Loading...
Minutes - 1996 - Planning & Zoning - 12/16/1996 - Regular EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES I aglê 8¡lanrrltJgan Commission met in regular session on December 16, 1996. Chairman Bradley presiding. CEMBER 16, 1996 The following members were present: BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, RUSSEL MAYER, COLLEEN MAILE, FARRIN FARNWORTH. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Approval of the minutes of the August 19, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. B. Approval of the minutes of the December 2, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Corrections on 3A and 3B. BRINTON: I MAKE A Motion TO MOVE ITEM A & B FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND SECONDED BY MAILE. MAYER: Page 5 - August 19 minutes: Correct the spelling of Mayer. FARNWORTH: Page 1: FARRIN is noted as absent and he was present at this meeting. BRINTON: I move to accept the minutes of August 19, 1996 as corrected and Seconded by MAILE. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED MAILE: Page 5 - minutes of December 2: The statement by me - Amend to say "I would have to assume it would be this one and assuming is dangerous." BRINTON: Page 4- Lonnie McCauley - should be Arlene McCauley. BRINTON: I move to accept the minutes of December 2, 1996, as corrected and Seconded by MAILE. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED. H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 1 HEARING: ed it is the time and the place for the following Public A. Rezone (RZ-4-96) - The Land Group, represented by David Koga Group, is requesting a rezone from R-5 (residential 5 units per acre maximum) to C-1 (neighborhood business district). Approval of a Design Review will be required prior to site modifications, (which are proposed to change the residential use to office use). The 0.35 acre site is located at 128 S. Eagle Rd. on the southeast corner of Eagle Rd. and Aikens Rd. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Overview of the staff report. Mark: Applicant is also requesting a Design Review which you will not be seeing tonight. Please understand that any commercial use could go in there. Staff is not requesting a Development Agreement. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone. We have no jurisdiction as a city to require a water line to be extended. However, if DEQ or Central District Heath or one of those entities felt that it was necessary to have it extended the City would recommend that the Applicant comply with those requirements. On a rezone you can't add conditions. Mark distributes two documents that recently came in. One a letter from the Fire Department stating that the need for the number gallons per minutes out of the fire hydrant would be increased from 1,000 gallons per minute to 1,500 gallons per minute and that the flow rate would have to be met and that is a requirement in our Code. Two a letter from the City Engineer recommending that the well not be used. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: This is a question for John: Don't we have an R Ordinance that if something is rezoned from residential to commercial that they have to upgrade to meet commercial code. LEGAL COUNSEL: They would have to comply with the building code. BRADLEY: Which means an upgrade for sprinklers and the whole works? LEGAL COUNSEL: I'm not sure if the Uniform Building Code requires that. The Uniform Fire Code which we have adopted may require that. That would be the building inspector who would enforce that. I don't' think fire code is going to require sprinklers. Mark: The Fire Department did say the classification of the building would change from a Group R Occupancy to a Group B Occupancy and ifllâf'êlâssification changes then certain requirements kick in. H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 2 ION ]"¡IJI: . ':Icov.~r. she under Project Summary, it states that approval of Design iewwilll ir~g~rior ... any site modifications. I believe there has been some site ificatìbnson .¡Ii\g atlitbatiiipaJ;ticular site and I would like some clarification as to if we have a problem with that. MARK: Yes, that is a violation of our Zoning Code. BRINTON: And what are the consequences of that. MARK: Violations of the Zoning Code carry a criminal misdemeanor citation and a $300 fine and 6 months in jail. BRINTON: I'm not the only one who has observed site changes there. MARK: I've had calls about it too. The last time I spoke with the Applicant was before the site was paved, the parking lot paved, and they said that they would stop construction. Public Testimony: David Koga The Land Group 82 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho Our intent is to change the zoning of the site from R-5 to C-1 for an office building. We did want to hook-up to City Water. We met with Bob Deshazo of Eagle Water Company and found out the closest site in the area would be 500'. We are within a 500' radius of a fire hydrant. We would love to hook-up to the City but due to the cost it would be a hardship. We have checked Code and it doesn't need to be sprinkled. We definitely would like to comply to Codes. We have been down there to do some work. We were very concerned about winter coming. We tried to do as much work as we can making the least impact on the area. BRADLEY: What is going to be the use. APPLICANT: Office use, our office. FARNWORTH: How many people will be working in APPLICANT: We have 1500 sq.ft. in our office and we 4 êi¡nployee~. Weare reqUired H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 3 arking spaces. "êre¡~ill jÚ,rbe one office. is corrèc. BRINTON: Where do you stand with the process with Design Review? APPLICANT: We have made application for Design Review and we are signed up for December 22nd. We have really tired