Loading...
Minutes - 1997 - Planning & Zoning - 01/13/1997 - Special EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES I aglitPIan . ¡¡Commission met for a Special Meeting on January 13, 1997, Chairman Bradley presiding. NUARY 13, 1997 The following members were present: BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, RUSSEL MAYER, FARRIN FARNWORTH. COLLEEN MAILE ABSENT: BRADLEY: Change Agenda putting Nancy Merrill on Agenda first. NANCY MERRILLL 1275 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho Representing the Eagle City Council I've been asked to report to you where we are with the City Park and the Land. At the last Council Meeting in December the Merrill Family deeded over to the City of Eagle a piece of property south of bypass. In that deed there were three requirements that they asked for. 1. That the park be named the Reid W. Merrill Park - 2. That former Mayor, Steve Gerber, be allowed to help and complete the design for the park - 3. That portion of land could be traded for another like parcel of acreage for only parkland, hopefully closer to the center of Eagle. There are really no strings attached. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: Next item on the Agenda is our Public Hearings, I need some information from Legal Counsel. Even though in the past have recused myself because of a possible conflict of interest, however, I would like to be able to have input in the Workshop. I will not vote. LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, you can conduct the Workshop. Not knowing the specific discussion within the Workshop you can conduct the Workshop and be involved in that discussion but you can not be involved in the Public Hearing or discussion on the Boise City Cellular Partnership. I would caution that the Workshop not become a forum for discussing the applications which you will have before you. H, \P&Z\MEBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 . MIN 1 DISCUSSION Quar: e al~mpting to find out is where are we going to go with the ornl'11uni a nnas. What we hate to see is a shotgun approach that onethat...co n ,.I' a Conditional Use Permit and one wants it on this block, another wants it on that block and another wants it on the next block. I don't think we want to have towers everywhere. I think our goal out of the Workshop would be to try to come to some understanding or agreement and that information to be passed on to City Council of what our interpretations or what our plans may be. FCC says you can't tell them that they can't put a tower in. You can tell them where and how and things of that nature. Y: We will take the Workshop first. WORKSHOP: A. Discussion of telecommunications towers within the Eagle City Limits and Eagle Area of Impact. BRINTON: One of the big concerns is why a mile, a mile and half makes such a vast difference. The frustration is that they are now serving from Tablerock and a half-mile makes such a big difference. What is involved if we require a joint tower? What extra expense? Hopefully if a third party comes in that there would be room for a third party. Just to try to understand all of those types of things. BRADLEY: If you talk to some of the officials in Meridian and Garden City there are some problems out there. It has to do with interference with public services. It has to do with putting public services on the same tower with cellular. Some of it is not working real well. I'm just voicing opinions from some of our neighboring cities. They are experiencing some difficulties. We need to take a look at what needs to be done to put them into a central location. FARNWORTH: In our workshop we are going to have not only participation from the Commission but the audience. BRADLEY: That's what we want. Perhaps someone from the telecommunication would like to try to respond to some of the questions. KIM GARRICK A T& T Wireless Services I would like to respond to a couple of the comments you have made. We have an engineer here with us today and he can respond a little more directly to some of these issues. The issue as far as a Zoning Ordinance, we think that is appropriate. This is a new industry. When your ordinances were written cellular was ard Qt. When we deal:with a jurisdiction that does not have a newly written ordina éi;îe I~~ped VVifh the.:r:adio H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 2 ~---~-~--~--- ~----~~~~ d that sort of thing. It's more appropriate for cities to come up with a new e. We would be very happy to join a task force and give your information and aBbas tnat wê ha wÔ~ed on in the past. We have been members of many task s. We þff~J~d JI'1. s~rvices to the City about a year ago when we first started ingWithJ~pu.'; . The interference with the public emergency services. We can't say there won't be a possibility with interference. There is always a possibility of interference. We have allowed in the past many emergency service providers on our sites. You mentioned the Meridian site we have out there. We are in the process of allowing the Meridian City Police Department to go on our pole. They approached us and they want to place some communication on the site. We are allowing them on our site. That is an offer we would like to make to the City of Eagle or any other jurisdiction that would have an interest in our site. Interference issues in that regard typically are not a big deal. We would have to address specifically anything that you have heard about. I would like to turn this over to our radio communications engineer. BRADLEY: How close are emergency services to what cellular uses. BRIAN ROBINSON 32 W. 1980 S. Clearfield, Utah You have brought up several different items which you have asked to be addressed. 1. Emergency frequencies. That kind of varies. We are at 800-900 megahertz. There is another cellular carrier that is within that range. The two PCS licenses are 1800-1900 megahertz. There is a difference there between cellular and PCS. They are basically the same thing. The difference is frequency waves. Those were the new licenses auctioned by the FCC recently. BRADLEY: Give me a range where they operate in. ROBINSON: The latest ones are all grouped around the 1800-1900 megahertz range. We came first and that is what the FCC allocated us. