HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP & DOCS - 07-00327 - Teton Communications Cell Tower - CUPr
Conditional Use Permit
City of Rexburg
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
OF gEX8URc
o
C I T Y O F
REX
Americas Family Community
Applicant
Fee(s) Paid: Yes /No
CUP: $250.00
Publication: $200.00
Name: /P� v� �c+v.� r�ct K i0�06-5 Address:
City: State:
�W��ke�� CbrY�'f�i,�iiG��fiu�iS• con1
Owner (Complete if owner not applicant)
Name: 'e5l Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone:
Property Covered by Permit:
Address: 12O® Sa , �,,,� c Zone:
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Addition, Division Number)
Nature of Request (B riefly explain the proposed use)
d e J' d.&- cam- n�,u� ec��mu�wcce. za,� E
Existing use of property:
Will this have an impact on schools:
0 0
Requirements for Granting Conditional Use Permit
The following information will assist the Commission and /or City Council to determine if your proposal will meet
the requirements under the zoning ordinance.
1. What is the estimated water sage per month? Ate the existin mains adequate to provide fire protection?
y o
2. What is the estimated sewer usage per month? Will pretreatment be necessary?
3. What is the estimated daily traffic to be generated? Will the traffic be primarily private vehicles or commercial
trucks? I ia�i 1!7 ' _i '
4. If commercial, industrial, or a home occupation, what will be the hours of operation?
5. Will storm water drainage be retained on site? Is an existing storm drain available? Is it at capacity? If so, will
new facilities be constructed? J �_. „� s 0,, st:�&e
6. If proposed use is residential, describe number and type of dwelling units. Will this be student housing: multi-
family for young families, singles and couples, or elderly? A / 4
r
7. What provision has been made for fire protection? Where is the nearest fire hydrant? Is any point of the
building further than } 50 feet fro ac cess sufficient in width for fire fighting equipment?
8. How much parking is being provided on -site? Do the aisle widths and access points comply with the ordinance
requirements? Has landscaping been provided in accordance with the ordinance?
9. Where will solid waste generated be stored? Is access adequate for the City collection?
10. What is the ty�e of noise that will be generated by the use? What are the hours of noise generation?
14
11. What type of equipment will be used in the conduct of the business?
12. What are the surrounding land uses? Has buffering been provided as required by the ordinance?
Gn rh c c , s -- Aa ci
cat rc P f
13. Are any air quality permits required? Is dirt or other dust creating materials moved by open trucks or box cars?
,,
14. Will the parking lots or other outdoor areas have lighting? /lp
15. Are passenger loading zones for such uses as daycare centers and schools provided? How is busing routed? For
commercial uses, where are the loading docks? Is there sufficient space for truck parking?
16. If a commercial, multi - family, or public assembly use, where is the nearest collector street? Arterial street?
17. What, A if any, signage is anticipated in connection with the proposed usage?
The Commission or Council may address other points than those discussed above, but a narrative addressing at
least those applicable points will assist in processing your application. A PLOT PLAN MUST BE ATTACHED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION. Included on the plot plan setbacks, parking, etc.
Formal notice will be sent to applicant after approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Notice will state the conditions
of the permit. If conditions are violated or not met there will be 90 day period to cure the problem. Failure to
comply with the terms may result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
jj� -
/b 7
Signature of Ap ant Date
3
k f .'
0 0
Conditional Use Permit Procedures
The City of Rexburg Zoning Ordinance designates certain land uses in each Zoning District which are allowed.
These are listed in the Zoning Ordinance for each zone. The Planning & Zoning Department should be consulted
if you have questions about whether your proposal will need a Conditional Use Permit.
If a C.U.P. is needed, you will need to get an application from the Planning & Zoning Department and fill it out for
a C.U.P. You will then need to return the application and request to be placed on the Planning & Zoning
Commission agenda at least 18 days prior to the meeting. Application and public hearing fees are required to be
paid up front. Prior to granting a conditional use, at least one Public Hearing shall be held to give persons an
opportunity to be heard. The Planning & Zoning Meetings are held on the 1 and 3= Thursday of every month at
7:00 pm.
The Secretary of Planning & Zoning will put the notice for the hearing in the paper 15 days prior to each hearing,
mail a copy to all the property owners within 300 feet and post a notice on the property. After the Planning &
Zoning Commission holds their hearing they will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council
will take the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation into consideration. If a hearing is required before
the City Council they will then take into consideration oral and written testimony as well as the recommendation
from the Planning & Zoning Commission. A decision will be made by the City Council within the time frame
allowed by Section 67 -6511, Idaho Code.
2
I ,.., •
nt — WRlWtarW waaxn.TI UX IedPAWNWI
phnlon4U . ..
Ret.r.i.d Ct Flatted ❑ 2;ey plmehd ❑ To'l61savaw Ci
Hi— film.d ❑ 1WUCu•1 floater Pll4 ❑ u
Indexed U Cotop.rwl ❑ Ahrttaded 0
.7439:!94
WARRANTY DBRD ~�
/CO KMA7f 1
VRSTRRN STATR: INYSSTHNNT COMPANY assrwrotlon
ortapiied and exleth.9 und.r the laws of tb. 9014 of Idaho, with its pd611M1oifao at 244 weer
bro.dva y, Idaho Fa L:. of Ooualrof Bonneville _-us0Idaho.
grantor, hereby VONVEYS - CHANTS xnd WARRANTS TO
TBTON COMMUNICATIONS ISCONPOSATSN x.01161. '
of 543 3oath Utah A.enue.Idahr Pellet Who 02402 161tho tar of
Other Palsablo CousideratioS410
the following 4eg"1W trert(0) -1land In 111661606 Canty.