to follow very closely with Design Review. FARNWORTH: Are you going to have sidewalks. APPLICANT: Yes, we have already gotten with ACHD. We are to provide curb and gutter and sidewalk along Aikens. FURTHER DISCUSSION MAILE: I have a procedural question. We are here tonight just to discuss whether this piece of ground should become commercial. I see some concerns about traffic flow, curb cuts, the placement of the parking spaces. I'm curious how much weight we are to give these concerns in granting the rezone. I'm wondering if this information isn't more appropriate for Design Review. LEGAL COUNSEL: With respect to a zoning application like this, it truly is the applicant's burden of prof to make the presentation. What you are balancing is how much detail do you need versus getting enough information so you can make a decision whether a development agreement might be appropriate. Any zoning application may have a development agreement attached to it. You don't know if you want to have a development agreement until you know the concept of the developer. Any question is fair game if you are looking to whether you are concerned about all commercial use for this property, whether you are comfortable with this commercial use that this particular applicant is looking to. Design Review is following along behind that which would then commit the applicant to certain situations. MAILE: I can see that the house is there now and can see how that can be modified to an office for your purposes without much impact on that particular intersection. However, if in the future if that house was to be demolished and something more intense was to be put there, Aikens Street is not a major thoroughfare. I hate to see us say that commercial is okay without some assurance that was legally binding that is what is really going to happen there for a long, long time. APPLICANT: We have met with ACHD more than once was. a work study with H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 4 c¡QY(lcil and ACHD. We are trying to work with the City and ACHD for other options kens Street. Also what would be best for not just us but for the other neighbors in e Iqôki t ê~érything from vacating the road, keeping it public, one-way - ~Y o~ . oul~ be best for the City. We are willing to do whatever we can withregård ~bd.dØsign to make Aikens as a liveable and workable street in there. MAILE: So would you be agreeable to a Development Agreement that just sets out that this rezone is essentially done just for your intents and purposes and that you meet some of the requirements that staff has suggested. APPLICANT: Yes we would. Our only concern is the issue of the water. We would be willing to sign an Agreement that say as the water is brought to the site in some fashion or in some area to the frontage, we are willing to pay for our costs of the frontage to bring it in there. Also another thing, we are willing to work with the City on some type of development of Aikens Street. MARK: The applicant according to the Code is to provide us with a Development Agreement if the Commission chooses to do so and then that would hold this item up from going to City Council until the Development Agreement was provided to us by the Applicant and Staff could make its recommendation. This adds about another month or at least two weeks all depending how quickly he gets the Development Agreement to us. APPLICANT: Could I have clarification from Mark? MARK: The process as I mentioned, the Applicant would provide us a Development Agreement. I would basically state that the building was going to be built such, the requirement would be on there, whatever requirements would typically be a Design Review list. Because of that development agreement being approved by the Council, if it gets approved, that is the only thing that could be built there. A Development Agreement ties it to that development. FURTHER DISCUSSION APPLICANT: I'm glad I got that clarification. I did not realize it was that restrictive. DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: Ordinarily what the Development Agreement does is it even restricts the use of the design. It could say that so much of the building is designed and used for offices purposes as opposed to turning it into a high traffi~Féstau"ant or bank or something like that. I think a LO is going to do about the same thi~l+ H, \P&Z\MEETINGS \PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 . MIN 5 ...SSION ;ii~ÔY q~:~ rêq~ires a zoning certificate to be issued according to the Code. I er wordsi t ir1i~nd got Design Review for an office and wanted to change it restâurânt, W~e.rSi~re required to get a zoning certificate by the City. There are controls provided for in the Code. FURTHER DISCUSSION BRADLEY: It was very poor taste that the Land Group considered going ahead with construction on the project, they were also very familiar with developing of the Design Review process and yet they just arbitrarily assumed that they could get the zoning and going ahead with some of the improvements was in very poor taste. FURTHER DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Mark, is there anybody signed up on your sheet.. MARK: No there is not. BRADLEY: Is there anybody who wishes to comment for or against. Gary Walker 167 Aikens Street Eagle, Id We live right next door to the development that is taking place. We were surprised that there was an advertisement for this Public Hearing and yet development has continued. There is now a parking lot next to us and I would have preferred that had not happened. I am not against this development. We are not sure how it is going to tie into a downtown city plan. I don't have a problem with a commercial development but I am very much in favor of a Development Agreement or something that would limit the overall usage. If