Findings - CC - 1997 - CU-8-96 - Place A Communication Tower 120'@1341 E State St.
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
FOR A CELLULAR TRANSMISSION FACILITY )
FOR BOISE CITY CELLULAR PARTNERSHIP )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CU-8-96
The above-entitled conditional use permit 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. Zone: M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
B. Location of Property: 1341 E. State Street; located approximately 400 feet south of State
Street.
C. Size of Property: 2,500 square feet of lease area.
D. Existing Land Use: The portion of the site proposed for this development is vacant.
However, the parcel is currently used by the Container Supply Company.
E. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High density residential/limited professional
office/limited commercial. This parcel is within the "State Street Corridor Special Area" as
designated within the Comprehensive Plan.
F. History of Previous Actions: On October 25, 1995, the Council acted on a request for a
Design Review for the expansion of the existing Container Supply Company. The Design
Review was approved with conditions.
On October 12, 1996, a field inspection was made of the site. Staff noted that there were two
discrepancies between the City approved plans and the actual construction of the Container
Supply Company.
Page 1 of 17
\\Eagle 1 lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccf.doc
First, the site plan shows a parking area between the building and State Street. The parking area
is not there. However, the applicant did provide a total of 26 parking spaces (21 were required)
along the side and rear of the building. Elimination of the parking in the front, and parking
provided to the rear and sides of the building, is in accordance with the recently approved
Landscape Guidelines, Section 6-L-l, which states that "Parking should be located to the side
and rear of buildings..."
Second, the landscaping installed in the three planters on the east side of the building is not in
compliance with the landscape plan on file with the City. The landscaping provided appears to
be far less than what was approved by the City.
The owner of the container supply company came into the City after receipt of the staff report for
CU-8-96. The modifications to the original Design Review application were approved by the
Zoning Administrator after discussing the changes with the owner.
G. Companion Applications: DR-16-96 (Design Review)
H. Project Description: One 120 foot high cellular transmission monopole which exceeds the
35 foot height limit [Ordinance #276, section 8-2A-6(A)(7)(a)], and requires a conditional use
permit is proposed. Also proposed is a 288 square foot single story 12' x 24' support building, a
new asphalt/concrete driveway; and, an 8' high fence around a 50-foot x 50-foot site.
I. Site Characteristics: Flat; undeveloped.
J. Public Services Available: Telephone, electrical and water lines will be brought In
underground under the driveway which runs south from State Street.
K.
Site Design
Percentage of site devoted to building coverage:
Percentage of site devoted to paving:
Percentage of site devoted to landscaping:
Number of parking spaces:
Proposed
12%
<20%
>30%
one
Required
<92%
N/A
10%
one
Setbacks:
Front(north):
Rear (South):
Sides:
400'
27'
6',5',10 '
0'
0'
0'
L. Special On-Site Features:
Areas of environmental concern - Special Corridor Evidence of erosion - no
Floodplain/Floodway - no Mature trees - no
Steep slopes/Foothills area - no Unique animal life - no
Unstable soils - not apparent Wildlife habitat - no
Fish habitat - no
Riparian vegetation - no
Unique plant life - no
Page 2 of 17
\\Eagle 1 lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccf.doc
M. Summary of Supplemental Staff Reports (if required): See Design Review staff report
(DR-16-96).
N. Number and Uses of Proposed Buildings: The pole and a service building.
O. Height of Proposed Pole:
120- feet
P. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Buildings: 288 sf
Q. On and Off-site Circulation: The existing driveway extending south from State Street
would be extended into this site.
R. Public Uses Shown on Future Acquisitions Map: None.
S. Description and Character of Surrounding Area:
manufacturing/wholesale business establishment, pasture land.
Residential, light
T.
Adjacent Land Uses:
North: single family residence
South: agriculture
East: Container Supply Co.
West: single family residence
Zoning:
R-l, C-l, C-2
A
M-l
C-2
U. Agency Responses: The following agencies have responded. Comments which appear to be
of special concern are noted below:
Ashley Land Services (Chevron Pipeline Company)
Central District Health
Eagle Fire Protection District
Eagle Sewer District: No sewer service is available to this property. (Note: No floor
plans were submitted with this application. However, the applicant states that the
building will not use water).
Ada County Highway District
V. Letters From the Public:
The following letter was received from the public:
"Reasons for Denial" letter from Nancy Merrill presented to the Commission on October
21, 1997.
W. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Page 3 of 17
\ \Eagle 1 lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccf.doc
The act states in part that a state, local government, or instrumentality's thereof, "shall not
prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wire services". Those
services are defined in the act. The proposed pole and building fall under that definition (see
complete text of the act).
X. 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 terms 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
1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance.
Page 4 of 17
\\Eaglel lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccf.doc
Y. Application Submittal:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on September 13, 1996,
(per receipt for payment).
Z. Notice of Public Hearing For The Planning And Zoning Commission and City
Council:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance of requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on October 2, 1996, and again on December
27, 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 September 30, 1996, and
again on December 20, 1996. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted 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 of 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.
ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY STAFF WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. Comprehensive Plan: The following Comprehensive Plan provisions are important to
review regarding this proposal.
· Special Areas or Sites
"Special areas or Sites" are defined (See State Street Corridor Special Area) as areas,
sites or structures of historical, archaeological, architectural. ecological, or scenic
significance. Special areas or sites within the Impact Area should be analyzed according
to their defined function. Whenever possible, these sites should be preserved and
conserved as open spaces or for educational and cultural centers. Development of
Special Areas or Sites should take place in a manner that reflects harmony with their
natural environment and recognized qualities which render them distinctly unique.
· Recognized Special Areas and Sites
Page 5 of 17
\ \Eagle I lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationsICUlCU896.ccf.doc
State Street Corridor
The State Street Corridor is designated as a Special Area due to its historical,
architectural and scenic significance. This area includes properties which abut or which
are within 300 feet of the State Street right-of-way between Old State Highwav 55 and
Ballantvne Lane as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map.
The State Street Corridor and the Central Business District performs a recognized
function as a community resource, reflecting Eagle's identity and heritage. This area
requires an ongoing stewardship by the City as a means of sustaining the cultural and
economic welfare of the community. These special areas will require comprehensive and
specific planning to ensure that such historical, cultural, and aesthetic concerns have been
thoroughly addressed and incorporated into any future development plans. The special
review process will include, but will not be limited to, the following:
I. Complementary land use
2. Historical buildings or sites
3. Compatible. harmonious building designs
4. Landscaping
5. Signage
6. Vehicle access and traffic circulation
7. Sidewalks, pathways and pedestrian access
8. Underground utilities
9. Street lighting
(NOTE:
This site is included m the "State Street Corridor Special Area" as
described above.)
· Land Use Category
High Density Residential
Suitable primarily for attached and multi-family residential development such as
condominiums, apartments and mobile homes and mobile home parks, commercial and
limited professional office use. Appropriate residential densities are up to 25 dwellings
per gross acre.
(NOTE:
The eXIstmg M-l zoning allows certain light manufacturing/wholesale
business and similar types of uses as permitted uses. The tower requires a
conditional use permit and, although the zoning is M-l, the site is
designated as high density residential/ limited professional office/ limited
commercial on the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan.)
Page 6 of 17
\\Eagle 1 lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccfdoc
B. Zoning Ordinance: The following Zoning Ordinance provisions are important to review
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.
Section 8-2A-6-A-l "Site design objectives to consider"
a. The functional relationship of the structures and the site m relation to its
surroundings
b. The impact and effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on
contiguous streets and adjoining properties or neighborhoods;
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 of 35 feet. Additional height may be permitted if a conditional use
permit is approved by the City Council.
Section 8-7-3-2 "General Standards for Conditional Uses"
See Findings of Fact "X" above.
C. Discussion Provided by staff within the Staff Report:
Staff intends to contact the owner of the parcel to request an application for a Design Review
modification showing what was actually built at the site (Container Supply Company) for City
review and approved prior to any additional City approvals for this site.
On the Design Review for the tower/building, (DR-l 6-96), staff made recommendations for
approval of the Design Review upon the condition of receipt of a conditional use approval by the
City Council. With regard to the Design Review, staff considered only the 35-feet in height that
would be permitted - no additional height - as stated in the staff report. If the City Council does
not deny this application and considers approval of any height in excess of 35-feet, the applicant
should provide the City with computer enhanced photos of various possible heights prior to final
Page 7 of 17
\ \Eagle 1 lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccfdoc
approval by the Council. The photos should be taken in at least ten locations, as determined by
staff, so as to not have a photo taken where existing trees, which may be close to the camera,
give a deceptive comparison of height due to the distance between the proposed tower and any
existing trees.
