Loading...
Minutes - 1996 - Planning & Zoning - 12/02/1996 - Regular EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1996 T aglêPlí!1niilgCØmmission met in regular session on December 2, 1996. Chairman BRADLEY presiding. The following members were present: BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, RUSSEL MAYER, COLLEEN MAILE. FARRIN FARNWORTH IS ABSENT: Moved by BRINTON and Seconded by MAYER to approve the minutes of the November 1S, 1996, meeting as presented and the Consent Agenda. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman BRADLEY announced it is the time and the place for the Public Hearing: A. Conditional Use (CU-S-96)-Boise City Cellular Partnership is proposing to construct and operate a cellular transmission site with a 120 foot monopole, one 288 square foot single story 12'x24' support building, a new asphalt/concrete driveway; and, an 8' high fence around a 50'x50' site located at 1341 E. State Street. The tower is proposed to be approximately 400' south of State Street and 1/4 mile west of Edgewood Road at the southwest corner of the Container Supply Company parcel. This item was continued from the October 21,1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Chairman BRADLEY excuses himself from this hearing, a potential conflict of interest and turns the meeting over to Vice-Chairman BRINTON. BRINTON: This item was continued from the October 21, 1996 meeting. The applicant at that point in time, based on the fact that the Commission was not in favor of the site and another cellular company was coming in to make application in the City for another location and it was a question in the mind of Planning and Zoning that perhaps the two could combine into one site and make that a feasible location for both. Mark, do we have anything new. MARK: I talked to the applicant this afternoon and they just handed me some plans, I believe they would like to talk to the Commission a little bit more and they would like the Commission to look over these plans. They are for a new location that the applicant is considering, I have been working with the applicant. TheY:l~i'rbêproposing a new location and they may request that this item be continued. If y()~ chqo~e to. continue you might want to consider January 20th as a date. This would gi~lthéaþplipant time to apply for H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 1 . .G arí'!c k 1483 Greenfield Ave. Salt Lake, City Real Estate Manager for AT&T Wireless Services Salt Lake City, Utah At the last meeting we were made aware that our competitor was submitting an application for their own site further East. We were left at the last meeting to investigate the possibility of a co-location there or any other possible alternatives. The site we proposed was not very well received. We have made contact with Western Wireless. Unfortunately we found that site was to far away for what we need. The signal is not much better than what we already have. The site will not work for us. Because of that we met with Mark to see if there would be any other possible locations. At his suggestion we looked at another site at 350 S. Edgewood, on the North side of the Andon complex. This site is not our preference. Our preference is the site we proposed at the last meeting. However, we feel that it would be a good idea to propose an alternative site to you. This site would work. We are not on the Agenda to talk to you about this site. This site is in a commercial zone. It is at an industrial site complex. This is outside your 400' visual corridor. Our concern is the fact that it is' in proximity to homes. We feel we have presented two very likely possibilities here. We desperately do need to provide coverage to your City, it is not adequate. We have a signed lease for this other property. We can go with either site. BRINTON: You are now serving the Eagle area off from Tablerock. I don't understand why you say the site Western Wireless is proposing would not work for you. I just can't get why any where in the Eagle area would not work. GARRICK: Any time you can be closer your reception is better. Proximity is very important. The service we provided now is very marginal. We need to get close enough to fix the problem. We need to get close to downtown Eagle. The two proposed sites would make it possible to place a call inside a building. The problem with the Western site is it is not close enough, it is to far to the North. The other two sites make it close enough. MAILE: Will we not be seeing an application for Western Wireless. Is Western Wireless site just not feasible? GARRICK: I contacted Western Wireless. I told them that we would look at the possibility of going on at that site and they indicated that they we óiñgto submit an application. Once we checked it out we realized the site wouldn't w H, \P&Z\M88TINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ120296 .MIN 2 e did get an application in for Western Wireless. They are proposing a cellular er, 20' in height, on the Republic Storage property. They would need to raise the pole tÓ!