someone wanted to do something more aggressive then I would want them to have to go back through the whole process for a rezone of the whole area. If they are going to zone it commercial then lets rezone the whole area. I am very much in favor of having a Development Agreement or something that will restrict the overall usage and keep it a low traffic area or at least until perhaps a decision is made for the entire area. Our greatest fear has been that slow death encroachment. I would very much be in favor of seeing an overall plan. I would encourage you not to pass this as an open commercial zone, put a development agreement with it to allow us to have some~htrôlover how that goes in the future. H, \P&Z\MEETINGS \PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZl21696 . MIN 6 Y: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? wÒÛIÎ! likê'to 'fy 'ôme of those comments. If an LO Zone was approved it is n t~ßY þôÛ~~ b ing, we have a very restrictive Design Ordinance that was b ed upOn the Dt!) to pment Task Force and Downtown Plan. There are an awful lot of restrictions in place right now if you do go with an LO Zone. BRADLEY: I think the issue before is either an R-5 to C-1 Zone. We can make a recommendation. MARK: You can recommend denial of their request but recommend approval of an LO Zone instead of C-1 and pass that on to counsel. APPLICANT: We were very excited about this project. We got ahead of ourselves and I apologize for that. We are willing to work with the City. In regard to the Development Agreement that caught us off guard and we would like to discuss that. MAYER: If we deny the C Zone and go for an LO would you be agreeable to that. APPLICANT: I'm not quite sure what an LO is so I would like to take a look at that. David says yes. We are anxious to move in there. FURTHER DISCUSSION BRINTON READS THE DEFINITION IN THE CODE FOR AN LO ZONE DISCUSSION Franz Witte Star Idaho I am part of the development group. There has been some work done here but if you look at the positive side of that it shows a commitment to retaining this older home and site in tact. There is pretty heavy financial commitment already made to retain this. It could act as a cornerstone of this area of the community. More of a village style. We have been heavily involved in the Ordinance. We think we know what Eagle is trying to achieve. I think this could be something that could put this concept forward. This ties up the rest of this area. This effective cuts off the Eagle frontage. An LO Zone would be fine with us. I think there are enough checks and balances in place and we do not need to go further with any type of an agreement and this zone could be H: \P&Z\MEBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1996\PZ121696 .MIN 7 lose this portion of the Public BRADLEY: Anyone else to testify. Hearing none we w Ntl e . avô~ipf putting it as an LO, but I think we still need a Development emamt. 0 inot that it stay necessarily as an office, that it stay as a led. home st r. hQuld be my concern under the La. Under the C I would be concerned about someone else coming in at a later date raising it and putting something else up that we really would not have any control over. I'm as concerned as they are about the water situation and having public water. We need something in the Development Agreement where we both feel comfortable with. Maybe we will let you work on a well for a time but some time down the road, X amount of days, or a development to the South or some kind of a tie you will connect to the City water. Your attorney and our attorney could come up with something along that line. I am really stressed about the prework before the approval. I don't know where the City stands on that but I think there needs to be some type action taken in connection with that. The reason I say that is not necessarily to make an example of you but yet to make an example of you so someone else doesn't think that, hey you let Dave do it why can't I do it. I think we have to look at the intent but I will leave it to the City and the attorney. You stepped over the bounds and I think there needs to be some kind of consequence whether its monetary or a slap of the hands. I don't think that as individuals doing development in the City that we can just come in and do whatever we want without following the guidelines and the time schedule accordingly. MAILE: You said it all Don. Alii can say is dido, you really addressed everything that I had to say. I think a limited office is certainly what they need. The Development Agreement I know they are anxious to get proceeding and maybe don't want to take the time to go through that process but at the same time it is December, it is cold, Christmas is here so maybe there is time to get the Agreement in place and everyone would feel more comfortable. I do commend them for wanting to keep that house there. I am pleased that they are doing that. I would feel more comfortable with a Development Agreement. And again the water, let them have the well for a while but as soon as possible they should go to City water. BRADLEY: Regardless of whether there is a law against developing a residential piece of property and then turn around and apply for a rezone to commercial, however, that is neither here nor there and is gone. I do have to agree, I think the City Engineers recommended that this must be hooked to the City water system for approval I have to back that up. I would be in favor. I realize the cost involved but anytime you get into any kind of commercial office development you have to bring the services up to that standard at that time. If water is 500' away, rather expensive, but maybe something can be worked out with Eagle Water Company as far as water credits. I would have to recommend that we at least stay with the City