Findings - CC - 1997 - CU-10-96 - Cup For Cellular Transmission Facility, 8785 Hb Rd
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
FORA CELLULAR TRANSMISSION FACILITY )
FOR WESTERN PCS II CORPORATION )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CU -10-96
The above-entitled conditional use pennit application came before the Eagle City Council for
their decision on March 5, 1997. The Eagle City Council having heard and taken oral and
written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law;
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A.
B.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Western PCS II Corp., represented by David Wiltsee, is requesting conditional use
approval for a 120-foot high cellular monopole located at 8785 Horseshoe Bend Road.
The site is located on the west side of Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 1/4 mile
north of State Street.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on November 1,
1996.
C.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter
65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on November 22, 1996, and
again on December 22, 1996. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to
property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle
City Code on November 6, 1996, and again on December 20, 1996. Requests
for agencies' reviews were transmitted on November 1, 1996 in accordance with
the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
Page 1 of 13
F:ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu 1 096ccfdoc
D.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was
published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code
and the Eagle City ordinances on January 24, 1997. Notice of this public
hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of
the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter
65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on January 17, 1997.
HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On March 22, 1994, the City Council approved (with conditions) a Conditional
Use and Design Review (CUP/DR-I-94) for a public storage/RV storage facility
with an office and residence.
E.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: DR-20-96 (Design Review)
F.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
G.
ZONING:
Existing - C-2
Proposed - (No change proposed)
North of site - RT
South of site - C-2
East of site - R-I1M & RT
West of site - R-4
H.
LAND USE:
Existing - Mini-storage and RV parking facility
Proposed - Same as existing with the addition of a cellular monopole.
North of site - Pasture with residence
South of site - Vacant land
East of site - Trailers on individual lots
West of site - Great Sky residential subdivision (Across from the proposed
realignment ofHwy 55)
I.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to use approximately 924-square feet of the 13.75-acre site
(0.0015% of the total site). The applicant is not proposing to construct a building
at this time. A 12-foot by 20-foot concrete pad is proposed for equipment
cabinets (computerized switching stations) that are proposed to be approximately
4-feet in height.
Page 2 of 13
F:ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu] 096ccfdoc
J.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Flat with approximately 12 existing storage buildings with 5 more buildings (with
previous Design Review approval) yet to be constructed. The use is light
industrial (storage buildings and RV parking facility).
K.
DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA:
Rural, light industrial, gravel extraction.
L.
SITE DESIGN INFORMATION:
Site Data Proposed Required
Total Acreage of Site 0.02-acres n/a
Percentage of Site Devoted to Building Coverage 0% Less than 92%
Percentage of Site Devoted to Landscaping 4.8% 10%
Number of Parking Spaces 1 1
Front Setback 600-feet (approx) O-feet
Rear Setback 600-feet (approx) O-feet
Side Setback (North) 320-feet (approx) O-feet
Side Setback (South) 320-feet (approx) O-feet
M.
GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Number and Uses of Proposed Buildings:
No buildings are proposed at this time. One cellular monopole, with three
approximately 6-foot long projecting sectors at the top of the pole, is proposed.
Each sector will have two receiver/transmitter antennas attached.
Height and Number of Stories of Proposed Buildings:
No buildings are proposed at this time. The monopole is proposed to be 120-feet
high.
Gross Floor Area of Proposed Buildings: n/a
On and Off-Site Circulation:
The existing driveway extending west from Horseshoe Bend Road would provide
assess to this site.
Page 3 of 13
F :\SHAREDlP&Z'ŒAGLEAPS\CUlCu IO96ccfdoc
N.
PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE:
Telephone and electricallines are proposed to be brought in underground within a
proposed easement along the south property line. The easement is intended to
extend westerly from Horseshoe Bend Road to this site. The applicant states that
water lines are underground and are in the general vicinity of this proposed site.
However, an irrigation system for landscaping is not proposed. No sewer and/or
water service is required (other than water for landscaping).
O.
PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: none
P.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists
Q.
SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain - no
Mature Trees - no
Riparian Vegetation - no
Steep Slopes - no
Stream/Creek: no
Unique Animal Life - no
Unique Plant Life - no
Unstable Soils - no
Wildlife Habitat - no
R.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF
REQUIRED): Not required
S.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached.
Comments which appear to be of special concern are noted below:
Central District Health
DEQ
Eagle Sewer District: No sewer service is available to this property.