Sate ofldabn: limit fnefna nr, a poeat that IS North 81008 tbb S.CtiM 1108 131 hot '
and Bent 45.34 feel f the S.nnll"Ilt OlittOr of 9MtiM 32. Township 6 Nagtb, ae.tp 40
Rost of the Poise I'lerfdfa.1 nelA pint d kliRmUS Mi§$ tM 7aetbumt Oaresr of "*-121 c
Rtorb II of LAa Valle, Yfetr U.S. SSW1riwiM. OLtISIM No. Si rdml B thmO W.O.
' 45.34 feeal thence North 216.16 fe•`tt th@WA Best 322.79 t et1 Tlaeoe B. 51*58'5dsN.o'�,
331.65 feet) Ovate 11.80 456.06 feat to the Meet 1110111 Of Mid 10 thence
North 61.74 feet to the VOW OF WCMM.
9 r 4 Sobje t to ea enaeunt 17 11 width SIGN the SMth wide of tie sM +y
described t:ecr.t [or pow.. titre end salStf.ad irriptl.ee Tina 6�• ,
4 :1~t1on of mho's duedb d pw.a His NnMI h:
Tho oNkve who sl fin this dead hwoty rutRy that this dead 4" 49 ifseaft laBlus.Gd Merr4P frei. t .
t` -duly sadhorlted ender a reealotir.a duly sdopbid by.im board It db61be gi.1114 VOW M a Uwful 0611i
fall dolly held Sod a tten ded by a moral,
Wight br t +.
401... Al
ha witness whwetd, the flraator IWA Cod" 144 imSaeto Nall ad dtj qe b ko aaMt. .
dab eothedged ofdoere thi. 11th day .f �S 1 ; yA' O 16 a _
011110 IN.RINNC emu" ;
M
►;, iA l By t• ; �
hta '
s p .�.�, a ,t .VI 4 ..; I.
j, `,J ItNy o„tt Ai$
4 rpfb� ila 1 R �.t
4 ! t r . !
O��n__tii' O NN 14th defet y, Si r , 2 1.13 IN'Oe;
'�v. .s peraew�rxt � bdwe ma Litl Sad htrlt�h
' I `
wt* tdW'W ra doly sworn did 4,q oath Nr MUSK Wt M Ma ll L
n an# : shr. the 1NdP.triW Z. WM Is Melt'"tnry' ,Tk
aow *%Slid*Nthe*1thka"
• !oN ' n..,
1
old r lt�t hi K d.Id aupmtl� MsMd .t a 1"0" d la beard
` S, d!' Md •breed f. tASd :and f0 i I iM
� .1��qdp1P aAaarmood to me 014 Nod 01.I IIN dNere Ma a ho the
oCr.ti�reroetttlM.
XAM 111120 R0:
j ��i�tthif6tida._INda ►�. -» +..�
oya . deb tle_�►_ AM.__,,.._,.,r
SAIL tat NOVI=
.... ....
0
•
MEN
2.q
•gin
Deed is being re- recorded to correct legal descl
� WARRANTY DEED
For Value Received
GERALD T. STUCKL and KA.RcN S. STUCKI, husband and wife
the grantors . do hereby grant, bargain, sell and emvdy unto
TETON COMMUNICATIONS. 1?IC.
whose current address is
545 South Utah Avenue
Idaho Falls, Tdaho 83402
the grantee , the following described premises, in...._.- Madison .._._._ County Idaho. to wit:
WA
t. ginning at he ]tort ast Car of Lo 12, B1 ck 11 Valley law Estates
tv on. D ision N .3 tot City ,o Rexbu . Me on Cou Y. Idaho,
ae er t recor d plat areof. nning once t al the rth line
N S d Lo l2. 6 4 feet, thence u 61. feet, thenc Bast 6 34
feet t the at lin of Sal Lvt 12; hence rth 61 4 fee to th
POINT O BEGI NG.
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 12, Block 11,
Valleyview Estates Subdivision No. 3 to the City of Rexburg,
Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof,
running thence West along the North line of said lot 12,
45.34 feet; thence South 61.74 feet; thence East 45.34
feet to the East line of said Lot 12; thence North 61.74
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the asid premises, with their apperlesams Wlts the acid (Watts
its heirs and assigns forever. And the said Hean/se s ds t sift eovsnattt to and
with the &aid Grantees , that they are dw owners in fee shtnpts of SON prafslessi that dk4F are ftus
from all incumbrancesexcept: subject to all existing patent reservations, aasenouts$
rights of way. protective covenants, zoning ordinances, and applicable building
codes. laws and regulations.
and that they will warrant and defend tie same front all lawful masses whateoswe
Dated
Gerald T. Stucki
p. STATE OF IDAHO, C01LXTY OF Madison
day
oa
J ^,
/ re me, a ettarr pabne in and for raid � 1.. erteaaUr
7 appasrsd Gerald T. Stucki and S.
"." "' Stucki, husband and wife
' to M Ufte 'tbi pertoas vbaae name a are
snbetrib so tm . mstrnment, and acicmwledeed to
me w t r, excreted the Lino.
Karen LS. Stucki
tog
W
dW
'$ O
� gW
J
=oa�oe�ut
Robber Patine
kiddiaa / . ` Q L� LLA.--
Pie-
TETON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Rexb* Bench Communications Site
193.98 to the
No. Propery Line
200' to the
East Property Line
Rexbucp/RexburgS itePlan. sdr
7/23/07
TETON COMMUNICATIO , INC.
I�bur g Bench Communicationite Plan
Property Line
m
o;
Existing Fence
N
b
13..94'
17.5'
lull 2 16 z16
Building g Tower
Foundation
24'
d
`a
d
w
27 x27
NEW
Tower
Foundation
Future Fence
Location
J U L 1 0 2007
CITY O F REXRURG
. •
ATETON n
COMMUNICATIONS
/ \ INC. \ \
2a &&J4 sd4&M4
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Phone(208)522 -0750
Fax (208) 525 -3400
City of Rexburg
Planning and Zoning Department
19 E. Main
Rexburg, Idaho 83440 July 9, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to help explain our application for a new tower on the `Bench ",
near the large Rexburg Water Tower.
