Minutes - 2014 - Planning & Zoning - 05/19/2014 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
May 19, 2014
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: ROEHLING, KOELLISCH, WRIGHT, VILLEGAS (present after roll
call). Absent: SMITH. A quorum is present.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
• Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member
of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda
in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order.
• Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of
Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Minutes of May 5,2014.
Wright moves to approve the minutes of April 21, 2014 as written. Seconded by Koellisch.
Wright amends his motion to approve the minutes of May 5, 2014. Seconded by Koellisch.
ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CU-01-14—Personal Wireless Facility(height-over 35-feet) (more commonly known as
a cell tower)—Skyway Towers,LLC: Skyway Towers, LLC,represented by Shawn Nickel
with SLN Planning, is requesting conditional use permit approval for a camouflaged cell
tower(defined as"personal wireless facility height-over 35-feet"in Eagle City Code). The
proposed 2,500-square foot lease area is located approximately 835-feet southwest of the
intersection of North Eagle Hills Way and North Wingfoot Place at the southern boundary of
Eagle Hills Golf Course within the area containing hole#2.
Chairman Roehling introduces the item.
Stan Behuniak, 20525 Amberfield Drive#102, Land 0' Lakes FL. Mr. Behuniak is with Skyway
Towers,the applicant of the proposed wireless facility. Behuniak gives a PowerPoint presentation and
provides the Commission an overview of the additional information that was provided. He states he had
a balloon test done and provided photos into the record. He discusses Eagle's rapid growth of population
and cell phone usage. In 1997,the City of Eagle granted its last permit to build a cell phone tower.
Buhuniak also discusses the height issue and respectfully asks that the 110 foot tower be granted due to
effectiveness.
Roehling asks the applicant why they chose that location on the golf course.
Behuniak states that it serves several purposes. One was that the location brought it out of the middle of
the neighborhood,which was one of the objections of the community. The second purpose is that it has
the fall zone required in the City's ordinance. The stretch on the second fairway met the criteria.
Koellisch asks if they have looked at any locations on actual building structures.
Page 1 of 9
K:\P8Z\M I N UTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.doc
Behuniak states that they observed different building locations, such as City Hall. The issue is that those
types of towers don't cover as much area. Which means you will have to find additional locations to put
towers in or around neighborhoods.
City Planner,Mike Williams gives an overview of the additional information that was required and states
that this application was properly noticed. The additional info was a completed RF Report and an
engineered stamp plan showing the design of the tower. This tower is designed to a specific federal
standard. The City received three correspondences, one being from the Boise Airport Commission and
ITD aviation based on the FFA approval. The propagation charts were provided with the original
application and on those propagation charts it does show where the coverage issues are. If coverage
wasn't an issue in this area then they wouldn't have anyone locating on this tower. Staff's main concern
is that it has to be aesthetically compatible. Staff made a recommendation to reduce in height. They did
not come out with a specific height do to the fact that they are not the experts,but do realize that the
tower has to be somewhat above the canopy.
Roehling asks for a recommendation from the City Attorney regarding terms of allocating time.
City Attorney,Buxton states that the City policy for public hearings will allow individuals up to three
minutes for testimony and someone representing a group like Mr. Lord would get ten minutes.
Chairman Roehling opens the public hearing.
Steven Lord, 409 W. Jefferson Street Boise, Idaho. Lord is an attorney that represents the residents in
Eagle. Height continues to be the most significant issue. The height clearly makes this design
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood. 110-115 foot tall building is the height of a 6-10 story
high rise. Lord doesn't see how you could come to any conclusion that it's compatible with the
surrounding adjacent neighborhood,which is a requirement of the ordinance. A two mile radius has not
been submitted yet and it is also a requirement. Lord asks those in the audience to stand who are in
opposition of the cell tower.
Chairman Roehling invites those who are in favor to speak.