Sewer service is not necessary with this facility)
(Note:
T.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date.
Page 4 of 13
F:\SHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPS\CU\Cu IO96ccfdoc
U.
EAGLE CITY CODE 8-7-3-2 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES:
The Commission/Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of
each proposed Conditional Use in tenDs of the following standards and shall find
adequate evidence showing that such use at the proposed location:
A.
Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as established in Section 8-2-3 of
this title (Eagle City Code Title 8) for the zoning district involved;
B.
Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or
with any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this title
(Eagle City Code Title 8);
C.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of
the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential
character of the same area;
D.
Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood
uses;
E.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities such as highways,
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible
for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide
adequately any such services.
F.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare
of the community;
G.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or
the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
H.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are designed as not
to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares;
and
I.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature of major importance.
Page 5 of 13
F:ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu I 096ccf.doc
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (None)
B.
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
Section 8-2-4 limits building heights to 60'. Section 8-3-3(E) states that limit does not
apply to antennas.
C.
DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
Section 8-2A-6-A-l "Site design objectives to consider"
a. The functional relationship of the structures and the site in relation to its
surroundings
The impact and effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on
contiguous streets and adjoining properties or neighborhoods;
b.
Section 8-2A-6-A-5 "Utilities"
Utility service systems shall not detract from building or site design and that size
and location of all service systems are appropriate and maintainable; including,
the location and sizes of all utility lines, manholes, poles, underground cables, gas
lines, wells, and similar installations.
Section 8-2A-6-A-6 "Building Design Objectives"
b. Proportion of Building. The height to width relationship of new structures
shall be compatible and consistent with the architectural character of the
area and proposed use.
Section 8-2A-6-A- 7 "Additional Height Restrictions"
a. All spires, poles, antennas, steeples, towers, and any other such structures
shall be limited to a maximum of35 feet. Additional height may be pennitted
if a conditional use pennit is approved by the City Council. (Note: A
conditional use application has been submitted.)
D.
DISCUSSION:
1.
With regard to the functional relationship of the structure and the site in relation
to its surroundings, it is impossible to make a 120' high pole look unobtrusive
(unless surrounded by other poles, which in itself would be obtrusive). Although
the height of the proposed galvanized steel monopole may generate concern, no
Page 6 of 13
F: ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAP SICUlCu I 096ccf. doc
pennanent guy-wires are proposed and, the gray galvanized steel may blend fairly
well with the sky. Also, the pole is 600-feet from the north/south streets and 300-
feet from the properties to the north and south. Staff believes that this proposal is
appropriate as it relates to the surroundings in this area and is in confonnance with
the Comprehensive Plan and City of Eagle Code.
2.
There is no impact to on-site traffic conditions or to contiguous streets. Adjoining
properties to the east and west are over 600-feet from this site. The property to
the north is rural in nature and the property to the south is undeveloped
commercial. Staff believes the impact on adjoining properties in minimal, if at
all.
3.
It is staff s opinion that this pole does not detract from the existing building
design, and the height to width relationship is not incompatible with the
architectural character of the area and proposed use, because of the light industrial
nature of the buildings and general area of this site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Pennit with the site specific
conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided within the report.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on December 16, 1996, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing
was closed. The Commission then decided to continue the public hearing to a special meeting of
December 30, 1996. The item was again continued from the December 30, 1996, meeting, to the
January 13, 1997, meeting, so the applicants for this proposal, and for CU-8-96, could attend,
and so the public hearing could again be noticed as required by law.
B. At the public hearing of December 16, 1996, no oral testimony in opposition to this
proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this proposal.
C. At the public hearing of December 16, 1996, oral testimony in favor of the application
was presented by two of the applicant's representatives and one other individual before the
Planning and Zoning Commission who were in favor of the proposed telecommunications
facility for the following reasons;
Applicant's representatives - The system will provide enonnous services to local communities;
This location does not cause community concern; That is why this facility is proposed on the
Eastern side of town; All of the antennas have to be able to see as many other antennas as
Page 7 of 13
F:ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu 1096ccf.doc
possible, a simple line of sight; That is why you need elevation; The site we have chosen fits
our needs rather nicely and should be acceptable to Eagle; Collocation is encouraged; Every
effort is made where feasible to have others locate on our facility; The Republic Storage site is a
pretty good distance off both the existing highway and the proposed new highway; The site will
be fenced for security; The monopole is a very slim monopole; Very low wattage; We looked at
the center of your town, we looked at what you were trying to do from a planning stand point and
we backed off from it; We decided it would be better to straddle the town and move to less
occupied territory and basically stay out of visual corridors and that is how we ended up with our
particular site.