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: How close can a frequency be before it starts interfering with another? ROBINSON: Interference has to be looked on in speci different harmonics. Harmonics are like ripples in a p certain other frequencies at a lower signal strength. Tha H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO11397 .MIN 3 stâ~ces. You are looking at broa,Qcag,tdown th(pugh ~$e prqblems if we g~t to tQçertain frequencies but it has to be looked at more on an individual basis. NSGN:I.W It depends on the companies and how close those antennas can actually be before we experience problems. The FCC has rules where you have to stay within certain frequencies and they govern that and we are in compliant with all the FCC rules and regulations. BRADLEY: Is there anyone who would not be compatible? We have a tower that can handle four different cellular companies on it, there are companies on the tower and the fourth company comes along and is in such close frequency to what you are doing that it wouldn't be compatible. Does this happen. ROBINSON: We do have sites where they are designed for four carriers. That is a possibility. The site would have to be designed correctly. GROUP DISCUSSION ROBINSON: The power setting can actually vary in certain ranges. It is not one power setting. Typically SOO watts per channel is the highest a cellular will go and even more common is a 100 watts per channel. Usually it is 100 watts per channel. In some ways this is based on how far away the tower is. Cellular is based on reusing the same frequencies over and over again. If you have too big of a cell site it tries to carry to much traffic and the system is always busy. The theory behind cellular is that as the number users grows you lower your sites and you use the frequency say out of Caldwell as you are using in downtown Boise. You have to use space to separate those frequencies so you have to lower the transmission power. You have to have good signal overlap in order for calls to process so you can hand off from one site to another. There does have to be signal overlap a little bit. GROUP DISCUSSION ROBINSON: A frequency is like a phone line coming into a building. One phone call on it and if it is being used somebody else can not jump on and use it. We are limited on the number of frequency or number of channels that we have that we can use. What we have to do is to control the areas that those channels serve. GROUP DISCUSSION ROBINSON: If you have a board and a marker. system and Group Discussion). the Board of a cellular H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 . MIN 4 RTH: I heard one time that eventually everyone would have a cellular phone and . Would encompass the fact that we would have poles or transmissions on every . ,:, NSQN:I[ha'IISiJquitÎiiiiiaway,j ¡1to the future. In that event we are talking about a lot of cell users so our radius has to be pretty small. What they talk about is on a light pole, put up an antenna and that would serve a block area. Utilizing structures that are already there. You are talking such small radius that a two story building might be able to be used. ROBINSON: You have questions with signal strength. I tried to address that before and wasn't to successful with it. In order to help you, let me go back to the board. (DRAWING ON BOARD AND GROUP DISCUSSION). BRINTON: There could be a point in time that if you put a tower up here and you are on the top of the tower that you might want to be down underneath the other co-locators that would be there and therefore want to lower your antenna.? ROBINSON: That is very possible. That is what we are trying to do in some of our big tall sites. We have not run into a conflict with the co-locators. It doesn't benefit us to get to close to them. We develop the plan around this and when it is ready we bring it down. COMMENT FROM AUDIENCE: Therefore do you design your tower so you can remove that section you are no longer using. GROUP DISCUSSION ROBINSON: They can be designed that way. But you are talking quite a way into the future. GARRICK: They come in sections. 120' monopole it would probably be in four 30 foot sections. It gets to the point that you do reduce the height of your antennas and you are no longer at 120', the first antenna is at 80' you could remove at least the top section. GROUP DISCUSSION BRINTON: We may be more receptive to put two in instead on one. What cost factors are we looking at? ROBINSON: The most expensive part of the cell site is the radio equipment and that factor does not change to much from site to site. So if you take one big site and buy two small sites you haven't saved a lot there because constrt4øtibr'lcosts are duplicated. You save on your tower costs but you are building two of the",,; You~reaUy wouldn'~ be saving much because you have two of them. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 5 T FROM AUDIENCE: Is the technology coming where the Internet is going to ar? The Internet is putting a very large load on the telephone. can access the Internet on the cell phone. They are being ery expensive for people to do that. GROUP DISCUSSION BRADLEY: You are talking placed properly. Give me an area that narrows down. Give me a radius that it will still work within. How much lead way do you have in that area. ROBINSON: It depends on the terrain you are covering. (Passes around distance chart). Explains the chart that is put on the board. GROUP DISCUSSION ROBINSON: Right now with Eagle the size that it is, out company is trying to get by with one tower for Eagle. Due to this fact it has to be placed properly and as we start shifting things around that is when you start thinking - "we have a hole here, how do we fix it, does it call for a new cell site or do we leave it as a hole?". GROUP DISCUSSION ON CHART BRINTON: In order to end up with one cell site, do we need to go with a high tower for one location versus having two or three locations to serve the same thing. My concern is that we don't get our antenna high enough that we have to put lights on it. I would like to have a tower without lights. GROUP DISCUSSION GARRICK: Tower lighting is regulated by the FAA. As a general rule anything under 200' doesn't need to be lit depending on the local environment. AUDIENCE COMMENT: When you are talking about foliage and how that interferes then it would not be wise to try and hide it down by the river? ROBINSON: It has to be just above the foliage. Your okay, you have hidden a substantial amount of the structure. So there are times that located in proximity to another structure, whether it is a tree or building, is desirable as long as you can see over it. GARRICK: That depends if it is a few trees right by thÎllš¡ts>ôr trees all the way out to where you are trying to cover. That will affect the signal~Jh~'iwt:'fii!reas, the trees~right by the site won't affect the signal strength if your just go f'them. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 6 ISCUSSION 1= ."wqon n is, re we going to have these on every street corner in town. ys e" h~siil~e nd nning for ten years, we know right now we have a problem. veigot.;lto pftYide . the growth of our customer base and everything else. About as far into the future that we can look is about three years. Looking that far into the future we don't see the need for an additional site in the Eagle area. This will serve our needs for at least three or four years. Hopefully much longer but we just can't project any further than that. Again your back to the one properly placed site will enable us to provide coverage without additional sites. We may be before you in five years needing another site. BRADLEY: How much lead way do we have in being able to shift that pattern a little bit. Will a block or two make a difference? Overall it can be shifted anyone way without getting to far out of line with what you are attempting to achieve and keep your customer base. ROBINSON: It can be shifted. A block yes. When you start talking moving it a mile, mile and a half you are starting to change things. In moving this and making it higher you are changing the coverage of this as well as moving it, thus effecting the capacity that we have and also introducing interference that would be eliminated if you were lower. GROUP DISCUSSION ON POLE HEIGHTS AND CO-LOCATION BRADLEY: The workshop is closed and we will go into the Public Hearing. I will have to recuse myself from taking part in any items of SA and SB and turn the hearings over to Vice-Chairman Brinton. BRINTON: We will take a S minute break at this time. A. Conditional Use (CU-8-96) 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 SO'xSO' 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. B. 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 878S Horseshoe Bend Road. The site is located on the West side of Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 1/4 mile north of State Street. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l3 97. MIN 7 B N: We are on the record now. We are at the Public Hearing section of the P D~g ~~ n .q~rt Bradley has recused himself. I believe we were going to h Jóh co er the existing Code and Conditional Use portion of it and a valøf. itiwill ents as set forth to what is being applied. Is there any reason why these applications can not be approved as presented with the Conditional Use Permit. LEGAL COUNSEL: I can't really answer that. I wouldn't want to say one way or the other with respect to the Commissions' decision whether these would be approved or denied. I will say that under the existing City Code these applications are complete and ready to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission. BRINTON: Before we start the actual Public Hearings I would like to discuss with the Commission whether they want to hear both of these at the same time. Based on information that John has presented earlier, or at least staff has indicated, they can be heard together or they can be heard separately. How do you want to proceed? DISCUSSION BRINTON:Let me ask the two Applicants for Conditional Use CU-89-96 Boise City Cellular Partnership and CU-10-96 Western PCS II Corp. to have a representative from each. If representative from one would step to the microphone and state whether there is an objection to doing a joint Public Hearing and then we will hear from the other one and then we will proceed. DAVID WIL TSEE: Wester PCS II Corp. 3184 Elder Street Boise, Idaho We have no objection to having a joint hearing. KIM GARRICK AT&T Wireless Services 1483 Greenfield Ave. Salt Lake City, Utah We have no objection to that either. The two are interrelated and it would probably make more sense to have them together. So that is fine. BRINTON: Hearing no objection from either Application We wi!IQp8 Hearings Item A on the Agenda, Conditional Use CU-8-9 oišeliCi oth of those Public lIulapRartnership H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO113 97. MIN 8 B Conditional Use CU-10-96 Western PCS II Corp. I would like to hear from Cellular Partnership since they are first on the agenda. State what it is that you a (;QP~~i n n 0 ations to what we may have and then I would then like to h from . This is a Public Hearing. Just a word of instruction - It is u the:cpmpan mission on the reasons why one way or the other they might be going and what they might be doing. It is not up to us to ask the proper questions to get that out of you. You will have a chance for rebuttal at the end, each of you. If you have not signed up and would like to speak there will be an opportunity given to you at the end of the session. If you have other people that are on your staff that you want to have speak just have them do it at the same time that you are doing it so we have a complete picture, KIM GARRICK AT&T Wireless Services I don't want to go over what we have already discussed. I think the important thing that came out of the work session is why we asked for what we asked for. We do have to work within certain constraints. There are limitations to what we can do and where we can locate our sites. We started this process over a year ago. We knew we had problems in Eagle. We have to provide better service. We designed a system to make this work here. To correct the issues in Eagle our engineers came up with a search area. If we can located a communication site within this search area it will work. We talk about in building coverage to provide service for downtown Eagle. That is where our customer complaints are coming from. This is the problem we have got to correct. When we designed this area our engineers gave us a search area to locate our site which consisted of basically going along State Street two blocks north of State Street and two block South of State Street from about Eagle Road going up 3/4 mile to the East. At that point we came in and met with previous staff and realized that probably was not very feasible with your zoning ordinance and with the zoning districts and so we extended it to go further east. That is the issue we have at hand, the fact that we talk about flexibility and can we get further away from town because we know that is the issue. You would prefer to have us on the outskirts of town as opposed to downtown. We prefer to be downtown. We would like to have our site right here but we know that would never happen. We have some flexibility to move outside of town. With the studies that we done and all the other factors that come into play, we are at the fringe of where we can be to make our system work. For the site at 1341 E. State. To move further east causes us to loose the signal that we talked about. Right now our customers that travel to Eagle or live in Eagle, we are not providing them with adequate service. We are obligated to provide a good service level to the area that we serve. The FCC requires us to do that. That is what we are