Patrick Calley, 1119 E. State Street. Sargent Calley is with the City of Eagle Police Department speaking
on behalf of Chief Steve Bartlett. They remain neutral in this case. But with a challenge to staff,
Commission, and the residents that the communication infrastructure within the city will need
improvements and build for the future of our communications.
Commissioner Wright asks if there is a current history of emergency calls in Eagle being dropped.
Sargent Calley states that not to his knowledge on emergency calls being dropped,but they have had
Officers routine phone calls be dropped. He couldn't speak to a specific emergency that's been delayed
because of cell phone coverage.
Mike Majors, 575 N.Pebblebeach Way. They are 240 feet away from the proposed cell tower and has
been a resident since 1997. He and his wife only use cell phones and they experience dropped calls.
There is a need for this tower.
Dave Beggrow, 2062 Hill Road, represents the land owners and is in favor of the tower. Beggrow
discusses the concerns of health,esthetics, and height. He believes the regulations have been met and
wants better coverage for those who are in the community.
Page 2 of 9
K:\P&Z\M I NUTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.doc
Debra Helton, 1203 Cerramar Court. Her property is on the 19th tee. This proposed tree doesn't comply
with the ordinance. A wooden solid fence is not compatible with the surroundings and it would be an
inviting canvas for graffiti. Helton also has concerns with the gravel cart road. Helton requests they
deny this application.
George Schnarre, 723 Spyglass Way. Mr. Schnarre submitted a 28 page letter to the Commissioners
prior to the hearing. Schnarre hopes that the Commissioners will deny this application.
Patty Perkins,487 Moraine Place. This cell tower does not meet the aesthetics of the community.
David Schwartz, 948 E. Monarch Street. Schwartz brings an example of the sound at 41 decimals which
is worst case scenario. The tallest tree adjacent to the proposed tower is 42 feet. The proposed height is
three times bigger than any of the other trees. He pleads that they deny this application.
Pat Towne, 200 N. Edgewood Lane. Towne also owns the property at 177 Edgewood which is below the
proposed tower site. It's going to devalue his property and is not a good look for the City of Eagle.
Greta Fleming, 681 Spyglass Way. Fleming provides to the Commission a picture of what the cell phone
tower would look like in her backyard. She has no problems with cell phone usage and streaming videos.
She feels that it's not going to benefit anyone but the owner of the golf course who will make a
substantial amount of money. The location is also a potential fire hazard.
Rick Murphree, 639 Eagle Hills Way. Murphree is worried about the honesty of the applicant and is
concerned with the road or the"extended golf path." The road is going directly behind his property and
is going to disturb his view.
Jeanne Jackson-Heim, 463 Moraine Place. Jackson-Heim is concerned about the lighting and doesn't
want to see any lights from that area. The fence is not aesthetically pleasing and she doesn't need
another hit to her property value. There are a lot of other locations that could be explored, for example
City Hall or St. Luke's.
Pattie Richey, 216 Winged Foot Place. She and her husband are directly east of the tower. She discusses
three points: financial hardship,noise, and the appearance.
Judith James,484 Pebble Beach. James works full time at her home and has never had a problem with
service. She is concerned that her view will be taken away and she asks that the Commissioners take the
time to plan for better sites.
Nancy Marshall, 740 Palmetto Avenue. This tower would be in the center of the neighborhood of Eagle.
She concurs with the comments that have already been made and ask that they reject the application.
Greg Fischer, 348 Winged Foot Place. Fischer asks the Commissioners to consider their lifestyles and
the quiet neighborhood and believes there is a better place to put it.
Kelly Beggrow,2062 Hill Road. Beggrow is the landowner of the golf course. She wanted to make clear
that Skyway Towers approached them. It is not about money and asks that people stop making
judgments about their family.
Dr. William Roagland, 659 Spyglass Way. Roagland feels it is necessary to speak on behalf of the health
care community. He has six work stations in his home and he has never had a dropped call. He is not in
favor of this application.
