Golombeski, and McCoy; Nay — None.
Docket 03-15: Application of Jered Welter, 2901 Davenport Street, for a Special
Exception to build a detached garage 8 feet from the front property line (Primrose
Street,) 20 feet required, and 2 feet from the rear property line (alley,) 6 feet required in
an R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district.
Jered Welter, 2901 Davenport Street, outlined his request for the Board. He said that
he would like to build a detached garage at the rear of his property.
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Staff Member Wernimont noted that an adjoining property at 2895 Davenport Street
submitted a letter of support. He distributed photos of the site and explained the
setback requirements and the location of the property and detached garage in relation
to Primrose Street and the alley. He explained that the proposed detached garage will
be located outside of the visibility triangle at the alley and Primrose Street. He said
there is not adequate space in front of the proposed detached garage to park a vehicle
without blocking the sidewalk.
The Board discussed the request noting there are no problems with the proposed
location.
Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the Special Exception. Motion
carried by the following vote: Aye Bird, Cremer, Golombeski, and McCoy; Nay — None.
Docket 04-15: Application of Susan Faber, Black & Veatch, for a Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 120 foot monopole communications tower and associated
equipment enclosure in an R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district for property
located at 3500 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Chairperson Bird asked staff to briefly summarize the previous Board meetings
regarding the tower request since a new Board Member is present.
Staff Member Hemenway noted that the previous applicant, Mike Bieniek, submitted an
application in July, 2014 for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance. He said that after
discussion with the Zoning Board of Adjustment the applicant asked to table the
request. He said that the same applications were presented to the Board in August of
2014 and the previous questions the Board had asked to were not answered to their
satisfaction, and consequently the applications were again tabled.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3
February 26, 2015
He referred to a letter of opposition from Al Heitzman and Scott Kilgore, an aerial photo
of the site showing the location of the proposed tower, a 120 foot radius map, a copy of
a letter that was sent from the applicant to the property owners notifying them of the
public meeting and a list of property owners who attended the public meeting.
Staff Member Hemenway read the standards for granting a conditional use permit.
Chairperson Bird declared that both dockets would be heard simultaneously for the
purpose of presenting information and voted on separately.
Susan Faber, 7600 County Line Road, Burr Ridge, Illinois, said that she represented
Black & Veach. She explained that SBA is a tower owner/developer that leases space
on the tower to wireless communication companies. She explained that the proposed
tower is needed to provide increased capacity, which is needed to satisfy increased
demand for technology and data. She said that the site provide better service to the
surrounding area. She explained that a neighborhood meeting was held and that five
people attended the meeting in addition to members of the Dubuque Bible Church.
She referred to a detailed property value report prepared by Integra Realty Resources.
She said that the report studied three existing tower sites located in the Dubuque area.
She read the economic analysis summary of the report, noting that the towers had no
substantial impact to residential property values. She explained said that the cell
towers are located at 2763 Pennsylvania Avenue, on property owned by the Dubuque
Community School District and in Clay Ridge Subdivision. She discussed the proximity
of the surrounding residences in relationship to the proposed cell tower. She noted that
SBA is required to carry insurance for any damages that may be caused by the tower.
She noted that the value of the property would raise the taxable value where the
proposed tower would be located and that, historically, the adjoining residential property
taxes will not increase.
Ms. Faber introduced, Richard Heacock, design engineer with Saber Industries, via cell
phone. She discussed Mr. Heacock's credentials, and noted his background
associated with monopoles.
Mr. Heacock explained he is the chairperson for the Zoning Board of Appeals in his
community and understands the difficult situation that the Board is faced with. He said
that Saber Industries, SBA and Black & Veach have worked together on other proposed
monopole sites. He said that a Saber Industries design has never failed. He discussed
the code requirements necessary for the monopole that make a catastrophic failure
unlikely. He said that in the event of a catastrophic failure potentially created by straight
line winds of 160 miles per hour at the base of the structure, the pole is designed to
collapse in the middle and fall into itself. He explained how the monopole is anchored to
the ground and noted that it is designed to be 20% stronger than the industry standard.