We own Parcel #RPRXBCA0325820A that currently has a 65' freestanding tower. This
is the only tower we own in the Rexburg area. This tower is basically; full of antenna's
and has no capacity for growth. Requests by current and potential customers (like
Madison County Sheriff, Rexburg Police Department, and Intermountain Gas Co.) for
additional wireless services and improved coverage to the City of Rexburg can only be
supplied by a new tower.
The new tower will be 150' tall and be located due east of our current facility (Please see
the enclosed Plat Plan). No franchise agreements are associated with our business. We
provide "Vertical Realestate" to all compatible wireless users, including: Public Safety,
(Police, Fire, EMS) Business (Delivery, School Bus Transportation) Low Power
Broadcast, Wireless Internet, Cellular, and Paging etc.
The nearest residence belongs to Gerald Stucki ( Lot 12, Block 11, Valley View Estates)
and is approximately 200' feet from the proposed location for the new tower. The ground
we own is basically covered with "natural" vegetation, since it has not been farmed for
many years. We have a fenced compound around our current tower and building that is
sprayed yearly to kill all vegetation, thereby eliminating the weeds and potential fire
danger. This compound will be extended to include the new tower (See the included Plot
Plan)
Your request for compliance with specific sections of the communications tower
ordinance is as follows:
4 (C) As mentioned above, we only have 1 existing tower in the
tower is fully loaded with antennas and is a bit to short to
coverage; therefore our request for a taller tower.
• •
4 (D)
1) The tower will not require lighting (see attached FAA Advisory) but is painted
red and white, as per FAA guidelines.
2) The existing tower, building and chain link fence is gray or galvanized.
3) No antennas are installed on the building; only on the tower.
4 (E) 1) The tower will not require lighting (see attached FAA Advisory) but is painted
red and white, as per FAA guidelines.
2) The existing tower, building and chain link fence is gray or galvanized.
3) No antennas are installed on the building; only on the tower.
4 (F) Our proposed tower meets all FCC and FAA Guidelines. We understand the
responsibility to keep "up to date" with changing regulations.
4 (G) Understood
4 Q) No Franchise Requirements
4 (L) Understood
4 (M) Understood
Renting of space on our towers, and in our buildings for all wireless service providers is a
primary piece of our business. We welcome all inquiries for use of our facilities. (Please
see the enclosed statement)
Teton Communications Inc. operates it's own Microwave Network for `Backhaul" or
connection to our other tower sites and to the "outside" world. In addition, our facility
has a "Telco Service Point" for connection to the outside world via high -speed data
circuits provided by Qwest. Teton Communications, Inc. has no future plans for
additional tower construction in the Rexburg area.
Attachments:
1) Conditional Use Permit Application
2) Building Permit Application
3) Madison County Assessment Notice
4) Plot Plan
5) Affidavit for Lease of Space on the Tower
6) Copy of Contractor License
7) Tower Loading Engineering
8) Tower Foundation Engineering
9) FAA Clearance Advisory (This will be modified to reflect a "shorter" tower)
R D
JUL 10 2IX17 .
CITY OF REXBURG
• 0
If you have additional questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Tony Hafla
President
Teton Communications, Inc.
TCl/RexPlnngZone.doc
ATETON A
COMMUNICATIONS
/ \ INC. \ \
?V ae&jj, .So&tio4a
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Phone (208) 522 -0750
Fax (208) 525 -3400
To Whom It May Concern:
11
Teton Communications, Inc. construction of a new tower at the Rexburg Bench is
intended to provide adequate Antenna Space and improved coverage to any and all
compatible wireless users.
The tower has been designed to accommodate existing needs and anticipated future
loading for approximately 20 years.
F
a� • f `�J
0" �
Tony Hafla tary DF I'D��`�
President`` " "`` ° "�
Teton Com nications, Inc. My Commission Expire
Date: c, s
Rexburg/RexburgNewTwr. doc
ui '007
L
CHY OF RE XBURG
s
z �n�
ATETON A
COMMUNICATIONS
\ INC. \ \
ZaeQe4 .Sa&&24a
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Phone(208)522 -0750
Fax (208) 525 -3400
City of Rexburg
C/o Emily
P.O. Box 280
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Phone: 359 -3020 Ext, 334
Fax: 359 -3024
Re; Teton Building Permit
M Emily,
s
°QED
Al" 2007
l
op
#"
July 23, 2007
As per our phone call, this letter is intended to clarify a couple of items you were
requesting.
1) Legal Description
Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Lot 12, Block 11, Valley view Estates
Subdivision No. 3 to the City of Rexburg. Madison County, Idaho, as per the
recorded plat thereof, running thence West along the North line of said lot 12,
45.34 feet; thence South 61.74 feet; thence East 45.34 feet to the East line of said
Lot 12; thence North 61.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
2) Road or Access: I spoke with John Millar and he said he would talk directly with
you concerning this issue.
3) Setbacks /Tower Separation: The distance to our Eastern property line from the
edge of the new tower foundation is 280'. The distance to the Northern property
line is 193' from the edge of the new tower foundation. The distance between the
tower foundations is 10'. (Please see the Amended Site Plan enclosed).
TCIJRexcityB1dPnA.doc
ncerely,
on H a
MADISON COUNTY ASSFSSUR
134 FAST MAIN 208-359-o
URG ID 8344
PARCEL DESCRIPTION:
C+TY ACRqA'ZE TAX14
4 k. C --
HAS VALUE A Fkr!M
RRHVV3110143 32-j6N-40&E
TFTON COMMUNICATIONS IN'
545 50 UTAH AVE
IDAHO FALLS TJ 63402
2%7
ITHIS IS NOT A BILL.