ã d i1~eds of other suppliers. Western Wireless seems to be open kihì s oril to meet the needs. DISCUSSION BRINTON: Everyone and the Council will have to realize that no matter where this is put it will be visible. Would you be willing to have Western Wireless on your tower. GARRICK: Absolutely. DISCUSSION MARK: Another bit of information with the other site on Horseshoe Bend Road. Because they are not going to the center of town, they plan on coming in with another pole site around the sewage treatment site South of Ballantyne. If they do pole further away from town they will probably looking at a second site. Jim McCauley 2611 W. State Eagle, Idaho My wife and I are the owners' of the property referred to as the "Heart of the City". This is exactly one mile from the center crossroads in Eagle. I have thought a lot about the objections raised to this tower. I took a ride around the Valley to look for towers and found several towers. I rediscovered them when I started looking for them. Thirty days after this tower is built the newness will fade away. The tower will not require lights. Does not have any effect on the TV reception. My building is within 120' of the base of this tower that would be damaged if it fell. What really is the objection to this. I don't understand why this is such a difficult project. It doesn't pollute the ground water, it doesn't make any noise, it doesn't have any lights, it doesn't create any odor and it doesn't produce any harmful emissions. I can not understand what the objection is to a single pole. I believe this pole, wherever it is located, will help move Eagle as a progressive City into the 21st Century. I want to refer to Ordinance #276 which includes the height limitations. The Ordinance does allow an exception on the height. There are three purposes to this Ordinance and I would like to remind you of those very briefly. (Reads from the Ordinance). I don't think there is any question that this development is driven by the market. What we are really discussing tonight is Goal #2. We have to keep in mind what is the best good for the community. They have gone to the expense of finding a second site. I see that there is no difference between these locations. But it is somewhâtlêšš serviceable. I simply do not understand the objection. I urge you to approve onå,!¡Šite Ç)rthe other. H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1996\PZ120296 . MIN 3 N: Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to testify in behalf or st this particular Conditional Use Permit? tC 2, 1 W. State Eagle, Idaho As I listen to Mark about what the other company says about coming in. He said they would have to have two poles also. It seems that it would solve everyones problems to use the same pole. I thought this must be closer to the bypass than what I thought. I don't know if you realize how far away it really is. It is not any closer than Merrill's feed mill. It is not like it is in front of everybodys nose. I hope that you will go ahead with this site. We don't mind it in our back yard. BRINTON: Is there anyone else who would like to testify for or against. Hearing none this Public Hearing is closed. DISCUSSION BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS MAILE: We don't want three of these poles doting the landscaping of Eagle. I feel that we have to wait and find out what Western Wireless is considering, communicate to them our desire to just see one pole. I don't see any advantage to move it to the Andon site. I'm inclined to defer and we will have to have another public hearing and see if we can get the matter resolved with the least impact on the City of Eagle. DISCUSSION BRINTON: We need to consider Boise City Cellular and see what we can do for them. This is what we need to focus on. MARK: Something for the Commission to consider might be the possibility to retain an expert on this field to review both of these proposals and get a recommendation to you on a higher level. I thought that might be something that you might want to consider. DISCUSSION MAYER: If I had to put up a tower in Eagle where I would I look first. In an industrial area or a commercial area and that is where they are at. Which is the most restricted? The first site is less restricted than where they want to put the second site. What would be expect to be built around this. DISCUSSION H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 4 : As I look at, I am somewhat leaning towards what you are saying Russ. I think e are some houses close by the Andon site. As far as a site which would be less r:abrèIiro fa hå':!~olleen is saying but we have to take what we have before BoiselCer s .,g tQiico-locate with them. Then we could say, we have approved ite,'iça~e wfhenii~TlllaLwbuld be direction I would lean. DISCUSSION MAILE: We don't have any basis to believe that Western Wireless will go on this pole or for some reason can't go on the pole. it just seems that we need to get all the facts before us. In fairness to everyone we need to find one location that everyone can use. I would have to assume that it would be this one and assuming is dangerous. DISCUSSION MAYER: I make a motion that we approve the Conditional Use Cu-8-96, Boise City Cellular Partnership for the site that they mentioned, the original site at 1341 E. State, and Seconded by BRINTON. MARK: Question for clarification. The Motion did not include Staff Recommendations or Standard Conditions of Approval. Staff had recommend denial, however, Staff said if you choose to recommend approval, Staff provided conditions that Staff felt would be appropriate to the site. Standard Conditions of Approval there are 11 of them. They are the standards that are typical on commercial developments. I will read the three basic conditions: 1. The owner of the parcel (Container Supply Company) shall apply for a Design Review modification for the site, and receive City approval of the modifications, prior to any additional City approvals. The site plans, to be provided with the application, shall show what was actually built at the site. 2. The applicant shall provide the City with computer enhanced photos of various possible heights prior to final approval by the Council. The photos shall be taken in at least ten locations, as determined by Zoning Administrator, 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. 