Page 3 of 9
K:\P&Z\MI N UTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.doc
Rita Langley, 687 Spyglass Way. Langley raises the issue of conflict of interest with David, Shawn, and
Mark Butler and asks that it'd be addressed.
City Attorney Buxton states that with regard to the ordinance he has no conflict of interest. With regard
to this site and this application Mr. Butler has no interest in this project nor does he represent this
applicant. He has had past business relationships with the applicant's representative and also with the
land owner but it is not the same thing and there is no actual conflict of interest.
Doug Calford, 5710 S. Green Street Murray,UT. Calford describes how the emergency generators will
operate.
Dan Bahuniak rebuts testimony and responds to most of the concerns that were addressed tonight. He
touches on the generators and reassures that there will be no lighting. He firmly believes that the picture
of the tower that was displayed tonight is inaccurate. They had a design engineer do a simulation of the
site and the neighborhood didn't take that to be true and accurate so they came up with one of their own.
Which is why they had a balloon test done to eliminate that disagreement.
Chairman Roehling closes the public hearing.
General discussion amongst the Commission regarding the proposed personal wireless facility.
Wright moves to make a motion to approve CU-01-14-Personal Wireless Facility with a height
cap of fifty feet. No second... Motion dies.
Villegas moves to make a motion to recommend for denial CU-01-14—Personal Wireless Facility.
Seconded by Koellisch. ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
Chairman Roehling calls for a ten minute break at 8:21 p.m.
Chairman Roehling calls the meeting back to order at 8:35 p.m.
B. PU-01-12- Spring Valley PUMP(Planning Unit Master Plan)No. 1-M3
Companies,LLC: M3 Eagle LLC,represented by Mark Tate, is requesting approval of the
Spring Valley Phase No.1 Planning Unit Master Plan, a 722.4-acre(232 to be developed,
400-acres of future development area, an 90.4 acre Wastewater Re-use Site)development
which includes 249 units and master plans for Land Use, Street and Circulation,Potable
Water,Wastewater, Drainage,Pressure Irrigation,Public Facilities(Schools,Library, Police
&Fire/Emergency Service),Parks, Trails and Open Space, and Super Pads,pursuant to the
Spring Valley Development Agreement. The 722.4-acre site is generally located on the east
side of State Highway 16 approximately 0.6-mile north of Beacon Light Road.
C. PP-06-12-Spring Valley Subdivision No. 1—M3 Companies,LLC: M3 Companies, LLC,
is requesting preliminary plat approval for Spring Valley Subdivision No. 1, a 217-lot(190-
buildable, 1-waste water treatment, 1-domestic well,22-common, and 3-future phase)
subdivision.The 346.77-acre site is generally located on the east side of State Highway 16
approximately 0.6-mile north of West Beacon Light Road.
Chairman Roehling introduces both items and states that he'd like to do both applications,PU-01-12 and
PP-06-12, at the same time but have two separate motions.
Joann Butler, 251 Front Street. Butler is the legal representative for M3/Spring Valley. Butler gives a
brief history of the Spring Valley applications throughout the last 8 years. Butler discusses the PUMP, it
is the precursor and the bases for the preliminary plat. The PUMP is consistent with the DA and Title
Page 4 of 9
K:\P&Z\M I NOTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.d oc
11A. By the end of the presentation tonight the Commission will have all of the reasons to recommend
approval of the plat.
Mark Tate, 533 E.Riverside Drive, is with M3 Companies. Tate gives an overview of the Spring Valley
PUMP and the project overall. In regard to the site specific conditions of approval for the PUMP, they
are fine with condition 52 as long as they can change the exhibit. Condition 46,there is numerical error
it reads 49 but should be 40.
Tate gives an overview on the preliminary plat and states that it's in conformance with the PUMP. They
ask that the Commission remove condition 14. Conditions 22 and 28 deal with undisturbed areas, ask
that staff rework these conditions to correspond to the updated landscape exhibit. Condition 27 has the
same numerical error,49 units should be 40 units. They request condition 31 be removed. They don't
believe that the Parks and Pathways Commission should be allowed to have a say with private facilities.