=1 L_DO NOT PAY
& ESTIMATE OF TAX
CORRECTED L. 3 P Y
For any questions, please notify the Assessor's Office immediately.
Assessor's Telephone Number: (208) 359-6210
PARCEL ADDRESS:
Appeals of your property value must be filed in
writing, on a form provided by the County, by:
jUNE 25, 2G07
Tax Code Area:
I - j 03 0
Parcel Number: Rp KX8rA0325620 A
;>PnP� TAY 0 -
TAXING DISTRICTS
-
COUNTY
REXBURG
SC H GIST 321
S0321 TORT
SD321 BOND
SD321 EMERGENCY
S01321 PLANT FAC
SD321 OTHER
REXBURG Ctrl
MADISON LIBRARY
MOSQ ABATE
MADISON Co iAMa
SUBTOTAL:
FEES:
TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES & FEES:
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
LAST YEAR'S TAXES CURRENT YE
ESTIMATED TAXES PHONE NUMBER
359-62021
359-13020
359-330D
3567-D167
356-3461
3594k6201
359-30ic
09/05/2%7
06/21/2007
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONS-E
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
08/07/ZD07
08/15/2007
D9/05/ZD07
09/05/2007
I I ?
±I
THIS IS NOT A BILL. DO NOT PAY.
See the back of this Notice for details.
P AGE 1 J F 1 1 CITY OF REXBURG
ASSESSED VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY
CURRENT CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION
LOTS/ACRES
LAST YEAR'S VALUE
CURRENT YEAR'S VALUE
21 COMM LO"S CITY
42 COM BLDG CITY
2.786 AC
121000
11
SUBTOTAL:
LESS HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION:
2 8 0
21 t , 161
2- 3 0 6
NET TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUE:
21,061
L These values may not include personal property
values. Taxes are based on the vqliipq shown nn
thi� Kinfi— —A — +k- D-4--
TAXING DISTRICTS
-
COUNTY
REXBURG
SC H GIST 321
S0321 TORT
SD321 BOND
SD321 EMERGENCY
S01321 PLANT FAC
SD321 OTHER
REXBURG Ctrl
MADISON LIBRARY
MOSQ ABATE
MADISON Co iAMa
SUBTOTAL:
FEES:
TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES & FEES:
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
LAST YEAR'S TAXES CURRENT YE
ESTIMATED TAXES PHONE NUMBER
359-62021
359-13020
359-330D
3567-D167
356-3461
3594k6201
359-30ic
09/05/2%7
06/21/2007
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONS-E
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
08/07/ZD07
08/15/2007
D9/05/ZD07
09/05/2007
I I ?
±I
THIS IS NOT A BILL. DO NOT PAY.
See the back of this Notice for details.
P AGE 1 J F 1 1 CITY OF REXBURG
v
o
1
y
v
o�
A
( 3g:)
ft
0 0
A
0
Nb
�..�+
444
o
o - r
A�
k� R�•i
i 4s
elth
•a- /92.82
4�/p
Federal Avia* Administration
Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW -520
2601 Meacham Blvd.
Fort Worth, TX 76137 -0520
Issued Date: 01/11/2007
Tony Hafla
Teton Communications Inc.
545 South Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Aeronautical Study No.
2006 -ANM- 3822 -OE
** D 011N TION OF NO EMZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Antenna Tower
Location: Rexburg, ID
Latitude: 43 -47 -58.00 N NAD 83
Longitude: 111 -46 -35.00 W
Heights: 200 feet above ground level (AGL)
5365 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airsPatuP
by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore,
pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the
structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Det the structure is marked and /or
lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460 -1 K, Obstruction
Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red) &12
It is required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460 - 2, Notice of Actual Construction
or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is
abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction
(7460 - 2, Part I)
X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height
(7460 - 2, Part II)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
This determination expires on 07/11/2008 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.
(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an
application for a construction permit has been filed, as
required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this
determination. In such case, the determination exp 0
the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of
construction, or the date the FCC denies the applic
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS �014
pa " F REXB URG
�gEXBUg
�Y �O
U 7O
June 13, 2007
Tony Hafla
Teton Communications, Inc.
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
Re: Cell Tower Building Permit Application
To whom it may concern,
After reviewing your proposal for a cellular tower on South 2 nd East for compliance with
Rexburg's Communications Towers Ordinance 915, we have concluded that a
Conditional Use Permit will be required to place a cell tower in this location. The
proposed lot is zoned Low Density Residential 1, in which communications services is
listed as a conditional use. Staff can only administratively approve additional antennas
on existing towers, replacement of existing towers, towers in industrial or heavy
commercial areas, and other similar situations.
In addition to the information required on the Conditional Use Permit application, the
following information is required for review:
1 /• A complete inventory of existing towers, antennas, or sites approved for towers
or antennas that are either within the jurisdiction of the City of Rexburg or
within one mile of the border thereof, including specific information about the
location, height, and design of each tower.
• Copy of all required franchises required by law for the construction and /or
operation of a wireless communication system in the City of Rexburg.
• A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed
tower, on-site_ land uses and zoning, a acent land uses and zoning. Master Plan
classification of the site and all properties within the applicable separations . ik t ~°
distances set forth in Section 7(b)(5), adjacent roadways, proposed means of
access, setbacks from property lines, elevation drawings of the proposed tower
and any other structures, topography, site elevations, and parking.
• L_ egal description of the parent tract and leased parcel (if applicable). - ,n l i t 1- C_ C
• The setback distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential
unit, platted residentially zoned properties, and unplatted residentially zoned
properties.