attempting to do. That is why we need this site located here. To change the location. we could if we could come further into town but we can't further away from to\yij:ljiWêstern has submitted their application independent of ours. We have our engineeringneeg~.andthey have their$and they designed around their needs and we do the same t~jhg.."l)at particular Site maybe H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l3 97 .MIN 9 orably looked at. Unfortunately, it didn't work for our needs. We have been in munication with Western. We are working very well with them and we are willing to co- ê naW,e ccp..1 di he past with other carriers. We can allow them to come on ~ are!lrtP at 341 E. State Street. It works for us and it works for them. Qcati~n i$not" everyones problems. I think Western will stand up here and say that they site we are proposing works for them and in fact probably works a little bit better for them because it is a little bit closer to town. We are both trying to accomplish good in building service towards town. Anyone else that needs to locate in this particular area it would probably become a site that other companies could design around and make it work. We would be willing to over design our site to accommodate other carriers. The drawback with that is if you make it so that we have to co-locate with maybe four carriers the site becomes huge. Instead of the diameter of the pole being 3' it might be 8' and it looks big. When we came in and met with staff in the first place this is exactly what we were directed to do, move as far away from town as we could go and get into a manufacturing zone. Our understanding with the Ordinance at that time was that we would actually be a permitted use in a manufacturing zone, however we would have to get a height exception to get above the 35' which would put us in a conditional use process. This is what we have done. We have investigated other possibilities such as the Western site which we found would not work. We were instructed that maybe another site away from this site that we proposed might work better. We negotiated a land lease there, this was brought up in the last meeting, but I think the Planning Commission felt like there was probably not much difference between the two sites and that is why you elected to go with this site and we feel it works very well. You are obligated to accommodate us through the Telecommunications Act. You do have to deal with us in some fashion so we can allow our system to work. This site does work, it works for Western Wireless and hopefully we will be able to provide the coverage for these two carriers with one site and hopefully future carriers also. If you choose to approve the other site for Western you would still be looking at accommodating us in some form on a different site. Hopefully we can accommodate two carriers at one site. DAVID WIL TSEE Western PCS We did do considerable radio frequency work before this meeting and to ascertain how adequate the co-location with AT&T would be. It is not my intent at this point to go into both locations but rather to discuss our original application which is still before you for our site at Republic Storage on Horseshoe Bend Road. We chose that site after initially attempting to locate at the Idaho Sand and Gravel operation. Had we located on that site we would have had an 80' structure instead of a 120' structure that we are proposing on the Republic Storage site. In wishing to comply with Eagle's desires we gravitate southward to the Public Storage Site. This caused us t the proposed height of the pole by 40' to 120'. It also enabled us to located 0' back/from the road. This particular site does meet our particular needs. At this è TWcpuld like to bring o~~ our H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 10 Sltion map that shows very specifically the realities of the computer models that we nd how we view coverage of not only Eagle but the general area of the entire network 8Haœ (D!lplays and explains map) (Displays and explains overlay) FLITY 3184 Elder Street Boise, Idaho Participating with David Wiltsee on displaying and explaining map and overlay. DISCUSSION WIL TSEE: The bottom line is that we can live with either site. We don't want to jeopardize ending up with nothing. DISCUSSION DWIGHT SCHAEFFER 3184 Elder Street Boise, Idaho Increasing another 10'-20' would not make a whole lot of difference. I would not expect there to be a significant difference. MAYER: If you had your choice which site. You are willing to go to the other site is that what you are saying? WIL TSEE: Yes. BRINTON: We appreciate your participation. What we will do now is hear from the public. I would ask the ones that are commenting to the issue, that is what you are doing is commenting to the issue, if you have a question you ask the question, they can answer it in rebuttal but they can't answer it direct to you at this point in time. DOLORES CREED 1337 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho Whoever picked this site at State Street, I think they need to consider the soil conditions on the drainage ditch. Whenever there were any buildin r1stlivcted along that drainage ditch the foundations usually collapsed. There has b a serious infestation of rock chucks. This is the tower site at the 1300 block on E. St Sti1e~t. In~this particular area H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 11 . ...íi\ concrete slab there and it is undermined with rock chucks digging holes. This mething that someone will have to take into consideration. CREED: The other thing. Since this is new technology and there are no electrical engineers in City government. I'm wondering if it might be better for the City of Eagle to hire an independent telecommunications consultant to learn some things about this. I think that it is well that the Commission is consulting other cities to see how they dealt with this technology so that they will be able to make a good decision. JIM MCCAULEY 2611 W. State Eagle, Idaho My wife and I own the property on which the AT&T site is proposed. When Western PCS did their radio frequency test they brought out a crane and elevated a basket up to 120'. The boom actually went to 150'. I have taken pictures of this boom from various locations around the City to help get some idea of the visual impact of a structure of this height at that location. I appreciate the position that you folks are in, this is not an easy decision to make. I want you to know that I think you have done an admirable job in approaching this in such a good manner. I for one will support your decision because you have done such a good job in gathering all the information. So with that I will submit these pictures. They