City Planner,Nichoel Baird-Spencer has been the project manager for the M3 project for the last 8 years.
Baird-Spencer gives a brief overview of the PUMP and goes over the changed site specific conditions
that was a memo handed out to the Commission. Staff's only request is add that site specific condition
52 needs to say submit an updated PUMP Landscape-Streetscape Plan, Habitat Mitigation Plan either re-
designating areas as"upland re-vegetated"areas or provide at a deed restriction and/or plat note. Staff
doesn't have issues with changing 49 to 40, it would still comply. Staff is recommending approval for
the PUMP.
City Planner,Kristy Heller reads the 11-A Code regarding stub streets. Currently there is only one stub
street and there is a need to provide connectivity to those neighborhoods.
City Planner,Mike Williams gives an overview of the Spring Valley preliminary plat staff report. Staff
is in support of condition 27, it should read 40 lots. Regarding condition 28 he would agree with Baird-
Spencer there needs to be something to review and approve. Staff recommends on condition 31 that they
only strike the part that states Parks and Pathway Commission.
City Attorney, Susan Buxton gives a brief description and overview of the importance of site specific
condition 52.
Chairman Roehling opens the public testimony.
Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane,represents North Ada County Foothills Association. Purvis believes
as if some things have gotten lost in the process. The PUMP 1 density seems strange because the base
density in this PUMP 1 is 116 units with only 36 bonus units on top of that. Which really reflect a lot of
the open space issues. Then they transferred 97 of it from the bonus pool for a total of 249 units. So
they've added 133 out of the bonus pool for a base number of 116. He is wondering what the first phase
is going to look like in term of what the master plan will look like. He is also concerned with the number
of parking spaces at the equestrian center as well as the street and circulation master plan. Purvis
believes that there are too many conditions,he requests that the Commission set it aside and the applicant
work on the list of site specific conditions.
Linda Hamilton,4210 N.Double S Lane. Hamilton's main concern is the location of the wastewater
treatment center. She displays a map of the purposed private equestrian center. She was told that there
was going to be an equestrian center at a specific location and now it is going to be the wastewater
treatment center. She would like to see them move the wastewater treatment center at least a half mile to
the East or locate it to the North.
Page 5 of 9
K:\P&Z\MI N UTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.doc
Dave Koeppen, 8600 W. Equest Lane. Koeppen is in neutral of the development because they need to do
something, either move forward with the development or do nothing. Koeppen's primary concern is
getting access to HWY 16. Koeppen states that it is difficult to get to HWY 16 as it is and will be even
more difficult once there is construction traffic and a couple of 100 homes. He understands it's not at the
purview of the Commission,but would like to express his dissatisfaction with ACHD's process. With
this development he is going to lose direct access to HWY 16.
Logan Schirmer,4430 N. Double S Lane. Schirmers main concern is the access to HWY 16 and how
dangerous it is. He suggests that they take out the corner at HWY 16 completely. If they don't straighten
that out it's an accident waiting to happen. He is also concerned with the location of the wastewater
treatment center.
Eric Schirmer,4430 N. Double S Lane. Schirmer request that the Commission make a recommendation
against approving this application. He has concerns with wastewater treatment facility and the proximity
to the neighbors and his property. He believes it is going to diminish the property value of the
surrounding homes.
Jaylene Groeniger, 2537 N. Big Sky Place. Groeniger is the Chairman of Friends of Beacon Light Road
Friends of Eagle and is speaking on behalf of a large amount of people. Any development that goes in
has a disturbance on existing roads. They're becoming arterial roads and the neighbors of people who
have lived in Eagle for generations are having to suffer the brunt of all of the development. They were in
support of M3 Companies original plan. Which was an arterial road that everyone supported but now has
gone away. They'd like to see that come back into play to connect HWY 16 and HWY 55.