Y
Gary Leikness Planning and Zoning Administrator 19 E. Main Rexburg, ID 83440 P. O. Box 280
Phone (208) 359.3020 ext. 314 Fax (208) 359.3022
gag&_- xbutgog —mxbug.og
C[ T Y OF
REXBURG
America Family Community
0
l�n�
Madison County / City of Rexbb GIS Page 1 of 1
•
DISCLAIMER: This map is intended for display purposes only and is not intended for any legal representations.
http: / /gislintranetlarcims /printable. aspx ?MapURL= http: / /agentsmithloutputlarcIMS _agents... 8/15/2007
•
Findings of Fact
City of Rexburg
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
O� %EXB�/,pC
�a f o
U 1j►, o
CITY O F
REX
America's Family Community
South 2nd East — Teton Communications Cell Tower
Conditional Use Permit
1. On July 10, 2007, Tony Hafla presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Coordinator a
Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower located off
of South 2nd East.
2. On August 16, 2007, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the
local newspaper for August 22, 2007, and September 1, 2007. A notice was posted on the
property and sent to all property owners within 450 feet of the above mentioned property.
3. On September 6, 2007, Tony Hafla presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the
City of Rexburg the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower located
off of South 2 East.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to denX the Conditional Use Permit for a cell tower on South 2na
East because the ordinance has not been met, as stated in the staff report. Dan Hanna
seconded the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts said we have to honor the ordinance. We cannot decide at some future date
to start following the ordinance because the neighbors start complaining. If we don't like the
ordinance, we need to change it. If they don't meet the ordinance, they should be denied.
Dan Hanna said we need more information.
Those in favor: Those opposed:
David Stein Ted Hill
Mary Ann Mounts Chairman Dyer
Mary Haley
Dan Hanna
Randall Porter
Mike Ricks
Thaine Robinson
Motion carried.
• •
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Thursday, September 06, 2007, at 7:30 p.m., in
the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 150 ft. tower for cellular communications as an unmanned site
and the electronics will be housed in the storage units on site. The antenna will provide cellular
wireless services to the Rexburg, Idaho area. The location is zoned as Low Density Residential
(LDR1).
The said property is located near the Rexburg water tower on South 2nd East in Rexburg, Madison
County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Beginning at a point that is North along the Section line 1377.65 feet and East 65.34 feet from the
Southwest Corner of Section 32, Township 6 North, Range 40 East of the Boise Meridian; said
point of beginning being the Northeast Corner of Lot 12, Block 11 of the Valley View Estates
Subdivision, Division No. 3; running thence West 45.34 feet; thence North 216.16 feet; thence East
322.79 feet; thence South 32 °58'59 "E 331.65 feet; thence N89 °57'46 "W 458.00 feet to the East line
of said lot 12; thence North 61.74 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2:
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 12, Block 11, Valleyview Estates Subdivision No. 3 to the
City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, running thence West
along the North line of said lot 12, 45.34 feet; thence South 61.74 feet; thence East 45.34 feet to the
East line of said lot 12; thence North 61.74 feet to the Point of Beginning.
At such hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and
recommendations relative to such proposed permit. The City Clerk will also accept written
comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on September 05, 2007.
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and all
amendments thereof.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2007.
CITY OF REXBURG
Blair D. Kay, City Clerk
Published: August 22, 2007
September 01, 2007
208.359.8191 office
208.359.8192 fax
Rocky Mountain Contractors and Henry's Fork Plaza, LLC agree to start construction on
Anytime Fitness and no other buildings until the final replat is approved by the city
counsel. All other lots already approved on the previous plat are approved to be built
upon.
Rick Hancock Date
Gary Leikness Date
M �
859 S. Yellowstone, Suite 205
Rexburg, ID 83440
0 0
Planning
and Zoning
Department
��xso
a fG CITY O F
STAFF REPORT
' REXB mG
V 1�
12 North Center
garyl@rexburg.org
Phone: 208.359.3020 x314
0&
'. ,., Americas Family Community
Rexburg, ID 83440
www.rexburg.org
Fax: 208.359.3024
HE9
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
PURPOSE:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
O OPERTYID:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
ZONING DISTRICT:
Conditional Use Permit, file # 07 00327
Teton Communications, Inc.
545 South Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
Same as applicant
Request to construct a new cell tower.
South 2 East, Generally behind water tower
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
RPRXBCA0325820
Low - Moderate Residential Density
Low Density Residential 1 (LDRI)
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas (Ord. 915)
City of Rexburg Development Code (Ord. 926)
§ 6.13 Conditional Use Permits
AUTHORITY § 7(a) Establishes provisions that "shall govern the issuance of special use
permits (conditional use permit) for towers or antennas by the Planning
Commission.)
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted an application to construct a one - hundred and fifty (15 0) foot
telecommunications tower in an area that currently has other communication towers. During the
review of the application it was determined that because the application involved property that is
located in a residential zone (LDRI) and because the proposal did not involve collocation with an
existing antenna, a conditional use permit would need to be obtained for the application to proceed.
The proposal must be reviewed and approved by the City's Planning Commission for issuance of the
permit. Rather than making a recommendation to the City Council, the Commission may act on this
application.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 1
The City's telecommunications ordinance (Ordinance 915) provides direction on the siting of towers
and related services. Within this ordinance collocation of new antennae on existing towers is required
unless the applicant can show that this is not a feasible option. If a new tower is proposed, a
conditional permit must be obtained.
Land uses that require conditional use permits are allowed within a zone if it can be found that the
proposed use and /or facility will not adversely impact the neighborhood and community of which it
belongs. This determination may be based on the adherence of the proposal to certain conditions of
approval. Therefore, the City, upon receipt of a CUP request, should review the proposal and either
approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 120,225 square foot (2.76 -acre) lot. The lot is accessed from an unpaved
drive /street (dedication uncertain), which ultimately connects to S 2" East, a 45 -foot paved minor
arterial (99 -foot right -of -way).
The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single - family homes built and recently platted, a
farm/other related building, public facilities (water reservoir, and tower) and other
telecommunications towers (7 towers).