Staff believes that the adjacent land uses to the north and west (single family residences) are not
compatible with this use.
With regard to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, staff believes that denial of
this project will not prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wire
services within the City limits. There are other areas that would not be in such conflict with the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Title 8, and Design Review Ordinances. For example, an
area between Horseshoe Bend Road (Highway 55), and new Highway 55, north of state street
may provide a more appropriate location.
With regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-3-2 "General Standards for Conditional Uses", staff
believes that the proposed tower:
· Is not harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with specific
objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this title (Eagle City Code Title 8);
· Is not designed and constructed to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity and may influence a change the
essential character of the same area;
· May be disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses;
· Will result in the destruction, loss or damage of a scenic feature of major importance (the
heart of the city and the State Street Corridor Special Area".
With regard to the Design Review Ordinance, staff believes that the portion of the tower needing
height approval by the Council:
· Does not have a functional relationship to its surroundings (The tower probably would
not have a functional relationship to its surroundings anywhere in the city, but it would be
more functionally appropriate away from the heart of the City.);
· Would impact and effect adjoining properties or neighborhoods (the heart of the city);
· Is a utility that would detract from the scenic view of the heart of the City;
· Has a height to width relationship that is not compatible and consistent with the
architectural character of the area;
Page 8 of 17
l\Eagle 1 lsys\SHARED\P&Z\Eagle Applications\CUlCU896.ccfdoc
.
Additional height (over 35-feet) should not be permitted in this area.
In summary, communications towers have limitations of needing the proper location for adequate
service coverage as well as the proper coordinates for antenna functionality. Communications
towers do provide an important service to the community, and as previously stated the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that local government shall not have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. If this application for a Conditional Use
Permit is denied, staff will assist the applicant with finding a more appropriate location within
the City limits.
I believe it can be said that if the City knew what the Idaho Power poles (along State Street)
would have looked like, they would not have permitted them to be placed where they are
currently located. Those pole~ are approximately 50 to 60-feet in height. This pole is proposed
to be 120-feet high. If this pole is approved it would add to the unfortunate error which has
already occurred along State Street (the Idaho Power poles).
RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT:
Staff recommended denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit with a provision that, if the
application was approved by the City Council, the approval should include the site specific
conditions of approval and the standard conditions within the staff report presented to the
Commission/Council.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on October 21, 1996, at which time testimony was taken and the public
hearing was continued until December 2, 1996, so the Commission could review this
application as well as an application for a telecommunications facility proposed by
Western PCS.
B. At the request of the Zoning Administrator, asking for Commission for comment on the
required findings (Eagle City Code 8-7-3-2), on December 16, 1996, the Commission
voted to reconsider this item at their December 30, 1996, special meeting so both
applicants could be present. However, due to the applicant's representatives being unable
to attend that meeting the meeting was continued until January 13, 1997 at which time the
Commission made its final recommendation.
C. At the public hearing of October 21, 1996, oral testimony in opposition to the application
was presented by five individual before the Planning and Zoning Commission who were
opposed to the telecommunications facility for the following reasons; Residences in the
Page 9 of 17
l\Eagle 1 lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc
immediate vicinity; How the roadway looks as people approach the City; Unsightliness;
Height; Flashing lights; Hate to see air space over Eagle become a junkyard; Not
compatible with what is planned in that area; Don't want a tower that high in the middle
of a commercial and residential area; 20 years from now the town will probable be pretty
solid out to Highway 55, we don't want that in the middle of the town; we should respect
the people of this town and respect their rights, especially the people who have lived in
this area for 50 or more years; Putting a tower like that in would decrease property
values; There are many things that are planned for that corridor, from Eagle Road to
Highway 55 - The things that are planned for that area will not be compatible with a pole
of that nature; Would not appreciate that in their backyard; Commercial and mixed uses
planned for this area - pole not compatible; On the North is single family residence and
for the future of that is more subdivision with the Hill Road expansion including an
alternative school; Right across the street is commercial; The south is now zoned
agriculture, on the Comprehensive Plan it is zoned as a high density residential mixed use
and there are plans for a retirement center in that area; We have the major bypass, the
entrance to the City, it is highly visible commercial and medium density; On the West
you have a single family residence which is slated for high density housing clear to the
river; High density housing, commercial mixed use and professional office that is what is
planned for Eagle; City Code, 8-7-3-2, Conditional Use Standards says that we will look
at these proposals with these things in mind. We should not add the pole at 120; In the
Comprehensive Plan the very first purpose and goal is to protect property rights and
enhance property values; In the Zoning Code 8-2-4 it limits buildings to 60'; A Design
Review Ordinance that limited towers, steeples, poles, antennas and requires any
structure to be limited to 35', was just passed; The business people who have pole signs
over 8-feet high will be required to take those down within a ten year period; This pole
would be visible to every person who enters the City.