are labeled on the back showing the location from which they are taken. (Shows pictures and explains where they were taken from). SCHAEFFER: Nothing else at this time. FLUTY: Just one thing. A lot of our talk is really focused on the mechanics of how this works and can we work a particular site. I would just like to underscore that nothing works for us unless you grant a permit. WIL TSEE: I would like to submit for the record a few materials you might find useful. I have enough copies here for everyone. PHIL BARBER: I am but a lawyer and unless someone wants to hear from a lawyer or my client wants me to say something I have said to much. BRINTON: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify for or against the proposal before us tonight? Does the Commission have any questions while we are in open hearing that they would like to ask? FARNWORTH: There was a site that says that ATltWirÎlesSexecuted a lease H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN _ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 12 t with Frank Searle's property. What part of the property are they looking at? se agreement still in effect? We were looking at the property directly behind the Andon complex. That lease agreement has been fully executed by both parties and will go forward. What we have is a 12 month option on that property is we need it. We could still use that property. FARNWORTH: It is actually not very far from the first site. Would that location work as well as the one on State Street? STERNS: Yes. We came in talked to Mark Butler and he suggested that site. We told him that we would ask the engineers if it would work. They said they would rather have the McCauley property it would work the best but it could work on that site too. MAYER: This site they are just talking about, how close is that to a subdivision? STERNS: (Referring to a map) All of this property is currently pasture. There is some manufactured homes and new subdivision is being developed. It is close to homes. DISCUSSION FARNWORTH: If we decided to put dual companies on one pole then they would be willing to build the pole for two, three or four companies? BRINTON: For the record they are shaking their heads yes. BRINTON: Kim would you do any wrap up that you might want and then we will ask Dave to do his. GARRICK: In response to Dolores' issues, as far as soil conditions go that is a big factor we would have to deal with and before we construct a pole or a building to design the foundations that are required for both we do soil analysis. We do a soil boring going down 30'-40' feet so we know exactly what the soil conditions are. We design around that. We have built sites in what appears to be worse conditions than what we have here. I don't know what you do about rock chucks. Rock chucks could not do any damage to our pole because our foundation is going to go 40' into the grou . OûFiipuildings are constructed such that they can be picked up. They are a manufactur ucture.<J don't believe tnese will cause us a lot of grieve. Her other suggestion as far reoommeñiing the"City might H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 13 e services of a licensed professional engineer to take a look at applications as t come in, other cities have considered that sort of thing. The problem with that is who d¡Q.w:¡g,t? luê~ enough to find someone who knows about the cellular b ness:~he¥ a y,(t>rking for us or one of the other competitors. Beyond that h 'ng the City so dèwhb is going to dictate to us where we can and can't go, what might make more sense from their stand point, the problem were getting into is you have the City designing our system and they know nothing about it. As far as this other site that has been proposed. We did that as an alternative because we were asked to investigate those possibilities. The drawbacks to that site are several. Number one, Western doesn't even know about it and I don't know if that particular site would as well for them. There is very little advantage going from one site to another. The big disadvantage that we have with that site is that it is much closer to a lot of homes. We would be hesitant to throw our efforts towards that site. We have not submitted an application for that site. I don't know if you are talking about a moratorium or not but if we had to submit an application we would probably fall subject to a moratorium and we wouldn't be interested in that. We feel we have been delayed long enough. We definitely want to throw our support behind this site as we know it works for both parties. BRINTON: You mentioned the concern of homes. We do have some homes near this site. What is your concern with the homes? GARRICK: We have received some opposition with this site because there are homes there. Anytime we propose sites that are relative close to homes we do see opposition. We typically don't see opposition from business owners. We attempt to locate our sites away from homes as often as possible. We locate sites that are nearer to a small amount of homes. If we go with the other site I don't think it is in the best interest of the community because we would be locating closer to a lot more homes. DISCUSSION BRINTON: At this particular location on the McCauley property. Did you allow in your purchase of the property or the lease of the property space for additional carriers and how many will it handle? GARRICK: We leased a parcel of property SOxSO' square for our own uses. We don't absolutely need that much space, so for Western to come in and use this site, typically what we will request is that anyone wanting on our pole we will lease them space on our pole and then we will request that they go to the property owner to lease additional space. In this particular case it made more sense for us to give up some our space so that is what we have done. We have given up 10' of the western most edge of our property to accommodate Western to come in and that way they ~{en6t:impacting the McCauley property that much. For other carriers to come on boardi.