NOTE: One individual did speak in opposition of Western PCS's proposal for a pole in the
impact area (not this item).
Other individuals in favor - You really don't see the poles; Unless you are looking to see
something you really don't see them; We will not see these poles in a month or two months; This
has got to happen because we have to have the service for the community; My opinion is one
taller pole that would service the community and serve both companies (Boise City Cellular and
Western PCS) would be best.
D. At the public hearing of January 13, 1997, oral testimony in favor of the application was
presented by three of the applicant's representatives before the Planning and Zoning Commission
who were in favor of the proposed telecommunications facility for the following reasons;
Applicant's representatives - Repeat of previous testimony with the following additional
infonnation; In wishing to comply with Eagle's desires we gravitated southward to the Republic
Storage Site; It enabled us to located 800' back from the road; propagation map shows this site is
better than State Street for this applicant.
F. At the public hearing of January 13, 1997, no oral testimony in opposition to this item
was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
COMMISSION DECISION OF DECEMBER 16, 1996:
The Commission recommended that the item be continued until the special meeting of December
30, 1996, so this applicant, and the applicant for the State Street site, could attend at the same
time. That meeting was then continued to the January 13, 1997, meeting so both applicants (for
CU-8-96 and CU-I0-96) could be there, and so the meeting could be re-noticed.
COMMISSION DECISION OF JANUARY 13, 1997:
The Commission recommended denial of CU-I0-96/Westem PCS II Corp., located at the
Republic Storage facility, unless CU-8-96/Boise City Cellular Partnership, for the pole on 1341
Page 8 of 13
F:ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu I 096ccf.doc
E. State Street, is denied by the City Council.
If the State Street application (CU-8-96) is denied by the City Council, then the Commission
recommends approval of CU-I0-96/Western PCS II Corp., located at the Republic Storage
facility.
NOTE: The recommendation for denial was based upon the applicant's agreement to
collocate at the State Street site (CU-8-96), and further based upon the statements of the State
Street applicant (CU-8-96), which pointed out that collocation at the Republic Storage site (CU-
10-96) would not work for them.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Eagle City Council on March 5,
1997, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed.
B. At the public hearing of March 5, 1997, no oral testimony in opposition to this proposal
was presented to the Eagle City Council.
C. At the public hearing of March 5, 1997, oral testimony in favor of the application was
presented by two of the applicant's representatives who were in favor of the proposed
telecommunications facility for the following reasons; This location does not cause community
concern; That is why this facility is proposed on the Eastern side of town in a commercially
zoned and comprehensive planned area with existing light industrial use; The site we have
chosen fits our needs rather nicely and should be acceptable to Eagle; Collocation is encouraged;
The Republic Storage site is a pretty good distance off both the existing highway and the
proposed new highway.
DECISION OF THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL:
On March 5, 1997, the Eagle City Council approved the conditional use pennit (CU-I0-97) with
the following conditions:
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The conditional use pennit shall expire on March 5, 2002, unless an extension of time is
requested in writing by the applicant prior to March 5, 1997, and subsequent approval is
granted by the Eagle City Council.
2. Co-location agreements allowing others to use the tower shall be provided to future users.
Page 9 of 13
F:\SHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPS\CUlCu l096ccf.doc
3. The tower shall be contained in a zone recommended, in writing, by an engineer in the field
dealing with cellular towers. The City Engineer shall consult with the applicant's engineer to
assure that the written document presented to the City, by the applicant's engineer, meets
this requirement.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.
Any changes to the plans and specifications upon which this approval is based, other than
those required by the above conditions, will require submittal of an application for
modification and approval of that application prior to commencing any change.
2.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with all applicable City of Eagle
Codes unless specifically approved by the Council.
3.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of
this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations,
ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the
applicant or its successors in interest advises the City of Eagle of its intent to change the
planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other
legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
4.
No change in the tenDS and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in
writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an
authorized representative of the City of Eagle. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confinnation of any change from the City of Eagle.
5.
All pennits from Central District Health, Eagle Sewer District & Eagle Fire District, shall
be secured prior to issuance of building pennit.
6.