He said that the weakest part of the pole is 53 feet above ground, at a point where the
pole would bend over onto itself and not topple like an uprooted tree. He said that if the
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4
February 26, 2015
pole were to bend all the way over to the ground, it would extend approximately 40 feet
from the base of the pole.
Ms. Faber answered a previous question regarding the potential for relocating the tower
somewhere else on the site or on a different site altogether. She said that the proposed
tower location is ideally situated so as to provide the maximum capacity for data plan
users in immediate area. She said that data plans enable people to use their cell
phones to search the internet, access email, watch movies, etc. She said that given
this growing need, more capacity must be provided in the area. She said that these
towers are typically located close to residential areas because residents are the primary
customers who are using the data plans. She said that this site has direct access to
Kebbie Drive. She indicated that if the pole were to be moved anywhere else on the site
it would still have the same impact on adjacent residential property.
Scott Kilgore, 1684 Westridge Drive, submitted a written letter of opposition. He noted
that the applicant said that the tower is needed for increased capacity for use of email,
videogames, movies, downloading, etc. He said that most people in residential areas
use Wi-Fi in their homes to supply data capacity for their phones. He said the he is
concerned with the possibility for the tower to topple onto neighboring properties.
He submitted a petition to the Board with signatures from adjoining property owners
opposed to the tower that included a map highlighting the lots of the people who signed
the petition. He played a short video showing the proximity of the proposed tower to the
neighboring properties. He said that the proposed cell tower will require maintenance,
which will require at least four visits per month.
Sandra and Jamie Herrig, 1655 Westridge Drive, spoke in opposition to the request.
Ms. Herrig noted they were unable to attend the public meeting that was held by the
applicants. She asked if other properties had been considered for the tower location,
and if other buildings or structures could accommodate the necessary technology. She
expressed concern with the potential for an accumulation of ice and snow on the tower
to break free and cause property damage. She said that the tower would be an
eyesore and make it difficult for her to sell her home.
Peter Hesselman 1645 Westridge Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He noted
that he is not concerned about the data capacity of the tower will provide. He said that
he is only concerned for the safety of his family.
Jessica Hesselman, 1645 Westridge Drive, noted that the applicants indicated that the
tower is needed to provide extra capacity to accommodate data plans. She said her
husband is a teacher and works at Hempstead High School and that he has never lost
coverage for his data plan. She said that other neighbors in the area that have Verizon
said that they do not experience problems receiving data. She noted that the neighbors
who reside at 1655 Westridge are out of town and were unable to sign the petition but
that they signed the previous petition.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5
February 26, 2015
Al Heitzman, 1615 Westridge Drive, noted that he is a 50-year resident of the
neighborhood. He referred to a letter he submitted on September 23, 2014. He read
the letter into the record and distributed a plat of the original subdivision. He noted that
he spoke with the City Assessor and asked how the proposed cell tower would impact
his property value. He said the City Assessor indicated that it could impact his
assessed valuation. He discussed the difference in tax revenue if the property were to
be developed for residential uses. He questioned why the applicants are proposing this
location and not looking at a vacant lot behind the mall on Century Drive.
Duane Jelinek, 1695 Westridge Drive, noted that he opposes the proposed cell tower.
Lloyd Auderer, 1625 Westridge Drive, noted he has been a resident of the
neighborhood since 1965. He spoke in opposition to the request expressing concerns
with the visual impact of the tower and the resale value of his property.
Ms. Faber addressed the neighbor's comments. She discussed coverage for data
plans in the area. She indicated that Verizon and SBA would not be proceeding with
this location if additional capacity was not needed and that this site was chosen by their
RF engineers.
Mr. Heacock addressed the potential for ice accumulation on the tower, noting that
there is not adequate area for such build-up on the vertical surface of the pole. He
explained that some ice may accumulate on the pole; however, there would need to be
excessive high wind speeds in order for the ice to be blown off the pole. He said these
wind speeds typically do not happen in the winter time.