Engineers' recommendationmþhthât question. I think that an La district fits more appropriate at that particular locatioQi!than:a.C-1 and would be much more in favor of that but I also would recommend that êVel~pmet')t Agreement be in H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 8 k tljJ~Attorney a question. With the type of zoning the house is fo~lþomeone to put a parking lot in the back of their house. LEGAL COUNSEL: I don't believe so. Under the Uniform Building Code I don't think a permit is required for a parking lot. This one is two issues on going. We have a violation of City Code that they put a parking lot in on a residential structure without obtaining a building permit from the City prior to doing that. That in itself would not be a violation. On the other hand that if you look at the fact that they filed a Design Review application and there is clear intent to do something more intense than that, this would very likely be evidence of the beginning of construction. I would hesitate to pursue this to the fullest intent of the law. I think that perhaps a letter from the City that indicates that they should cease construction until their permits are in place would probably be the appropriate action. I think there is a little gray area here and everyone knows what the intent is. MAYER: I would be in favor of the LO not the C-1. On the City services: I think since this is going to be commercial the services should be brought up to standard and if anyone else connected in then there be an agreement with the water company that they would pay their share. FARNWORTH: My question is If we change it to an LO Zone how will it affect the other residences around there. My concern is the other people. We talked about joint parking, we talked about all kinds of things in this Design Review Ordinance we passed and so if we are making agreements, maybe we ought to make sure that an agreement in there that if a neighbor on the East decides to sell and put in a business that we put in joint parking. Something like that should be considered. As far as the water is concerned I have mixed emotions about that. If there is a well that is adequate I don't see that needs to be changed just because you are changing the use of a piece of ground. Maybe later on if they decide to bring the water down to the area for all the commercial areas then I would say yes. Just to put in a condition that they can only use water for a certain period of time I don't think we should do that. My question is should we rezone this whole area. That is something we should look at. We have a lot of things going on here. MAILE: I think we are fortunate as a body to hear issues as they arise. I would be reluctant to say that we are wholesale going to pursue a rezone of parcels of ground before the owners of those parcels apply for rezone. I don't think it would be wise to say that everything should be limited use at this point when down the road perhaps something changes so that everything maybe acceptable with a more intense use. I would prefer to take each issue as it arises and deal with this sticky little water problem. It seems to me a compromise would be appropriate. H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 9 aHåw us to do. Idon't MARK: Point of clarification. On what our Code does our code says we can require extension of the water line. If we have building es that require sprinklers in there and then the Fire Department says you need the r\Uh~, fn~ '1 file er Ii~fj will come. The decision is not really for the City to make oufir'Jforl1t1âtie~ url~uilding inspector. We need to have more information. BRADLEY: The water issue really is not the whole judging point on whether this will be rezoned or not. This is something that would have to be taken up at the building stage and not really for this hearing tonight. We just touched bases on this so that they would know where we stand. MAILE: I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REZONE TO C-1 REGARDING FILE NO RZ-4-96- THE LAND GROUPS' APPLICATION FOR A REZONE FROM R-5 TO C-1. RECOMMEND THAT WE DENY THE REZONE TO C-1 BUT RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A LO ZONE DESIGNATION WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SPECIFYING THAT THE USE SHALL BE LIMITED OFFICE WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF ACHD WITH REGARD TO PARKING EASEMENTS, CURB CUTS AND ETC. BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS RECOMMENDING ALL STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND SECONDED BY BRINTON. DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE CODE REQUIRES THAT YOU SET A TIME LIMIT THAT YOU GET THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACK TO YOU. DISCUSSION MAILE: I WILL AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS BACK TO US BY THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997. AND SECOND SO AMENDS. . ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA-5-96) - The Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending amendments to the Eagle City Code to modify the definition of a monument sign to allow more flexibility with regard to its construction; to establish specific criteria for signage on fuel island canopies; and to consider modification to the section of code that states, "Each individual free-standing business shall be limited to two signs, including the monument or detached street sign. If:nêšecond sign shall not exceed eight quare feet (8sq.ft.)". H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 10 port Mark Butler: As you recall at a recent meeting I asked you to recommend e môdifications. I gave you some proposed language at that time and I tried to the I~ßôttífa tij'ê Ç¡Ø,p1mis~iôns comments and put it into the language I had proposed. d tô me r d:ìt~~ion¡l~ith this and I