Greg Jones,2798 N. Emily Meadows. Jones reads the description of Spring Valley from the Build Idaho
website. Jones is concerned with how Spring Valley is being portrayed to the public. He feels that M3
needs to live up to the commitment that they sold everyone on. As a community member he asks that the
Commission reconsider those items before approval.
Ken Hamilton, 4210 N. Double S Lane. In either 2009 or 2010 he attended a meeting in his home with a
representative from M3 and was told all about the equestrian center. He would hate to see that go,what
bothers him is that they are saying the wastewater treatment center had been planned there since 2008. If
that was the case then why didn't they let them know and why did they lie to them. Hamilton also
discusses the traffic situation and recommends that a traffic light would be beneficial around that corner.
Joan Mantel, 4690 Hartley Road. Mantel is very sad that the equestrian arena has gone away without
their knowledge.
Doris Schirmer, 4430 N. Double S Lane. Schirmer asks for clarification on how many buildable lots
there will be.
Planner Baird-Spencer gives an explanation of the PUMP and Plat. The PUMP is the total number, the
Plat would take part of that 249 and use it and actually create lots. There will still be some development
in the PUMP that is not in the plat that will come in as a future plat.
Mark Tate provides his rebuttal. With regard to changing of plans,the list of amenities are accurate. The
economics weren't there for an equestrian center.
Villegas asks Tate if M3 met with the neighbors and sold them on the equestrian center idea. Tate replies
with,they had. Villegas then asks when you came to get that modification to the DA did you go back to
the neighbors and say you're not getting your equestrian center?
Page 6 of 9
K:\P&Z\M I NUTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.d oc
Tate states that back in 2012 they submitted an application and as a part of that application they held a
neighborhood meeting and many folks were in attendance. It was noticed in the same fashion as they
notice all of the meetings and that's when they presented the same image with the lots,which was held in
the Freedom room. At that meeting that was the first time they addressed eliminating that private
equestrian center from the plan. That was one of two equestrian centers in the plan. There is still an
equestrian center planned for the Willow Creek area. Another concern that has been heard tonight is
access to HWY 16. The site access permit has been approved by ITD. The last comment he touches on
is the wastewater treatment plant location. The wastewater treatment plant site was included in the
original Development Agreement. Granted it wasn't always a prominent display of exactly where it was
going to be,but it was always in H6 of the original and modified Development Agreement in that
location adjacent to their community park and adjacent to the BLM to the South. Tate is not familiar
with the removal of an arterial road. Going back to the staff condition number 14 on the preliminary plat,
they ask that they consider removing that condition. As far as the other conditions they are in agreement
with staff but they would leave condition 31 to say that they'd be subject to design review for even those
private parks.
Butler provides her side of the rebuttal. She assures the audience that they have to accomplish every
condition of approval before the City will sign a final plat. CCNR's are very important and they will
work with the City Attorney regarding the CCNR's and take it very seriously. They look forward to
addressing each condition of approval so when they get to final plat with this Commission,they will feel
comfortable with approving.
General discussion amongst the Commission regarding the wastewater treatment center plan and design.
Scott Wonders, 250 S. Beachwood. Wonders is the civil engineer that has been working on this project
since 2006. The location of the treatment plant was a part of the preliminary development agreement that
was recorded in 2007 in this general location within 100 feet. He attests that it has always been
contested to be in that area. The pond is going to be landscaped and will fit in to the surrounding area as
much as possible. He also states that it will be going through design review.
City Attorney recommends that one of the site specific conditions can be that the pond has to be
aesthetically designed and that the treatment plant has to follow dark sky requirements and that noise is
addressed and brought to a minimum.
Baird-Spencer recommends to include the wording design of sewage ponds to address visual aesthetics
on condition 48.
Villegas asks for clarification of the concerns with the CCNR'S.
City Attorney Buxton gives an explanation of the importance of the CCNR's.
Chairman Roehling closes the public hearing.
General discussion amongst the Commissioners.