He addressed lightning issue, noting that the pole will channel electricity to the ground
in a safe manner. He said that a tower of this height may actually provide some
protection to the other homes located in the neighborhood because it would most likely
be struck first.
Board Member Golombeski had questions for the engineer regarding the average
height for monopole towers. Mr. Heacock said 120 foot is the approximate average
height for a monopole tower.
Board Member Golombeski asked Ms. Faber the extent of the coverage area for the
proposed tower. Ms. Faber indicated that the proposed coverage area is approximately
one mile.
Board Member McCoy asked the engineer to explain the 25% safety factor standard
included in the materials previously submitted. Mr. Heacock explained the 25% safety
factor to the Board.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6
February 26, 2015
Board Member Golombeski asked if additional antennas can be located on the pole.
Staff Member Kritz explained that the cell tower can co-locate up to two additional
antennae.
Chairperson Bird asked if any other of the sites studied are within the one mile tower
coverage area. Ms. Faber indicated that that the coverage area may be as little as a
half-mile and that an RF engineer may be able to better explain the siting requirements.
She discussed how the site was chosen noting that initially RF engineers comb the
neighborhoods looking for a location that will meet their needs. She said that a proper
elevation is needed to insure that the tower can provide service coverage to the area.
She said that then they negotiate with a property owner that is willing to lease a site.
Chairperson Bird asked if the antenna can go onto existing structures located in the
service area. Ms. Faber said this is one of the first things the RF engineers for, noting it
is cheaper for them to co-locate on another structure as opposed to building a new
tower.
Staff Member Hemenway addressed the comment regarding the potential for the
Board's decision to set precedent. He said that the decision made by the Board does
not establish a precedent and that each case has to be reviewed on its own merits. He
said that the Board's decision does not bind future requests. He discussed a map that
identified the location of other towers located in the city. He explained the reasons why
a cell tower is required to obtain a conditional use permit. He referred to a map
delineating the 120-foot radius around the base of the proposed tower highlighting its
proximity to residential structures.
Board Member Golombeski asked about the height of the transmission lines that are
located along the rear of the subject residential properties. Staff Member Kritz
estimated that the height may vary between 35 to 50 feet.
The Board discussed voting first on the conditional use permit. Chairperson Bird noted
that each Board Member should express their rationale prior to casting their vote.
Board Member McCoy felt that the cell tower did not meet Criteria F & G for standards
for granting a conditional use permit.
Board Member Cremer said that this was the most complete application provided by
any communications company. He expressed concern with the size and harmony of
the structure in relationship to the adjacent residential property. He also noted that he
has not heard from the property owner, Dubuque Bible Church, regarding the
application. He said that he felt that the request did not meet Criteria F of the standards
for granting a conditional use permit.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7
February 26, 2015
Board Member Golombeski said she had concerns similar to those expressed by Board
Members Cremer and McCoy. She said that she felt that the application does not meet
Criteria F & G of standards for granting a conditional use permit.
Chairperson Bird said that he shared the same concerns as the other Board Members.
He said that other sites that may have less impact on the adjacent properties should be
considered by the applicant.
Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the Conditional Use Permit as
submitted. Motion was denied by the following vote: Aye — None; Nay - Bird, Cremer,
Golombeski, and McCoy.
Docket 05-15: Application of Susan Faber, Black & Veatch, for a Variance to place a
120 foot monopole communications tower 72.74 feet from the property line, 120 feet
required, in an R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district for property located at 3500
Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a variance.
Board Member McCoy noted that the variance does not meet Criteria 1 and will not be
contrary to the public interest.
Board Member Cremer agreed with Board Member McCoy, and felt the application for a
variance does not meet Criteria 1 or 5.
Chairperson Bird said that he had concerns with the close proximity of the proposed
tower to the single-family residential homes, and noted that he is not in favor of granting
the variance for the setback.
Board Member Golombeski agreed with the other Board Members stating that the
request did not meet Criteria 1 or 2.
Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the variance. Motion was denied
by the following vote: Aye — None; Nay — Bird, Cremer, Golombeski, and McCoy.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Adopted