The developer and/or owner shall comply with all requirements of Ada County Highway
District and/or the State ofIdaho Transportation Dept., including approval of the drainage
plan, requirements for installing curb, gutter, sidewalks as specified by the Ada County
Highway District. Those developments on State St. shall comply with the Eagle street
design for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, trees and lights.
7.
A letter from the fire department is required stating "the developer and/or owner has
made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Fire Department", prior to
issuance of a building pennit.
Eagle Fire Department shall check off and approve all fire hydrant locations and
minimum flow per hydrant;
Eagle Fire Department shall check off and approve the fire protection system prior to
Page 10 of 13
F: ISHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPSICU\Cu I 096ccf, doc
issuance of a building pennit;
One set of building plans in any commercial district will be submitted to the Fire District
for approval.
8.
Design Review Applications and Landscaping Applications are required on all
commercial developments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1.
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on November 1, 1996.
2.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on November 22, 1996, and again on
December 22, 1996. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners
within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the
requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on November
6, 1996, and again on December 20, 1996. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on November 1, 1996 in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle
City Code.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in
accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
ordinances on January 24, 1997. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property
owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with
the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on January
17, 1997.
3.
The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed Conditional
Use (CU-I0-96) in tenDS Eagle City Code Section 8-7-3-2 "General Standards for
Conditional Uses" and has made the following conclusions with regard to the proposed
State Street telecommunications facility:
A.
The proposal does, in fact, constitute a conditional use as established in Section 8-
2-3 of Eagle City Code Title 8 for the zoning district involved the use is similar to
a radio station use established in Section 8-2-3 of Eagle City Code Title 8;
B.
Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with
any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Eagle City Code Title 8,
because the conditions of approval provide for collocation, thereby limiting the
number of towers within the City. The site is not within a scenic corridor and the
Page 11 of 13
F:\SHARED\P&ZŒAGLEAPS\CU\Cu 1096ccf,doc
visual impact is minimal;
c.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity, and such use will not change the essential character of the same area
since the site is in a C- 3 district allowing light industrial, and is the existing
location of a low intensity light industrial use (storage facility). The Council
also concludes that the visual impact is minimal and will not conflict with the
existing or intended character ofthe general vicinity. There is no impact to on-
site traffic conditions or to contiguous streets. Adjoining properties to the east
and west are over 600-feet from this site. The property to the north is rural in
nature and the property to the south is undeveloped commercial;
D.
Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses,
because the facility will be constructed to safety standards approved by Registered
Professional Engineers and will be controlled by the Federal Communications
Commission. The tower will not cause interference with television, cordless
telephone, or radio signals. Will not cause odors, noise, vibration, pollution,
excessive traffic, smoke, glare or dust. The facility will be unmanned and will
only require infrequent visits by a company technician and the pole is proposed to
be located 600' from the north/south streets (new and old Highway 55), and 300-
feet from the properties to the north and south. This pole does not detract from
the existing building design, and the height to width relationship is not
incompatible with the architectural character of the area and proposed use,
because of the light industrial nature of the buildings and general area of this site;
E.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities such as highways, streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
and schools and the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services per letters
received by said agencies as noted in the staff report;
F.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services (addressed in "E") and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community because it will improve cellular
communication services for business, public agencies, and citizens of the city of
Eagle;
G.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions
of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or
odors as discussed in "D" above;
Page 12 of 13
F:\SHARED\P&ZIEAGLEAPS\CUlCu 1 096ccfdoc
H.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are designed as not to create
an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares as approved by
ACHD;and
I.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance because the site is not in the vicinity of any known
natural, historic, or scenic feature of major importance and is not within the scenic
corridor as designated in the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan.
DATED this 25th day of March, 1997.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada Co , Id
ATTEST:
"""""'"
~~, OF J:I '"
,..~ ...1 4;,4 '"
<it';'" .#t: "" ....... C.; '#A
~ ~~ .. ". ""'Å~"
~ V.,., . v'"
! - OR<1» -.\ \
~.. ...'
. - '* :
. . . ..
: . ~ SEAL ;.---: =
':0 ':..""' ....'~"
~ ..Cô >Õ;l' ¡
~ d\. -..'rtPo ~~.. 0 ~
~,,-~ ....1!Ji,¡a" ~.. 4ì
..'" '..if'^-- .. ..ot>:";-~
~.';~,.DF ,v"~
-...."øa,.-
Page 13 of 13
F : ISHAREDIP &Z\EA GLEAPS\CU\Cu I 096ccf. doc