Baird-Spencer reviews the conditions. There was a memo from staff regarding changes to the site
specific conditions. Condition 48 adding the wording, specific attention shall be paid to the design and
visual aesthetics of the on-site sewage storage ponds with an effort to avoid the conventional rectangular
appearance of the ponds. Also, site specific condition 52 adding the language,the applicant shall be
required to submit an updated PUMP No. 1 landscape-Streetscape Plan and Habitat Mitigation Plan
either re-designating areas within SWA-3, SWA-5, and SWA-7 as `upland re-vegetated"areas or
provided at a deed restriction and/or plat note on the"Native/Undisturbed"areas within SWA-3, SWA-5,
Page 7 of 9
K:\P&Z\M I NUTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.d oc
and SWA-7 prior to the submittal of a final plat application. The restriction shall state that these areas
are to be managed and maintained as native and undisturbed areas and there shall be no alterations and
conventional maintenance. The specific wording shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and the City
Attorney prior to approval of the final plat. And site specific condition 46,the SWA-9 should be
changed from 49 to 40.
Roehling recommends for approval item 5B-PU-01-12—Spring Valley PUMP(Planning Unit
Master Plan)No. 1 -M3 Companies,LLC with modifications to the staff report as indicated in the
memo published by Nichoel Baird Spencer on May 13,2014 articulating typographical errors and
the corrections. As well as the modifications to site specific conditions 46,48, and 52 as spoken into
the record by Nichoel. Seconded by Villegas. ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
City Planner Williams states that there is no change to condition 14, 22, and 28. He recommends striking
condition 27 and removing Parks and Pathway Commission on condition 31.
Roehling moves to approve PP-06-12-Spring Valley Subdivision No. 1—M3 Companies,LLC with
the modifications to the staff report as read into the record by Mike. Seconded by Wright. ALL
AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
D. PP-02-14-Reynard Subdivision No. 7—M3 Companies,LLC: M3 Companies, LLC,
represented by Scott Wonders with J-U-B Engineers, Inc., is requesting preliminary plat
approval for Reynard Subdivision No. 7, a 5-lot(4-buildable and 1-common) subdivision.
The 4.77-acre site is located on northwest corner of the West Chinden Boulevard and North
Fox Run Avenue intersection at 6479 North Fox Run Avenue.
**The public hearing for Reynard Subdivision No. 7 was not noticed in accordance with Eagle
City Code as the site posting was not completed. It will be re-noticed and scheduled for a
future hearing date.
Planner Heller states that the applicant didn't properly notice this application. It will be re-
noticed and scheduled for a future hearing date.
Roehling remands item 5d - Reynard Subdivision No. 7 — M3 Companies, LLC back to Staff.
Seconded by Wright. ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: No Report.
B. City Attorney: No Report.
C. Staff: No Report.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Wright moves to adjourn. Seconded by Villegas. ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business,the Commission meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
1
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ���G`� O~•e� ,,,,��'•
.••• oitp Ol•
4 1•114 AAA. :1* OD*411110
SEAL
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER •,�'•. qj•.�hiN4e'�•,
;;OF�••••••
Page 8 of 9
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\2014\PZ-05-19-14mi n.doc
APPROVED:
DONALD P. ROEHLING,
CHAIRMAN
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL UPON REQUEST.
Page 9 of 9
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-05-19-14min.doc
2
oeuy4,4 vooeri t�NoN
Commissioners;
I am speaking on behalf of my husband Robert Helton and myself.
Eagle City Code's Ordinance #672, in several instances, uses the verbage "designed
to be aesthetically compatible" and also uses the words "camouflaged or concealed".
I'm sure it's been made obvious that most of the citizens in the general vicinity agree
this 1107115' fake tree doesn't meet that criteria.
Our property abuts the 9th tee at Eagle Hills golf course. From my home office window
and from my backyard I will be able to see this work of man imitating nature. But even at
a diminished height there are other ways, in which I feel, that this application does not
comply to the intent of the recently adopted ordinance.