III. ANALYSIS
A conditional use permit for a telecommunications tower requires the proposal meet two sets of
criteria, one set from the telecommunications ordinance (Ord. 915) and the other set of criteria from
the Development Code (Ord. 926). The following are those criteria for granting a conditional use
permit followed by staff's analysis.
ORDINANCE 915, the Telecommunications Ordinance
The goals of this ordinance must be met taking into consideration the following factors:
§ 7(b)(2)(i) Height and elevation of the proposed tower- The height of the proposed tower is 150 -
feet. This height is similar to that of the existing water tower, both of which set on a prominent hill
within Rexburg. The tower will have a very visible presence throughout Rexburg.
§ 7(b)(2)(ii) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries -
The tower is proposed to be located 290 -feet from the nearest residential structure. In addition, the
tower would be located 220 -feet from a recently approved preliminary plat for residential lots. The
ordinance requires that the new tower be located 450 -feet from the nearest residential structure and
450 -feet from the nearest vacant, but preliminarily platted lot. Because this new tower would be
located closer than to both existing residential lots and future residential lots, this criterion is not met
§ 7(b)(2)(iii) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties- The surrounding land uses include
a mixture of single - family lots (built and recently platted), a farm/other related building, public
facilities (water reservoir, and tower) and other existing telecommunications towers (7 towers). It
would appear that the surrounding land uses, other than the residential homes and lots, are similar to
the proposed use height and/or bulk, and purpose.
§ 7(b)(2)(iv) Surrounding topography- The site is on top of a hill with 360 degree coverage, which
lends itself well to a telecommunications tower. However, this same advantage allows the facility to
be visible throughout Rexburg. The City already has many other towers and public facilities which
are visible and may detract from the views within the City.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 2
9 0
§ 7(b)(2)(v) Surrounding tree cover - There is no real tree coverage in the general vicinity which
would not make practical the incorporation of any stealth design for the tower. A height of 150 -feet
would disallow this as well.
§ 7(b)(2)(vi) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the
effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness- The proposal includes the use of red and
white colors in the absence of a light, which the applicant states is not required by the Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA). Lights are prohibited unless specifically required by the FAA, therefore the
applicant has proposed red and white coloring. This would likely create visual obtrusiveness. It is
recommended by staff that an alternative is explored in order to help the proposal incorporate either a
different design or different color scheme
§ 7(b)(2)(vii) Proposed ingress and egress- The parcel upon which the subject property is located
does not abut a public right -of -way. Ingress and egress is through lots which may or may not allow
access by way of access easements. A condition of approval should be that evidence must be
submitted to the Planning Department that clearly shows that site has full access to the nearest public
right -of -way (see proposed conditions of approval).
§ 7(b)(2)(viii) and § 7(a)(3) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternative
technologies not requiring the use of towers or structures, as discussed in Section 7(b) (3) of this
ordinance- The applicant has stated that the tower that they currently operate on the subject property
is at full capacity and therefore a new tower is necessary. There are other towers in the immediate
vicinity that may or may not be full, therefore the applicant should demonstrate that is it not feasible
for them to collocate on these nearby towers otherwise these towers should be first considered
before new towers are erected Evidence must be consistent with criteria found in
§ 7(b)(4) Setbacks
(i) Tower must be setback 113 -feet from adjoining lot lines. The proposal is 40 -feet from an
adjoining lot line. Because this proposal falls below this standard this criterion is not met
(ii) Guys and accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum LDRI zoning district setbacks.
The proposal exceeds this standard.
§ 7(b)(5) Separation- Intended to avoid clustering of towers and visual impacts.
(i) Separation from off -site uses /designated areas
a. The distance required from the base of the antenna to the adjacent residential lot, is
required to be 450 -feet. The applicant is proposing 115 -feet. This criterion is not met
In addition, the proposal must be 450 -feet from the adjacent residentially platted lots
(or preliminarily approved lots). The applicant is proposing the tower to be located
220 -feet from these lots, therefore this requirement is met
(ii) Separation distances between towers
a. This standard requires that the proposal be located a certain distance from other
towers in the vicinity. There are seven towers in the vicinity, the following is an
gpproximate description of each adjacent tower and what distance the proposal must
be from them (see Exhibit B for diagram showing adjacent towers):
1) Tower 1- This tower is a lattice tower that is 65 -feet tall. The proposed
tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is
proposing 30 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 3
Based on the above analysis, this criterion is not met
§ 7(b)(6) Security Fencing- Towers must be enclosed by security fencing with appropriate anti -
climbing devices. Staff was not able to determine what type of fencing the applicant is proposing for
the use. A condition of approval should be that the fencing material and anti - climbing material to be
used is submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a
S conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval).
§ 7(b)(7) Landscaping
(i) The tower facility shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively
screens the view of the tower compound from property used from residences. The
standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide outside the
perimeter of the compound. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan for review.
A landscape plan that adequately addresses screening and adheres to this section should
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of
a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval).
ORDINANCE 926, the Development Code requires that a conditional use:
a. Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use
Schedule.
The proposed use, "communications" is listed as a conditionally permitted use under Section
3.4.010(F) of the Development Code; therefore, this criterion is met.
b. Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations of this Ordinance.
The City's comprehensive plan has designated the subject property as Low - Moderate Density
Residential. The zoning district of LDRl is an allowed zoning designation within the
1 Using tower #I as a 65 -foot tall reference, the height of other towers was determined using the length of their shadows on the
Rexburg 2007 aerial photo. The 65 -foot tower casts a 53 -foot shadow; therefore the ratio of tower height to shadow length is 1.22:1.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 4
2)
Tower 2- This tower is a monopole that is approximately -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 68 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
3)
Tower 3- This tower is a monopole that is approximately 128 -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 260 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
4)
Tower 4- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 80 -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 285 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
5)
Tower 5- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 90 -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 327 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
6)
Tower 6- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 98 -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 1160 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
7)
Tower 7- This tower is a monopole that is approximately 123 -feet tall.