would certainly be willing to change it. FARNWORTH: Page 4 of 5 at the top: Your talking about the sign should be a maximum of 30 square feet. Your not saying it has to be that size. Your saying it can not be any larger than that. MARK: That number came upon Design Review recommendation and my best guess. An 8' sign is fairly limited. I thought 20' was workable. FURTHER DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Is there anyone signed up to speak on this? Would anyone like to speak on the canopy issue? Public Testimony Jim McCauley 2611 W. State Eagle, Idaho I have a question I would like to ask the Commission regarding this signage issue. Suppose we have frontage on the bypass which we didn't have before. Does this sign issue apply to adding a sign on the end of a building or just a free standing sign that we are talking about here according to the Ordinance. BRADLEY: Before us right now is a zoning ordinance amendment having to do with canopy signs and monument signs. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Anyone else to speak for or against? We will close the public hearing portion. FARNWORTH: I think Mark has done a good job on this and I think we should go with this change and move forward. MAYER: I agree BRINTON: Just for clarification purposes. Under Paragfå'~h¡Ë.4,. Where it is showing that Section 8-2A-8 "c" "4". It might help to add - "(5% of builcUÔg f~~)" -þecause that isreally what you are saying. H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ121696 , MIN 11 lbJ;;<J Move that we accept ZOA-5-96 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Eagle City e definition of monument sign, general guideline and monument and detached t!lig., .. hemodi tion referenced by Mr. Brinton that in addition to citing odêHSec . w also add, in parenthesis, more than 5% of the building andH.Sêcon ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED C. Conditional Use (Cu-10-96) - Western PCS II Corp., represented by David Wiltsee, is requesting conditional use approval for a 120 foot high cellular monopole located at 8785 Horseshoe Bend Road. The site is located on the west side of Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 1/4 mile north of State Street. Staff Report Mark Butler: Overview of Staff Report. Staff is recommending approval with the site specific conditions within the report and standard conditions within the report. I have worked with the Applicant for sometime. Applicant has been extremely willing to go toward what Staff recommended. This is one of the sites Staff recommended. Based on the fact that it is away from our State Street corridor and it is not in any conflict of the Comprehensive Plan, it is currently Zoned C-1 which is not only commercial but actually allows lights manufacturing. I believe it meets the intent of Comp Plan and meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Ordinance and therefore I am recommending approval of this location. BRADLEY: This would be right beside the new freeway. The Republic Storage backs up to the new proposed 55. It would be right beside the new 55. MARK: It would be actually be approximately 600' East of New 55 and 600' West of existing 55. MAILE: Mark, How does the visual impact of this pole differ from the pole placed south of state street. MARK: It depends on where the pole would be placed South of State Street. State Street is designated as a scenic corridor. If the pole was on a piece of property abutting State Street in my opinion it would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plans designated special area. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Is the Applicant here. Public Testimony H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 .MIN 12 (MR. WIL TSEE GIVES THE COMMISSIONERS A NARRATIVE ON WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING ON THE SUPER HIGHWAY) We don't come in to fight, we come in to build part of our system and the system that will provide enormous services to local communities. Nor do we resist regulations. We try as best as possible to figure out what community concerns are. That is why we ended up with our facility were it is on the Eastern side of town. What is all about is radio transmission. All of the antennas have to be able to see as many other antennas as possible, a simple line of sight. That is why you need elevation. Height and elevation above ground do matter. We feel that the site we have chosen fits our needs rather nicely and hope that it will be acceptable to Eagle. We are not the first in the vicinity and we will not be the last. We discussed co-location. We do encourage that, we make every attempt to contact existing carriers in areas that we go into. We make every effort where feasible to have others locate on our facility. Co-location is a good concept. The Republic Storage site is a pretty good distance off both the existing highway and the proposed new highway. We are proposing to lease a spot 22'x42'. We will fence this in for security purposes and then build a concrete pad. The Monopole we are proposing is a very slim monopole. There has been considerable discussion about co-location. We are willing to provide for co-location. To do so may require a pole that maybe somewhat stronger. If co-location is required of us or is permitted in the future it might represent a slightly larger lease area. We did present a landscape plan to the Design Review Committee. The Committee decided that because the facility is set so far back from the road that you can barely see it really would not be a very useful effort. MAILE: I do understand a little bit about the line of site. Your competitor felt that your site would not work to cover the Eagle area. If memory serves me correctly, that if your pole was placed on that location it would require another pole to