3. Obtain City approval of the Design Review for the site. Number three is highly important we do need City âlprôvâl on Design Review. MAYER: I would agree with those conditions but I 't¡¡~l1ink:that 10 Photos are H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 5 ,AYE::E, IW,QTO ONE - THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PASSES PLANNING AND ZONING. OLD BUSINESS: A. Design Review (DO-16-96)-Boise City Cellular Partnership is proposing to construct and operate a cellular transmission site with a 120' monopole, one 288 square foot single story 12'x24' support building, a new asphalt/concrete driveway; and, an 8' high fence around a 50'x50' site located at 1341 E. State Street. The tower is proposed to be approximately 400' south of State Street and 1/4 mile west of Edgewood Road. This item was continued from the October 21, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. BRINTON: We did not finalize the approval of the Design Review based on us waiting for additional information on the actual approval of the site. MARK: You will need to review the findings of the Commission before this item gets forwarded to Council so at the time you review the findings I could resubmit this item if you choose to continue it to the meeting that you see the findings. MAILE: I move that we continue the Design Review DO-16-96 Cellular Pole until the Findings are presented to the Commission on the 16th of December, 1996, and Seconded by MAYER. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED: BRINTON: I will now turn the meeting over to Chairman Bradley. NEW BUSINESS: A. Design Review (DO-18-96)-Rick Yzaguirre is requesting Design Review approval for a new gas island canopy with two new signs on the fascia of the canopy. Also requested is approval of a new monument sign. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing wall sign and pole sign. The site is located on the northwest corner of State Street and Stierman Road. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Overview of staff report. Staff had a problem with the two signs that are proposed on the canopy. We have som~jp'fÔDtèms with the Code. If he puts up the monument sign he can only put up one moresjgn...The Design Review committee recommended approval even though the Cod, sàysbne thing we really think H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 6 be allowed. I want to get started this month. I started this project in January of last year. I got caught up in the moratorium and a couple of delays. Two points. I could go ahead and do the canopy and put no signage on it and just do my monument and wait until this issue is resolved. Another point that we talked about at Design Review, the Code speaks to a "business within a business". In my opinion in what I am doing I am a business within a business. Half of business is gas and half is merchandise. I could do the Amoco on the canopy and my monument sign and still be within the intent of the Ordinance. I am giving up the sign on the building. The point we need to discuss is, is it a business within a business. DISCUSSION YZAGUIRRE: I would like to see you approve the canopy and the monument sign. We need to allow adequate signage for a business within a business. DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: If you do decide to approve some variation. You might consider approving the whole thing and one of the conditions of approval being the passage of the Ordinance, that way you don't make the applicant come back and go through the whole process again. MARK: That is the way I wrote the Staff Report. You could approve the Staff Report the way it is written. DISCUSSION MAILE: I move that we approve DO-18-96 with the site specific Conditions of Approval as recommended by Staff, as well as the Standard Conditions of approval and Seconded by BRINTON. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED B. Design Review (DO-19-96)-Robert Pedersen is requesting Design Review approval to replace the existing free standing sign, located at 333\1;(Sfâtè Street, with a new, larger monument sign. The site is located on the south side q~ tr~et across from Kings Shopping Center, approximately 1/4 mile west of Eagle.~ H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 7 . port: Mark Butler: Overview of staff report. Design Review recommended Iwith the deletion of Staffs Condition #1. MAILE: I move that we approve DO-19-96 new sign for the Vicar's Attic, Vicarage building, with the conditions of the Design Review Committee and upon their recommendation and Seconded by MAYER. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED C. Design Review per Administrative Appeal (AA-1-96)-Review of landscaping plan for the Meridian School Academy. (Required by City Council, per Ordinance 276, due to the applicants damage and removal of existing trees.) The site is located on the north side of State Street approximately 1/4 mile west of Edgewood Lane. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Overview of staff report. Amber Vanoker 3712 Meadow Boise, Idaho Displays diagram and explains where the trees are to be placed. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I move that we accept the Design Review per Administrative Appeal AA-1- 96 as approved by the Design Review Committee and Seconded by MAILE. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED D. Covington Place Subdivision (Ada County Transmittal 96-34-PDR)-Harly Carson is requesting Ada County approval for an 11 lot planned residential development. The 39 acre site is located on the west side of Park Lane approximately 1/4 mile north of Beacon Light Road. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Overview of staff report. DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: From a legal consistency stand point~fÔrûš to require something on a zoning destination in our Code when the property zoned for our Code it is inconsistent. From that standpoint we should exclude th ifemeht for properties that H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ120296 .MIN 8 qr~JnJb~ Area of Impact. Otherwise we would be asking Ada County to do something that h 0 meaning to apply a set back using Eagle Zoning Codes for a zoning designation t etific #1 if you think that is appropriate. Keith Loveless 3330 Grace Street Boise, Idaho We had to change the configuration and we shortened up the culdesac. There are only seven residential lots the rest are common lots. The culdesac exceeds the standards. One thing that concerns me is item of approval #17 on the last page. It says wetline sewers are required. I think I am going to have a problem finding those. DISCUSSION MARK: We also need to delete Standard Condition #5. City Attorney says don't delete #5 just eliminate the portion that says "City of Eagle Zoning Ordinance Nil. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I recommend that we approve Ada County Transmittal 96-34-PER with our Site Specific Conditions of Approval and Standard Conditions of Approval with the following exceptions: Site Specific #1, modify Standard Conditions of Approval #5 to state "Eagle Zoning Ordinance or Ada County Zoning Ordinance", and delete Standard Condition #17 and Seconded by MAYER. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED E. Rezone with Development Agreement {Boise City Transmittal R.-16-96)-Boise City is requesting that the City of Eagle comment on a proposed rezone from L-OD (Limited Office with a Design Review Overlay) to CD. (General Commercial) or other appropriate zone. The site is located on the southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Eagle Road. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Overview of staff report. This item is not within the Eagle area of impact, it is not within the City of Eagle. Boise City sent it over as a courtesy for Eagle City's comment. Staff is recommending denial of this. DISCUSSION MAYER: I have a spec house right behind where this be. When I put that H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZ12D296 ,MIN 9 ere I put it there with the understanding of what the zoning was, an office building nvenience store. I will not vote on this. LEY: ~ lings about what is viable and what is not viable. Just a $ 1dardC . going to go in there, it just says General Commercial, and when you are talking about something as critical as a truck stop I'm not sure that would encompass a Cd. zone. MARK: The proposal is to build a Flying J Truck Stop. What they are asking for is some type of zoning that would allow for it. Anything that will work, with a development agreement. MAILE: It is clear in mind that what happened with the Northeast corner we didn't really have any choice because the overall ground was already zoned commercial. At that time there was some concern that we were going to siphoning off from our main business district and I think that comments were well taken. If we were voting to recommend or not to recommend this I know that I would strongly say that we should be opposed to this. In part because of all of the issues that were raised by the Hobble Creek lawsuit. Especially if we know there is a truck stop looming on the horizon. It just doesn't fit in at all. BRINTON: There is planned a major shopping center on the other side of the street and I would be hard pressed to see one on both sides of the street. You are awfully close to residential homes there. I can see the limited office but I would be hard pressed to change that to Cd.. LEGAL COUNSEL: I believe at the time this came before Boise City to approve the subdivision development they asked to rezone the whole thing to light office as well as the residential, so this came as a package. Now after the fact they are changing this corner to more intense use. There have been significant numbers of people who have relied upon that original zoning and I suspect residents of Eagle who are interested in this corner probably refrained from submitting testimony at earlier hearings based upon the original concept. BRINTON: I would not have a problem with light office but I would have to change it to Cd.. BRINTON: I move that we recommend denial of the CD request that Boise Redevelopment has presented to us based on the information we talked about tonight that can be obtained from the minutes and Seconded by MAILE. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1996\PZ120296 ,"IN 10 Iyjtem that might be a bit of concern is the item to possibly modify Section 935A of ode that refers to those Zoning Ordinances. You might want to recommend that an dlhêht .. thä e have something that tacks on that says "except the Area paCt~~ and oc d with that amendment and bring it forth to the Commission ouhcil. DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: My suggestion to Mark, however, is that there are a half dozen technical corrections that need to be made and the Motion needs to be made so that all the technical corrections that need to be made can be done by Staff. SO MOVED BY MAYER AND SECONDED BY MAILE LEGAL COUNSEL: I would suggest that the Motion be that the Zoning Administrator bring to Planning and Zoning proposed zoning corrections. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED LEGAL COUNSEL: Discussion on the water issue before the City Council at their meeting on November 26, 1996. The City Council will have a workshop on this issue at 5:30 p.m. on December 10, 1996, before their regularly scheduled Council meeting. MOVED BY MAYER TO ADJOURN AND SECONDED BY BRINTON. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED LOWDER EAGLE CITY CLERK A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THESE MINUTES IS AT CITY.HAL L H, \P&Z\MBETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZ120296 ,MIN 11