The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The
applicant is proposing 1223 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met.
Based on the above analysis, this criterion is not met
§ 7(b)(6) Security Fencing- Towers must be enclosed by security fencing with appropriate anti -
climbing devices. Staff was not able to determine what type of fencing the applicant is proposing for
the use. A condition of approval should be that the fencing material and anti - climbing material to be
used is submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a
S conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval).
§ 7(b)(7) Landscaping
(i) The tower facility shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively
screens the view of the tower compound from property used from residences. The
standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide outside the
perimeter of the compound. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan for review.
A landscape plan that adequately addresses screening and adheres to this section should
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of
a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval).
ORDINANCE 926, the Development Code requires that a conditional use:
a. Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use
Schedule.
The proposed use, "communications" is listed as a conditionally permitted use under Section
3.4.010(F) of the Development Code; therefore, this criterion is met.
b. Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations of this Ordinance.
The City's comprehensive plan has designated the subject property as Low - Moderate Density
Residential. The zoning district of LDRl is an allowed zoning designation within the
1 Using tower #I as a 65 -foot tall reference, the height of other towers was determined using the length of their shadows on the
Rexburg 2007 aerial photo. The 65 -foot tower casts a 53 -foot shadow; therefore the ratio of tower height to shadow length is 1.22:1.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 4
comprehensive plan designation of Low - Moderate Density Residential, therefore this criterion is
met.
Is c. Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the
neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located.
The surrounding land uses include single - family homes, and recently platted single family lots.
There are other communications towers located in the vicinity. The zoning district in which the
surrounding land uses and the subject property are located in is a residential zone (LDR1). In this
district is anticipated that larger lot residential development will occur and that any development
will be required to complement or add to the ambiance of a residential area. The lots to the east
set at the bottom of the hill where the tower is to be located. Total elevation change from the base
of the tower to the bottom of the hill is 44 feet. This will result in an apparent tower height of
close to 200 -feet for the properties to the east.
In the case of communications towers, Ordinance 915 encourages "users of towers and antennas
to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas
through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques."
(goal #6, Ordinance 915). Good site design, including landscaping, and any stealth design could
potentially accomplish the intent of the LDR1 zone. Another purpose of the ordinance is to
"protect residential areas and land uses form potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas."
(goal #1, Ordinance 915).
The Commission should explore the application material and determine if this criterion is met, or
can be met through reasonable conditions of approval.
d. Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of excessive noise
or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air
pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic
generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic.
Regarding glare, heat, dust, air pollutants, there are no foreseeable impacts to the neighborhood.
However, dust might become a problem if no landscaping is in place. The subject property is
2.76 -acres and will need regular maintenance to ensure that noxious weeds are not present and at
the same time no dust leaves the property in such a manner that it becomes a nuisance (see
proposed conditions of approval).
Regarding electrical interference, the applicant should explain to the Commission how the
proposed use will or will not interfere with existing towers and the nearby homes and future
homes. In addition, the applicant should describe to the Commission how potential impacts to
adjacent residential lots regarding noise and vibrations will be avoided.
Regarding odors, solid waste generation and storage, excessive traffic generation, or interference
with pedestrian traffic, there are no foreseeable impacts. There should be no outside storage of
material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way. This screening, if in it self
is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be approved by the Planning
Commission or designee. Staff has included proposed conditions of approval that address trash
storage and general storage occurring on the outside of the building.
• The Commission should determine if through reasonable conditions of approval this criterion can
be met.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 5
e. Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer service, and schools.
to If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be
upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use.
The site is served by all applicable essential public facilities and services; therefore, this criterion
is met.
f. Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points serving the
proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points.
The roads in the vicinity appear to be functioning within acceptable levels of service. The
proposed use should have minimal impacts on the road network in the area, however, the lot
subject property does not abut a public right -of -way and therefore a recorded easement should be
submitted prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval).
Based on the above analysis staff determined that this criterion is met as conditioned.
g. Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building
size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking.
Regarding noise, the applicant should explain any potential noise impacts to the Commission.
The proposed tower, due to its height of 150 feet, will not be screened from adjacent properties,
existing and platted. A shadow will likely be cast on the recently approved lots to the east in the
Founder Square planned unit development. As space is leased on the new tower, a larger shadow
will be cast on adjacent residential property. The base of the tower and the grounds can be
screened, but the Commission should determine if this is adequate. Also, the entire parcel of
2.76 -acres should be screened of appropriately landscaped so to complement the surrounding
residential properties. A landscape plan should be submitted that addresses screening of the tower
base and also for the entire subject parcel (see proposed conditions of approval).
The Commission should determine if the proposal as proposed, or with conditions satisfies this
criterion.
h. Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area
of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property.
The proposal is at the top of a hill that slopes to the east. The elevation change from the tower to
the bottom of the hill to the east is approximately 44 -feet. Nevertheless, it does not appear that
the subject property is located in a hazardous area.
i. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the
community of Rexburg.
Not applicable
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis of applicable criteria and applicable City codes, the application does
meet the requirements for approval, therefore Staff recommends denial of the application.
Nevertheless, the Commission should take public testimony and determine if the proposed
conditional use permit can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Staff has proposed
some conditions of approval, should the Commission choose to approve with conditions.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 6
•
Exhibits:
A.
Is B.
Proposed Conditions of Approval
Existing Towers Map.
•
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Conditions of Approval
1.
2.
3.
4.
r-W
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
•
There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -
of -way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping,
parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
Large equipment that is to be located on the subject property and is to used for
heating/cooling /ventilation of the proposed building(s), or similar uses, shall be located the maximum
feasible distance from any adjacent residential dwelling unit, and shall incorporate any current
technology that reduces noise generation.