adequately make the link between whatever is already out there. DISCUSSION , MAILE: Do we have any assurance that this is the only pole you will need? APPLICANT: No, we are looking at sites West of the City. Two sites in Ada County and one we have had some discussions with the City about~øssibly locating on the sewage treatment plant grounds. And that would be it for this ar~~. H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PIJIN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 13 that came in from Ada County that shows that site DISCUSSION BRADLEY: How far will these towers cover. Mike Fleuty 3184 Elder Street Boise, Idaho It is a function of a number of features. Very low wattage. How high off the ground are you. 120' off the ground you are going to get in building coverage for about two miles. BRADLEY: How much more equipment will these towers hold. How much junk can you hang on these. FLEUTY: On a monopole structure things are located vertically. somewhere from two to four users on this type of structure. You might get DISCUSSION BRINTON: Would there be a site somewhere in Eagle where you could get by with one pole versus of two if you could so locate a site. APPLICANT: I think if we were starting the design from day one and came to Eagle first and you would let us go right in the middle of town and if the structure was high enough to cover the East side to the West side, the answer would be yes. We looked at the center of your town. We looked at what you were trying to do from a planning stand point and we backed off from it. We decided it would be better to straddle the town and move to less occupied territory and basically stay out of visual corridors and that is how we ended up with our particular site. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Is there anybody signed up? Bill Frost 4015 Old Valley Road H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZ121696 , MIN 14 møw!q Ion ooki~g down the road at this situation. They are stating that the site is tr tment plant. It is on private property within a few hundred .frornmmY.h e statement that we need a higher tower to get better placement. When in fact they are placing this down by the Boise River, the lowest spot in town. I can't understand why they can't be placed on a hill or a bench. There are higher areas within a few hundred feet of the Boise River in Ada County. I am not happy with site they have chosen near Linder Road. It doesn't seem like a good site for a communications tower. BRINTON: Do you have any comments that are directed towards this site we are considering tonight. FROST: Lets use some forethought and find an area that would be suitable and cover a larger area or an area for co-location. Again lets look at high ground so that we don't have that crossover situation. Surely there are some areas that would be available that would be higher. Arlene McCauley 2611 W. STATE Eagle, Idaho There is no forum for an open discussion between all of the companies. It seems that there should be a forum to get this together. One question is could either one of the poles in these locations be tall enough to cover the whole area. I hate to see three poles in Eagle. It seems like it would be better to have one 250' pole instead of three 150' poles. I drove out from Boise and I really looked at the telephone poles this time. You really don't see them. Unless you are looking to see something you really don't see them. We will not see these poles in a month or two month. This has got to happen, because we have to have the service for the community. My opinion is one taller pole that would service the community and serve both companies. BRADLEY: Would anyone else like to speak on this? MARK: The Design Review Committee has looked at this at their last meeting, they recommended approval, you will be seeing this soon. They recommended that the landscaping not be required and they also recommended that an additional condition be placed on it that the applicant shall agree to work with other cellular companies to permit co-location of other antennas on this proposed monopole. That the pole shall be designed to be of adequate strength to allow a second or third antønna. H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN- ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 . MIN 15 pût Up ahantenna at the top. BRINTON: When you put up these poles you are going 'ç:e demands you are going to have to put up additional antennas? APPLICANT: The structure we have described tonight should be quite adequate to carry the load sometime into the future. MIKE FLEUTY: One of the advantages of the new digital is that the hardware configurations are a little different than they used to be. The new digital equipment is typical designed to use two antennas per sector. Two are going to serve the need indefinite. Could the design change in the future, yes. FURTHER DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Anybody else, hearing none the Public portion is closed. MAILE: I do agree with Mrs. McCauley. I am very frustrated by this patchwork approach we have been forced to take with these poles. I don't think it makes our job easy and I don't think it is in the best interest of the community. I don't know what we can do to force applicant's to work together or to work with us. Tonight I am equally frustrated because I feel very uncomfortable with the notion of the second tower that I know someday will be proposed. And yet the second tower is not before us tonight. I don't like the idea of dotting Eagle with towers. Based on what we are allowed to look at tonight which is the location of this tower in a zone that is no way currently protected as a scenic zone, it is a lite industrial use, it is surrounded by properties where no one has come forth to say they don't like the notion, based