þey VJÇ)¡uli¡haveto lease space from the McCauleys. It looks like there is room to accorDJ1odâtÎ otþe( users. H, \P&Z\MEBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 14 : In your lease arrangements with McCauleys is there anything in your lease ent that allows for them that they must allow other users to obtain property to do Qêàtih , ICK;we ø sublease our property. We could let another carrier within our SOxSO area. We would rather have a new carrier come in and lease property from the McCauleys so they are getting something out of this. They are obligated to allow us to sublease. FARNWORTH: If we had you go to the site out by the storage, Western site, would you have to go on their other pole they are proposing with Ada County? Would you actually set up on two poles in order to cover the area you want to cover? GARRICK: That site probably would not work for us. The Republic Storage site will not provide us the coverage downtown. FARNWORTH: If one company can do it why can't another company do it? Can somebody answer that question for me? I would like to know why we can't do it if one says they can do it and the other says I can't do it. ROBINSON: Part of that is with our existing network and our existing telephone placement those that we already built are different from what Western has in place. So there are some different characteristics there. We have looked at it and quite honestly we are looking at more than one site, probably three sites to accommodate what this one would accommodate. In moving to where Western is we would develop two more poles instead of just the one. FARNWORTH: The two poles that you are going to propose, one in our City and one in western Ada County. Are they going to be able to cover the area that AT&T is talking about? FLUTY: We already have a site that we are working on in that approximate location. (Refers to map shown earlier) We do have some over lap in that particular area. They have an existing 39S' tower in Meridian and we don't. We have nothing anywhere near that height. We are starting out with a different design. MAYER: You mentioned something about Ada County stating the site along Chinden is off limits. GARRICK: We were before this body probably two years ago maybe longer. We had proposed a site right by Joplin Cemetery. We appeare ôfé you and you made your recommendation and when we went before Ada County ere,de . d that site. We are still going to have to do something there and fight the b witliiA ounty. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397. MIN 15 N: I have a question of the landowner, Jim would you come up. TON: t ar re talking. ,pu rate piece Ofìp r fè'Îlings about additional property leasing and so forth as far as -Ic:lating and the fact that each one is going to want to have a töèy, can call their own. What is your long range plan? JIM MCCAULEY: At this point we have entered into discussion with Western PCS to lease additional space. There has been a proposal and nothing yet firmed up. There is some additional space available that will not impact the future use that we would have for the land there. I guess if there was a third and fourth carrier I can't answer that at this time without looking at how much they would want and what that would do to the impact of the intended use that we would have for the property. The second carrier at this point is no problem. There is additional space that would be available. If a third carrier needed more space I would have to look at how much more and how it would effect the overall site plan. BRINTON: Just for clarification so we have a better understanding. Is there two separate pieces of property there that we are looking at? MCCAULEY: Draws a picture of the property on the board and explains where the property is located and the location of the pole sites on the property. DISCUSSION WIL TSEE: Even with both companies coming from a somewhat different direction. That is AT&T attempting to enhance and complete an already existing system and we building from scratch a new system with a complete network. I think that we will able to achieve a co-location. I feel that it is a bit risky to try and establish a limited number of facilities that can be located in a community and try to stick to that number. As you can see, the objectives of different companies differ. I think you are on the right track in terms of urging or requiring the companies coming before you to devote as much of their total system information as possible and to get them to work together. We are cooperative. However, we do not want to jeopardize our ability to accomplish our objectives. We would like to see you keep all options open and approve both sites and pass the decision on to the City Council and let the City Council benefit from your study of the situation. BRINTON: Is there any questions of Dave? If not, at this point in time we will close the Public Hearing and proceed to evaluate it among the Commissioners. MAYER: I made the motion last time to approve the site we are talking about. I don't have anything else to say. I made the Motion last time. We are coming up with the same information that we had last time. I would like to see theffi}iPhthèisame pole wherever that pole is to eliminate as many poles as we can. The site tmat tg~yare asking for I believe is better than the site close to the subdivision. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 . MIN 16 Since we put these in the same Public Hearing do we pass them together s uld address both applications. FARNWORTH: I did not have the opportunity to be at the other hearing. The pictures put me in a position where I felt that particular location with the pole sticking up is going to be a real eyesore for our Eagle area. That is the reason I looked and asked the question about Frank Searle's property is because I think that would be further away from the direct line of traffic coming into town. The property south of where this pole will be will not always be a pasture or agricultural land. My biggest concern is actually the looks of the area with the pole sticking up. I have a real problem with that particular location. My personal feeling are that the best location are either Frank Searle's or the one further East. I personally feel that is not the best location for this site. BRINTON: In commenting about the concern being the looks of the pole as it comes in and etc. I guess I feel somewhat the same way initially that it would be a concern to people but as time goes by it becomes another landmark. The one that is located right by the freeway you recognize that is there but it doesn't do anything but it is there. As we are looking at what is present here tonight and the location that have been presented, basically what is before us is that we have to make a ruling on the one for Boise City Cellular at 1341 E. State Street, that is what is presented here tonight. We either have to say yea or nay to that one and we either have to say yea or nay to the one at the Republic Storage site. We don't have an option of saying not this one but another one as far as what is presented here tonight. My feeling is that I would rather see us going with the one on State Street with the joint co-use there where we know what kind of an area were in, being an industrial, light manufacturing area, understanding that there maybe some homes or whatever come in and around that area