D. At the public hearing of October 21, 1996, oral testimony in favor of the application was
presented by two individuals representing the applicant, and one other individual, before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, who were in favor of the proposed
telecommunications facility for the following reasons;
Individuals representing the applicant - The need for a direct line of site between the
antennas and the cellular telephone; Antennas need to be high enough in the air to
provide line of site; No longer able to provide adequate coverage to the Eagle area with
the present sites at Table Rock and Meridian; This site would have very good coverage
for the City; If Boise City Cellular is too far out of town the system wont work; If it is in
the foothills the signal is blocked; Location is critical; There are no existing structures
like buildings that are tall enough, smoke stacks or existing telecommunications towers to
mount on; In this area there is nothing out there that is tall enough to give the necessary
height, therefore the company is forced to go with a free standing utility pole; The most
appropriate location for our kind of use would be in a manufacturing type zone; 700 of
the Eagle City businesses and residents in the area rely on this.
Page 10 of 17
l\Eagle I lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896. ccfdoc
Individual not representing the applicant - I have a vested interested in this. I am a very
tiny wireless dealer. One of the things cellular provides is emergency service. There are
places in the City of Eagle where the phone does not work. The phone does not work in
my home. Placement of the antenna is critical to get proper coverage. It is totally silent
operation. In 90 days you won't even notice it. This tower may not even be needed in 10
years. Eagle is growing to the North and to the West, it is not growing to the East. This
is the best place to put it in my opinion.
E. At the conclusion of the October 21, 1996, public hearing the Planning and Zoning
Commission decided to continue the public hearing until December 2, 1996, to review a
proposed pole (and possible collocation) at the Republic Storage facility.
F. At the public hearing of December 2, 1996, there was no oral testimony in opposition to
the application before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
G. At the public hearing of December 2, 1996, oral testimony in favor of the application was
presented by the applicant's representative and two other individuals (both individuals
were the property owners and lessors to the applicant) before the Planning and Zoning
Commission who were in favor of the proposed telecommunications facility for the
following reasons;
Applicant's representative - The Republic Storage site is too far away for what Boise City
Cellular needs; The signal would not be much better than what is currently available;
Another site at 350 S. Edgewood, on the North side of the Andon complex would be
possible but would not be the preference of Boise City Cellular. However, the
representative said that that site would work, is in a commercial zone, is at an industrial
complex site and is outside the City's visual corridor and that Boise City Cellular has a
signed lease for this other property and can go with either site. Two of the
Commissioners stated that that site would be no different than the State Street site.
Individuals not representing the applicant (the property owners and lessors to the
applicant) - The tower does not have any effect on the TV reception, doesn't pollute the
ground water, doesn't make any noise, doesn't have any lights, doesn't create any odor,
and it doesn't produce any harmful emissions; This pole, wherever it is located, will help
move Eagle as a progressive City into the 21st Century; Ordinance #276 does allow an
exception on the height; In accordance with the Ordinance this development is driven by
the market and, is good for the community; There is no difference in the second site; The
pole is far away from the bypass.
H. At the conclusion of the December 2, 1996, public hearing the Planning and Zoning
Commission made its recommendation (see Commission Decision of December 2, 1996,
below). However, at the request of the Zoning Administrator, on December 14, 1996, the
Commission voted to reconsider this item and the public hearing was re-notified and held
on January 13, 1997.
Page 11 of 17
l\Eagle I lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc
1. At the joint public hearing of January 13, 1997, (for CU-8-96/Boise City Cellular and
CU-1O-96/Western PCS), oral testimony in opposition to the application was presented to
the Planning and Zoning Commission by one individual who was opposed to the Boise
City Cellular application (State Street site) for the following reasons: Possible foundation
collapse due to soil conditions on the drainage ditch, high ground water, and a serious
infestation ofrock chucks. No one spoke in opposition of the Western PCS site.