There are no overhead utilities in the Eagle Hills West subdivision, of which the Eagle
Hills golf course is a part, so the placement of a 115' utility tower is not aesthetically
compatible.
The properties along the golf course do not have fences such are vaguely proposed to
surround the support buildings of the tower. Low, split rail or pole fences line the golf
course. A solid wood fence which is necessary to partially "conceal" the buildings is out
of context for our neighborhood and would not be aesthetically compatible to the
neighborhood or pleasing to the southern exposure. Since there has been no proposal
for security, this solid fence would be an inviting canvas for graffiti which would be
visible from the downtown of our City. If the maintenance of this fence and general area
is left to the owners of the tower, based in Florida, how often do you think they will be
out to maintain a security alarm, pick up blown in trash or address vandalism? And if the
maintenance if left to the property owner....well, look around at the stagnate ponds,
fallen down retaining walls, collapsing fences and general maintenance of the golf
course.
Then there's the road. In the neighborhood meeting it was referred to as an enhanced
golf cart path. On the drawings of the application it is defined as a "gravel access road".
When Mark Butler presented a project for Mr. Beggrow, using this same piece of
property nearly 8 years ago, it was referred to as grass pave among other things.
Regardless of what it is called, it appears that an 800 - 1000' foot long, 12 foot minimum
road, is being proposed to cut through the #2 fairway on the Eagle Hills golf course. This
roadway will be visible from street that leads into the subdivision as well from all
properties abutting the golf course. Again, this is not compatible to the existing use of
the property.
The Eagle Hills West subdivisions is one of the older subdivisions in Eagle and it
surrounds a golf course that should be a pride to the city. Our neighborhood should not
be diminished by this proposal for a utility pole that will tower over our community.
This is a newly adopted ordinance which, I believe to have, specific intent. Your
decision and interpretation regarding this application will have a significant impact on the
future of our City.
As for the reassurance addressing the health issues - It hasn't been that long ago that
we were told by our govemment that lead based paints, asbestos insulation and DDT
were safe. I think we need to take a proactive stance on the potential, long term health
consequences when considering this project.
In closing, I doubt any of us will disagree with the fact that technology is a large part
of our lives today. However, as citizens within a community, we should have control of
whether we're going to let technology be invasive to our life style.
On behalf of husband and myself we request that you deny this application.
Thank you,
Debra & Robert Helton
ellautvolmottMil - ecvloWtting Saturday March 1st @ 1:OOpm : w/Attorney / Cell To... Paw # of b
P0( 11412-, C -t,-
clear
re: Tower
1 message
Chadwick Richey < misred@clearwire.net>
Pattie Richey < misred@clearwire.net> Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:46 AM
To: misred@clearire.net
Here is my statement.
am Pattie Richey and my husband reside at 216 Winged Foot Place, Eagle.
I have three points that I wish to share with you regarding the 11 efoot tower.
1st. Financial hardship.
We are both seniors and will be in our home until we have to move to a senior
assisted facility.
The 20% depreciation of property, will take f away the assurance to enter
such a facility.
2nd. Noise.
We live directly east of the tower, which is immediately next to our property,
and since wind travels mostly from west to east, we will hear the sound from
the towers engines constantly,
3rd. Looks.
Eagle is an upscale residential town and with the 115 foot tower with plastic
leaves on it takes away from the beauty of the surrounding area and makes
this another low class tenement project.