solely upon what we are supposed to judge tonight I don't see how you can say no to it. That really frustrates me, but no matter how we feel as a body we are hemmed in by what our ordinances and requirements say we are supposed to do. Based on that I think that this tower, in this place we have to say yes. When they come down by the river I won't be very happy about that either. I don't like not getting the whole package. BRINTON: Ditto. It is a tough one. I agree, I just don't like to see the whole area dotted with poles. I am sure against a number of them. Maybe we ought to throw the whole ball of wax on hold and really get down to a working situation where we don't have so many towers. There has got to be an answer somewhere. We have the means here to try and come up with something that will eliminate maybe some of them. This is just two companies that have come. When do the rest of them come. We still have higher grounds and we are looking at the lower ground. Granted you câô\~see:the sewer plant but if you put a tower over there you are going to see it. I think we ed to seethe whole thing. and we don't see the whole thing. My recommendation woul thatiweþut this : one on hold H: \P&Z\MHHTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlIlUTBS\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 16 Y:d by the river you will see some of it. If they can service this clealfJrdtn flid ' 'ow what the difference is going to be from the Republic site as opposed to the Container site. I can't see that it is going to make that much difference. I would be a little more inclined to make it conditioned as a co-locating site. That makes more since than seeing more towers. People may not want the towers but they want the telephone. I would like to see the number of towers to a minimum. I would like to take and make all of them co-location type conditional uses. I would be in favor of this location more than the other one. !~çe the other one on hold since we have it before us tonight and have a joint ingwith all parties concerned and resolve it or try to. MAYER: I don't' know what to say about radio towers. I do know that we need the towers in Eagle. I do know the people who want to put up these towers need to get together and come up with something because we do not want towers all over the place. I don't know what the answer is. FARNWORTH: I agree with what Burt has to say. We really need to located a spot where we are going to put them. We are looking at the downtown area that we are trying to protect. My second choice would be the location we are talking about tonight and the location if it was really going to be by the sewer but it isn't it is going to be West of the sewer. It would be my recommendation to put them not right in the middle of the City but at both ends and see if we could make everybody happy, maybe have two sites that they could choose from. MAILE: I have a questions for our attorney. I couldn't find any reason to vote against this Applicant tonight because they are not coming in for the property down by the sewer plant and they are not coming in on a parcel that I can see that is not appropriate for that given the use designated by the Comp Plan. I am wondering if there is some recourse in terms of deferring this until we can get these people to come together. Is that within our power as a body to do that? LEGAL COUNSEL: In this case I think there is. First of all this is a conditional use so you have some discretion. Your Code does not out right allow it. Your Code in fact specifically says anything over 35 feet is not allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. You are trying to limit the impact of the towers over 35 feet on the City of Eagle. There are at least two towers proposed right now and as many as four towers in the future. You have enough evidence before you right now that you can take a look at an orderly plan for these towers. You do have a fair amount of latitude to explore these other opportunities. You have the ability to continue this hearing to collect this evidence to make a fully informed decision. MARK; We do have a letter from AT&T that addresses to co-locate at their site on State Street. So there has be fact that Western has agreed some attempt of the Applicants H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 17 r~tpgether. They have not come in to work together with us. Western is actually king about maybe going down to where the sewer ponds are. You may want to get .0rièitÖ 0 k afllhe whole proposal. : Western IS rìbtly¡¡¡proposing this site on Horseshoe Bend Road that is an application that is in with Eagle City. They are currently proposing one on the West side of town which is an application with Ada County. The one on the West side of town may change. DISCUSSION BRINTON: The fifth Monday of this month would be a logical place to get everyone together. Both City Council, Planning and Zoning, and parties involved and hopefully be able to resolve something that would be beneficial both to them and to the City. MARK: In briefly speaking with a couple of counsel members they didn't want to meet during the holidays. You might consider a workshop. Have a meeting where you can all sit down and talk. BRINTON: I think its important that the City council be here at that meeting so it is a joint think. I think that is a critical one at this point in time. I think a workshop is what we are all thinking. LEGAL COUNSEL: I think the City Council could meet as an observer but for them to actually consider the matter would be viewed as an exparte communication that could very likely could chill their decision at the public hearing. I would hesitate to have City Council be an active participant in that workshop. You can have a representative from the City Council. Two would be fine. FURTHER DISCUSSION MAILE: I move to continue the hearing on CU-10-96 until we can have meeting with P&Z members and representatives of this Applicant as well as representative of Boise City Cellular Partnership, said hearings to be held on December 30th, so that would move the continuation of this hearing to the 6th of January at 6:00 p.m. This motion is intended to be open for Public Hearing and Seconded by FARNWORTH. DISCUSSION ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS: NONE H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 18 'ÂÛ/ t 'r ~.