1. At the joint public hearing of January 13, 1997, (for CU-8-96/Boise City Cellular and
CU-1O-96/Western PCS), oral testimony in favor of the application was presented by the
applicant's representatives and one other individual (owner of the property and lessor to
the applicant), before the Planning and Zoning Commission, who were in favor of the
proposed telecommunications facility for the following reasons;
Applicant's representatives - Mostly the same comments as mentioned previously.
Other individual (owner of propertv and lessor to the applicant) - A boom truck lifted its
boom to 150-feet at this site, and photos were presented for the Commission's review.
Visual impact was felt to be minimal by the individual commenting in favor of the State
Street proposal.
K. At the conclusion of the joint public hearing of January 13, 1997, (for CU-8-96/Boise
City Cellular and CU-1O-96/Western PCS), the Planning and Zoning Commission made
its recommendation on both sites (see Commission Decision of January 13, 1997, next
pg).
COMMISSION DECISION OF DECEMBER 2, 1996:
The Commission recommended approval (the vote was two to one with Maile against, Bradley
abstaining, and Farnworth absent) with the site specific conditions of approval and the standard
conditions of approval provided within the staff report except that five pictures would be
required and not ten as recommended by the Staff (see site specific condition #2).
COMMISSION DECISION OF JANUARY 13, 1997:
The Commission recommended approval (the vote was two to one with Farnworth against,
Bradley abstaining, and Maile absent) of CU-8-96/Boise City Cellular Partnership, for the pole
on 1341 E. State Street, with the site specific conditions of approval and the standard conditions
of approval shown below.
The Commission also recommended denial of CU-1O-96/Western PCS II Corp., located at the
Republic Storage facility, unless CU-8-96/Boise City Cellular Partnership, for the pole on 1341
E. State Street, is denied by the City Council. If that application is denied than the Commission
recommends approval of CU-1O-96/Western PCS II Corp., located at the Republic Storage
facility.
Page 12 of 17
l\Eagle I lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE 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, oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was
presented to the Eagle City Council by one individual opposed to this proposal for the following
reasons; The City Council needs to adhere to the City Code as to height and research needs to be
done on an ordinance to cover these poles.
C. At the public hearing of March 5, 1997, oral testimony in favor of the application was
presented by one of the applicant's representatives and one other individual (the owner of the
property and the lessor to the applicant), both of which were in favor of the proposed
telecommunications facility for the following reasons; There is a need for a direct line of site
between the antennas and the cellular telephone; AT&T is no longer able to provide adequate
coverage to the Eagle area with the present sites at Table Rock and Meridian; This site would
have very good coverage for the City; If AT&T is to far out of town the system wont work; The
most appropriate location for this use would be in a manufacturing type zone; Hopes for
approval of the application.
D. At the public hearing of March 5, 1997, oral testimony, of which one individual speaking
stated he was not to opposed to, or in favor of, this proposal, was presented to the Eagle City
Council. The individual stated that he felt the fall zone restriction is not fair to the property
owners. He also presented 14 pictures to the Council showing a boom truck with a boom
extended to the approximate height of the proposed pole at the site.
DECISION OF THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL:
On March 5, 1997, the Eagle City Council denied the conditional use permit (CU-8-96).
Councilman Merrill recused herself because of a potential conflict of interest.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item (CU-8-96) was received by the City of Eagle on
September 13, 1996, (per receipt for payment).
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 October 2, 1996, and again on December
27, 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
Page 13 of 17
l\Eagle 1 lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896. ccfdoc
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on September 30, 1996, and
again on December 20, 1996. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted 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 of 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 Eagle City Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed
Conditional Use (CU-8-96) in terms 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, because the use is
similar to a radio station use established in Section 8-2-3 of Eagle City Code Title
8;
B. The proposed telecommunications facility will not be harmonious with and in
accordance with certain general objectives and specific objective of the
Comprehensive Plan components noted below:
Special Areas or Sites
This pole is proposed to be within the State Street Corridor Special Area, defined
in the Comprehensive Plan. The corridor is an area of architectural, and scenic
significance for which the plan specifically states that, "Development of Special
Areas or Sites should take place in a manner that reflects harmony with their
natural environment and recognized qualities which render them distinctly
unique". The proposed pole detracts from the unique scenic significance of the
State Street Corridor because of its height and disproportional/disharmonious
relationship with the surrounding architecture and development within this area.
The pole height is also disharmonious with the view of the natural environment
(trees and tree tops) mixed with the existing buildings within this corridor.