Thank you.
https://mail.google.com/mai l/?ui=2&ik=b0750198c9&view=pt&search=sent&th=144a25f8... 3/8/2014
I II
REALTOR
Cell 208-863-6468
www.MyIdahoProperty.com
This information is not guaranteed. Equal Housing Opportunity
Today's Date: 03/06/2014
Page 2 of 2
It
1
EQUAI
OPPC
http://imis.paragonrels.com/publink/Report.aspx?outputtype=HTML&GUID=8a54d5a1-fbb... 3/6/2014
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
SUBJECT: PU-01-12 - Spring Valley PUMP (Planning Unit Master Plan) No. 1-M3 Companies, LLC:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME n TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
�j7Fui '')`11) 0,6
5- A4-) Co -t
Jtetei ern 7:.3t
74,,,P.u7 ki Lvyieci ,6171,
b Ste) N sp 6/31",_ L lc�z c
2cto ntt /1 L- _-4/6-;,.(, l -,Le/,
l
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
SUBJECT: PU-01-12 - Sorin2 Valley PUMP (Planning Unit Master Plan) No. 1-M3 Companies, LLC:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
qZIU /V ncJki)Ie S
,r �/ J �•
hexa l7i� na : ! f n k a ; <, I ►� �'�1 �(
86.E W Ea tr�.T L'�• c �/ /
i
a`, e_<\ 4-€
I/ r9 r I_` (� (i'1 C) N e-)iYl ! L' J -0-1-
I(
0 1
Ja,1 P5vbeld 2o-7 &c,sci
C i✓
011
NAME
, 2166
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
SUBJECT: PP -06-12 -Spring Valley Subdivision No. 1 — M3 Companies. LLC:
/-4 E2/2L- J
C-7.:./'_4 -
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
c)r til6(4);"
zc
, ,
Cn �3; S sa'b'
(96„)
7
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
4,gi6 Cc i.Jt.
yt5
/? A/r,
k#/15 -.-/4--'- 4/? -6(-‘1' 0' 77 , id
-0-TreAJ - f,h,i 11,4.1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
SUBJECT: CU -01-14 - Personal Wireless Facility (height -over 35-feetl - Skyway Towers, LLC:
NAME
Debra
1„
V7(7t t \ 1� 1 i s
C SCl�i6a, ':jLC
po-igrieb
PAt�`
biAl2.N WAY/A6
37 A�‘/06
)44'
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
1 2 0 3 Ce r r - vi r C4
Zoe, ct 3.2) - Li 14,
s 75— E
_ J 73 38
rfcfi 2,cL -c
cne k_Avo cc*
)�1J
1 r L
TESTIFY
YES/NO?
e s
(,1 kfi) rn ;,14
72S sP YCZ/1-ss w,4 y
&4)/e 1°a f, c e /J ap7'
47( EA L
20 N E9/'J,/
ito fdikhibitz
L -)
Yes
yes
\/e
ti�
PRO/CON
Act 40 N 5 t-
�i
ji
coj
_132 6,
,�1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
-''", SUBJECT: CU -01-14 — Personal Wireless Facility (height -over 35 -feet) — Skyway Towers., LLC:
NAME
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL Y/NO`) PRO/CON
ti
' /G �Z lvlzfcf�u
GAIA/14_ be (au -
AIC
V
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
^ SUBJECT: CU -01-14 - Personal Wireless Facility (height -over 35 -feet) - Skyway Towers. LLC:
NAME
2
CO, Ak._4\4in1-,,,,
Am,/
-
�
)/)/1 c() l!�
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
9 i
LJ.(-fi
r �( E
�ne1-r 1 m X -.k So
TESTIFY
YES/NO?
111'1 L/ t 3 /L10 m, (?/ .
PRO/CON
C,iV
/
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
May 19, 2014
^ SUBJECT: CU -01-14 — Personal Wireless Facility Iheieht-over 35 -feet) — Skyway Towers, LLC:
NAME
Pfd ie
oti
3 .2._6( Oek-kj
Ai() (-t
`CEJ \l���CS (MN��))
I % I/v /pki
e4Yel9fib/e eegec\,14,\ nto�z f'J
0,-kol-7 4e - Se_;_,_s/e,sRue--(:-.-, 001-1
. 41(///7,y1 14/(1/ /71/6 dhi()sq? 4)0 .
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL11 YES/NO? PRO/CON
12-0 Co ,v-ta C4- E l e b AGA,1,3_57-
1.`6
c't3 "3 Cal
cam`
(IDiv'