as that area develops. Rather than trying to come in and fight trying to put it in the other location by the Andon complex where we know there is existing manufactured homes to the east and to the north a subdivision and the problems we might have in trying to get approval there. The people that live in that area would be up in arms. This is in an area that has been designated as a manufacturing area. No matter where you look at the tower you are going to see it. FARNWORTH: It would help clarify with me then, if we approved the State Street site then we wouldn't worry about the other site, we would only have two towers in our City if Ada County approved the other site. Am I correct, we would only have two towers? BRINTON: As it stands now as far as the number of cellular companies that have come before the City that we know about that is correct. If we were to approve the State Street location we would have to say that we want you to buildtþefôwÎr for two or three or how many carriers we would want you to have there. My feelillJ is thatw~ ought to do it for at least three. Four would be questionable. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 . MIN 17 SION ¡ Ömmission we have got to do what we think the Code says we can el that we ought to react based on the information that is enteiito.¡us a roceed to Council. If we approve it goes to Council, if we deny it it still goes to Council. The thing I would not like to see us do is a default and say we deny both of them and it goes to Council. We need to make an intelligent decision based on the information that has been presented to us tonight and react on it. I feel like the Code allows us to make a decision of a Conditional Use Permit. We are making a Conditional Use Permit based on the height. That is what we are doing. We are not doing it based on the location. The Code allows for 35'. Because we are going higher than that we have to have a Conditional Use Permit and that is what we are looking at. FARNWORTH: If that's the case then I think we should deny this because of the height. I think 120' is really to much for our City. FARNWORTH: I move that we deny the Conditional Use Permit CU-8-96 Boise City Cellular Partnership of the monopole which is 120' because it exceeds the 35' limit we have in our area and because of the looks in the area. DISCUSSION BRINTON: Is there a Second to the Motion. Hearing no Second the Motion dies. Is there another Motion. MAYER: I make a Motion that we approve CU-8-96 Boise City Cellular Partnership for the pole on 1341 E. State Street, and that the tower should be used for both cellular companies that have applications, the Western PCS II Corp, also on that same pole and make the pole for four companies, because it is centrally located in Eagle, and anyone else who wanted to be in a central location, subject to Standard Conditions for construction. The reason being this is in the industrial area, it is off the corridors that are setup, this way we would end up with one pole at this end of town instead of two. It looks like this is the only location that is going to work for both companies and Seconded by BRINTON. BRINTON: Any discussion among the Commissioners? If not we will call for a vote. All those in favor say Aye. TWO AYES, FARNWORTH NAY, MOTION PASSED BRINTON: Do we have a motion on Item #B, Conditio se CU-10-96? DISCUSSION H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO11397 . MIN 18 is Q~ty cJari n. i .A.!Inderstanding that this body makes recommendations. Therefore a denial here isn't exactly a denial, it is recommendation that something be denied. There is no actually denial throwing our application in limbo. MAYER: I make a Motion that we deny CU-10-96 Western PCS II Corp. location at the storage units but if the first motion is denied at City Council it is our recommendation that this site would be okay. The earlier motion I was talking about is the CU-8-96 and Seconded by FARNWORTH. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: I will turn control of the meeting back to Chairman, Bert Bradley. BRADLEY: The next item is also a Public Hearing. C. Conditional Use (CU-13-96) The City of Eagle, represented by D. Korey Lowder, is requesting conditional use approval of a 672 sq.ft. Temporary mobile office located directly behind City Hall. The site is located at 310 E. State St. approximately 200 feet east of Second St. BUTLER: The Applicant did not get their sign posted according to the law. This notice was continued from the last meeting. I am representing the Applicant and I am representing the City doing the Staff Report. BRADLEY: Due to the fact that I was absent at the last meeting and don't know what has transpired, I would like to know some of the discussion that prompted the continuation of this item. BUTLER: There was absolutely no discussion. I didn't get the sign posted on the property in time so it had to be continued to be sure we had our ten day notice. Absolutely no comment from the public, no report from the Applicant and no rebuttal from Staff. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff Report. DISCUSSION BEI"WEEN BUTLER AND COMMISSIONERS ON IMPROVEMENTS H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 19 BRADLEY: It is rather apparent that we don't have any DISCUSSION EY: Does anyone want to comment on this. Seeing none I will close the Public ~ortion. : I prove the Conditional Use Permit for the city of Eagle 3-9 ill S .. ns of Approval and with additional conditions that they either meet the ACHD requirements or bond for it in the Highway District Trust Fund for the street improvements and that they complete the parking improvements in the parking lot by July 1, 1997, and the Conditional Use Permit is only valid for one year. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: We have a Motion that needs a second. FARNWORTH: I Second that Motion. BRADLEY: It has been moved and seconded and now for further discussion. BRADLEY: In my own personal opinion I think it is very stupid to think about paving that street at this particular time. We have some real problems with the sewer facility behind us, it is so shallow. All they are going to do is throw money away. I would rather see them bond for the whole thing or deposit it in the road trust fund rather than throw that money away. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: No need to change the Motion. It has been moved and seconded. The question has been called for: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS: BRADLEY: I will turn the turn the meeting over to the Vice-Chairman, Don Brinton. A. Design Review (DR-16-96) Boise City Cellular Partnership is requesting Design Review approval for 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. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZOll397. MIN 20 eview made a recommendation of denial. They also stated that if the items was by Planning and Zoning that it come back to Design Review. KIM GARRICK AT&T We don't have a problem with any of the conditions that were placed by the Design Review Committee as to the building or whatever conditions are in there. We would support that. The building you saw is a premanufactured building and when we are required to do something that looks more residential then we will give it a brick finish or whatever you want. That is really not a big issue. We can take care of that, it is not a problem. DISCUSSION FARNWORTH: I Move that we approve the Design Review DR-16-96 Boise Cellular Partnership with the staff recommended conditions of approval, eliminating #4 and the other conditions pertaining to this application and Seconded by MAYER. BUTLER: Clarification. You might want to consider eliminating Item #5. It is the recommendation of changing the chain link fence to wrought iron. DISCUSSION FARNWORTH: I would change the Motion to eliminate Item # 5 and Seconded agrees ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED B. Design Review (DR-20-96) Western PCS is requesting Design Review approval for a 120 foot high cellular monopole located at 8785 Horseshoe Bend Road. The site is located at the Republic Storage Facility on the west side of Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 1/4 mile north of State Street. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff Report Design Review had recommended approval with Staffs Conditions and two other conditions. That the Applicant is to agree to work with the other cellular company to permit the co-location of other tenants and that the pole be designed with adequate strength to allow a second or third antenna and they didn't believe the Applicant should be required to landscape or irrigate this facility. BRINTON: We should have a report from the Applicant. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 21 QWIL TSEE: We would be more than happy to comply with the Design Review mendations should we be able to build a facility at all. MAYER: I Move that we recommend approval of DR-20-96 Western PCS with the Standard Conditions as approved by Design Review in case they use this site, and Seconded by FARNWORTH. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: I will turn this meeting back to Chairman Bradley. C. Findings of Fact for conditional use application for the City of Eagle's modular office (CU-13-96) The Zoning Administrator is requesting Commission approval of the Findings of Fact for the conditional use application submitted by the City of Eagle. The site is located at 310 E. State St. approximately 200 feet east of Second St. BUTLER: I would recommend approval of the Findings of Fact with some clarifications. Page 6 of 11, Item B at the lower portion of the page: 0 be put in for 0 individuals and where it says for the following reasons an A be put in for not applicable. Item C be amended so that one individual came before the Planning and Zoning Commission who was in favor and that was the Applicant. This is a recommendation only and that the reason be because the proposal was in the best interest of the City. Page 7 of 11, Site Specific Conditions of Approval #1 and #2 be deleted. And the condition that says "met the ACHD requirements for bond for the improvements with the ACHD Road Trust Fund and complete the parking improvements in the parking lot by July 1,1997, and another condition that the Conditional Use permit shall be valid for a period of one year at which time the permit shall be brought back to the Commission and Council for review. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I make a Motion that we approve Facts of Findings for Conditional Use CU-13-96 for the City of Eagle's modular office with the corrections to the Conditions of Approval as shown on page 7 of 11: In Site Specific Conditions, # 1 will stay in, # 2 will be removed and changed to read, to meet ACHD requirements or bond for the requirements, #3 that the parking lot will be completed by July 1, 1997, and #4 that the Conditional Use be reviewed at the end of a one year period by Planning and Zoning and Council, and Seconded by Mayer. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\ 1997\PZO11397 . MIN 22 INESS: iIIl(ü'rn tie m ling over to Vice-Chairman Brinton Ada.. QbunltfLra J,(,Ø6-95-CU) Western PCS is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a telecommunications facility consisting of a 120 foot monopole and 242 sq.ft. Building pad. The 12.3 acre site is located at 3585 W. State Street approximately 1/4 mile east of Park Lane and 1/8 mile south of State Street. This item is in the Eagle Area of Impact. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff Report BRINTON: May we have the Applicant come forward. MIKE FLUTY 3184 Elder Street Boise, Idaho I would like to go back to our earlier displays. (Shows map display and explains) The site which is before you tonight is what we call the Taylor property. We are just beyond the lake and approximately 700' south ofthe highway. Our reason for locating in that particular area is that we were buffered in a number of directions. The nearest residence is about 900' away. We think this is a good compromise. This particular structure is 120'. We think from an overall land use standpoint we tried to get far enough back from the corridor, you have a back drop against the river. You will notice it the first time it goes up and that is about it. DISCUSSION FARNWORTH: I Move that we approve this Ada County Transmittal 96-95-CU for Western PCS and Seconded by MAYER. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: I will now turn the meeting back over to Chairman Bradley. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: I really don't have anything. There hasn't been a Council meeting since your last meeting. The next Planning and Zoning meeting would be on a Hôlid'åy>šo the P&Z meeting would be on that Tuesday the 21 st. H: \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397. MIN 23 ; There is one thing that we need to do and that is review the sidewalk ordinance ave that says that we have to have 10' sidewalks on the side streets to see if this 11M a an ,LE can b "ba nguage that you can look over and then make a Motion to move forward on an amendment. DISCUSSION MOVED BY BRINTON AND SECONDED BY MAYER TO ADJOURN. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED &'L~ £k EAGLE CITY CLERK A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CII"Y HALL H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO1l397 .MIN 24