Land Use Category
The existing M-l zoning allows certain light manufacturing/wholesale business
and similar types of uses as permitted uses. The tower requires a conditional use
Page 14 of 17
l\Eagle I lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc
permit and, although the zoning is M-l, the site is designated as high density
residential/limited professional office/ limited commercial on the land use map in
the Comprehensive Plan. The pole will not be harmonious with this land use
designation because of the lack of design features that would blend into such an
environment.
The proposed telecommunications facility will not be harmonious with and in
accordance with certain general objectives and specific objective of Eagle City
Code Title 8, noted below:
Section 8-2A-6-A-l (a & b) "Site design objectives to consider"
The functional relationship of the structure and the site in relation to its
surroundings will detract from the scenic corridor, and the impactand effect of the
site development plan on adjoining properties or neighborhoods would be
significant, as outlined within the staff report, as determined by the Council, and
as presented in oral testimony from the public at the public hearing.
Section 8-2A-6-A-5 "Utilities"
This utility service system (cellular phone service pole) detracts from existing
building and site design in the area, and the size and location of this service
system is inappropriate because of the impact on the Scenic Corridor and
neighboring residential property because of the pole's height and location.
Section 8-2A-6-A-6 (b)
"Building Design Objectives"
The height to width relationship of the pole is not compatible and consistent with
the architectural character of the area as previously stated above, namely that it is
in the scenic corridor and is in close proximity to neighboring property;
C. The proposed telecommunications facility will not be designed and constructed to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity as previously stated above. Such use may change
the essential character of the area by encouraging other like structures, and the
visual impact is significant and will conflict with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity as previously stated above;
D. The proposed telecommunications facility will be disturbing to existing or future
neighborhood uses as previously noted above, namely because its height is
excessively disturbing because it is in such close proximity to residential
properties;
Page 15 of 17
l\Eagle I lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationsICUlCU896.ccf. doc
E. The proposed telecommunications facility would 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. The proposed telecommunications facility would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services (addressed in "E") but
would be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community because of the
impact to the scenic value of the corridor and because the intense industrial nature
of such a large pole would detract from the otherwise small building/urban
commercial/residential flavor the City is trying to encourage downtown;
G. The proposed telecommunications facility would 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. The proposed telecommunications facility would have vehicular approaches to the
property which would be designed as not to create an interference with traffic on
surrounding public thoroughfares as approved by ACHD; and
1. The proposed telecommunications facility will result in loss/damage of a scenic
feature of major importance since the scenic entry corridor would be substantially
visually impacted by this proposal as previously noted above.
4. Eagle City Code Section 8-7-3-5: C (2) (c) states that the Council shall specify, "The actions,
if any, that the applicant may take to obtain a permit".
The applicant could obtain approval of a conditional use permit by locating the cellular tower
in a more appropriate location, or by relying on a tower of a significantly shorter height.
Another site outside of the State Street Corridor might be approved by the City, as the City
recently approved a similar tower (CU-1O-96) on Horseshoe Bend Road. The City
encourages the applicant to work with staff to find another site for review by the City.
5. The City Council believes that this decision does not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services, and does not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services (as defined in the Federal
Telecommunications Act), because there are other locations within the City that may not
provide the extent of coverage desired by the applicant but nonetheless would provide for
personal wireless services.
Page 16 of 17
l\Eagle 1 lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc
Also, nothing in this decision for denial was based upon regulating personal wireless services
on the basis of the environmental effects or radio frequency emissions beyond any such
facilities being required to comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such effects and/or
emISSIOns
DATED this 8th day of April, 1997.
ATTEST:
".........,
~,,' OF b ""
.... ....1 .l.:,~'#
~".. ~ ~ ....... 0,; #',
~ .. -.. <;. '<!> #..
!V. OR..... ~
.~ "". ...
.. r~o ..
v." ..
. "'.- :*.:::
. ~ :
; \%SEAL~::;; ff
~ ..0 ..........
-:. ." .,,?f'/>. .....'f.,":)... 0 .:
..~ v").. ..ORA:,\.... ..~, ....
*#..<~~.IiIU"''' ~"i-~,..,
#"'; .c'..OF \"O1.~"~
""u,,,,'~'
Page 1 7 of 1 7
I \Eagle 1 lsysISHARED\P&Z\Eagle ApplicationslCUlCU896.ccfdoc