çon~lèleration of Conditional Use (CU-8-96) - The Zoning i tråto u~~t,~g rF/consideration of the recommendation of approval made by lanniogandóing~o . ion on December 2, 1996. The Conditional Use Permit, requested by Boise City Cellular Partnership, proposes 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 b approximately 400' south of State Street and 1/4 mile west of Edgewood Road at the southwest corner of the Container Supply Company parcel. SINESS: BRADLEY: Excuses himself, possible conflict of interest. MARK: Unless you want me to give details regarding this it sounds like based upon the decision you made you would want to make a Motion to Reconsider this item and state to open this back up for a Public Hearing on December 30th. BRINTON: I was very concerned that this is even coming back to Planning and Zoning. We have Staff that is here to support the Commission. The facts and findings that came back for should have been prepared by Staff. I hope that in the future this will not occur. The minutes were there, the reasons why we did it were there, we felt that was best for the community. The Eagle Comprehensive plan under its purpose and scope states that we are to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. Under the Public Service Facilities and Utility Section of the Comprehensive Plan it doesn't speak at all about microwave or cellular towers. Obviously we need to revisit the Comprehensive Plan in this particular area. When Public Services need to be provided or improved we need to determine the best way that it can be done. Since this service requires a tower we have to as a Commission and a Community try to determine where the best place for that tower will be. In connection with the City Code in approval of Conditional Use Permits, Section 8-7-3-2, The General Standards for Conditional Use, one of the things that we need to make sure meets the requirements is either will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan. There is not any specific outline for cellular towers or microwave towers in the Comprehensive Plan. There was some concern about how this particular tower or facility would blend in with the existing surroundings. I believe based on the testimony that was give and the information provided by the public and the information we had to base the decision on that the tower was not going to change that particular surroundings. What I would like to see come out of this meeting that we work on together is can we do something without lighting the tower to provided the service. If there is a motion from the Commission to act on this p~rticulq~mqtter I will accept that at this time. H: \P&Z\MBETINGS\PLAN- ZON\MlNUTBS\1996\PZ121696 ,MIN 19 .. :..When something has been approved, isn't it that one of the people who voted for töopen it? Someone who voted against it or who didn't vote on it can't bring it up. v hat is correct. I don't have my copy here. MAYER: Upon what the commission has talked about tonight I will make that Motion to Reconsider and Seconded by Brinton. LEGAL COUNSEL: The person who seconded the original motion will need to second the Motion for Reconsideration. BRINTON: I will second that Motion. BRINTON: It has been Moved and Seconded we reconsider this request of Boise City Cellular Partnership. All those in favor... FARNWORTH: I have a comment. I would like to thank the staff for reopening this because of the problems that we have ran into tonight. I think that this was the right thing for the Staff to do in this particular case. I didn't even think we were going to hear that last time or I would have indicated that I was opposed to an okay at that time. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: Now that it is opened for reconsideration do you want to continue this to another date or do you want to act on it tonight? MAYER: I make a Motion that we continue this to our workshop on December 30, 1996, at 6:00 p.m and Seconded by Farnworth. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: I will turn control of the meeting back to Bradley. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' REPORT: I wasn't able to give you a report on the Council Meeting from November 26th at your last Commission Meeting because I was gone on that day and didn't have a chance to read the minutes. I was able to read the minutes to find out what happened. There were two Public Hearings. One was for Lakeland Estates Subdivision. The council reoommeradindefinite continuance so the Applicant can provide a environmental impact studY;. Thêrl wêt'e$omeother issues H: \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZl21696 ,MIN 20 discussed in Executive Session. The gravel pit is planned to be continued. The will probably see these in January. Agenda, Mr. Hendershot was recommend for approval with velopment Agreement. Do you want to make a Motion to have pizza for that meeting, if so I will pass that along. Also, we will have a long meeting on the 6th. DISCUSSION ON MEETINGS AND PACKETS MOVED BY MAILE AND SECONDED BY BRINTON TO ADJOURN. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED ~ D. KOREY LOWDER EAGLE CITY CLERK A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL H, \P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZ121696 , MIN 21