Evidence must be submitted to the Planning Department that clearly shows that site has full access to
the nearest public right -of -way, in that site ingress and egress is through lots which may or may not
allow access by way of access easements
Proposed fencing and anti- climbing material to be used shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit
A landscape plan that adequately addresses screening shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit
As part of the submitted landscape plan, information shall be included that adequately addresses the
need for regular site maintenance to ensure that noxious weeds are not present and at the same time
no dust leaves the property in such a manner that it becomes a nuisance
The proposed tower, due to its height of 150 feet, will not be screened from adjacent properties,
existing and platted. A shadow will likely be cast on the recently approved lots to the east in the
Founder Square planned unit development. As space is leased on the new tower, a larger shadow will
be cast on adjacent residential property. Therefore, the entire parcel of 2.76 -acres shall be screened
and/or appropriately landscaped so as to complement the surrounding residential properties. The
submitted landscape plan shall addresses screening of the tower base and also for the entire subject
parcel
Due to the projects potential visual impacts on adjacent property, the submitted landscape plan, if
determined by the planning and zoning administrator, may need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission rather than a staff review.
Case No. 07 00327 Page 7
ATE ON
COMMUNICATIONS
/ \ INC.
ZU OW&M SaQutc'a
545 S. Utah Circle r
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Phone(208)522 -0750
Fax(208)525 -3400
City of Rexburg
Planning & Zoning Department
19 E. Main
Rexburg, Idaho 83440 September 7, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to formally notify the City of Rexburg of our request to appeal the
denial of our application to build a 150' tower at the Rexburg Bench.
As a result of the Planning & Zoning Department's actions it is necessary for us to gather
additional information concerning the tower development in that area. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, we request the following:
A) Copies of Building Permit Applications for towers on the Rexburg Bench for the
last ten (10) years.
B) Copies of the Building Permit and any conditions placed on the Building Permit
for towers.
C) Copies of any and all ordinances that apply or applied to tower construction
within the last ten (10) years. We will also need to know the exact dates that the
ordinances were effective or void.
D) Names and phone numbers of the Landowners that "own" the land, under the
easement we use to access our land.
E) Copy of the recently approved platt on the east side of our property.
Since time is of the essence, it is essential this information be gathered as quickly as
possible so we may use it at our meeting with the City Council.
Please let me know if there is anything else we need to do for this meeting.
Sincere y
r
ony
TCIJRexurgPln&Zoning. doc
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to formally notify the City of Rexburg of our request to appeal the
denial of our application to build a 150' tower at the Rexburg Bench.
As a result of the Planning & Zoning Department's actions it is necessary for us to gather
additional information concerning the tower development in that area. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, we request the following:
A) Copies of Building Permit Applications for towers on the Rexburg Bench for the
last ten (10) years.
B) Copies of the Building Permit and any conditions placed on the Building Permit
for towers.
C) Copies of any and all ordinances that apply or applied to tower construction
within the last ten (10) years. We will also need to know the exact dates that the
ordinances were effective or void
D) Names and phone numbers of the Landowners that "own" the land, under the
easement we use to access our land.
E) Copy of the recently approved plait on the east side of our property.
Since time is of the essence, it is essential this information be gathered as quickly as
possible so we may use it at our meeting with the City Council.
Please let me know if there is anything else we need to do for this meeting.
Sincerely
ony
TCUReamugPln&Zor,ing: doc
Tn ETON
COMMUNICATIONS
/ \INC.�
�.
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Phone (208) 522 -0750
Fax (208) 525 -3400
City of Rexburg
Planning & Zoning Department
19 E. Main
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
September 7, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to formally notify the City of Rexburg of our request to appeal the
denial of our application to build a 150' tower at the Rexburg Bench.
As a result of the Planning & Zoning Department's actions it is necessary for us to gather
additional information concerning the tower development in that area. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, we request the following:
A) Copies of Building Permit Applications for towers on the Rexburg Bench for the
last ten (10) years.
B) Copies of the Building Permit and any conditions placed on the Building Permit
for towers.
C) Copies of any and all ordinances that apply or applied to tower construction
within the last ten (10) years. We will also need to know the exact dates that the
ordinances were effective or void
D) Names and phone numbers of the Landowners that "own" the land, under the
easement we use to access our land.
E) Copy of the recently approved plait on the east side of our property.
Since time is of the essence, it is essential this information be gathered as quickly as
possible so we may use it at our meeting with the City Council.
Please let me know if there is anything else we need to do for this meeting.
Sincerely
ony
TCUReamugPln&Zor,ing: doc
C�
04 gEXB URr, 1Q
U.� O
September 14, 2007
Tony Hafla
Teton Communications, Inc
545 S. Utah Circle
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Mr. Hafla:
•
CITY O F
REX
America's Family Community
Your request to review records was delivered to me on September 11, and I have
reviewed the request with the Rexburg City Attorney. The records that you have
requested are in numerous locations and will take approximately 10 working days to
assemble. I would be happy to make`an area available for you to review the requested
documents on between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. September 24, 2007. I anticipate at that
time I will have had adequate time to pull the requested documents from archives and the
various data bases used by the City.
I do not anticipate providing you with information relative to contacting owners of the
underlying parcels to your access, as that information is not maintained by the City, but
rather by the county assessor's office.
Please let me know a specific time that you will be arriving to review the documents so
that I can make arrangements to have personnel available to assist.
Sincerely,
Gary Leikness
Gar}- Leikness Planning and Zoning Administrator 19 E. Mail Rexburg. ll) 83440 P. 0. Box 280
Phone (208) 359.3020 ext. 314 Fax (208) 3593022
garyl @rexburg. o� svnra! rnxbu�.org
Idaho Statutes
Idaho Statutes
Page 1 of 2
TITLE 9
EVIDENCE
CHAPTER 3
PUBLIC WRITINGS
9 -338. PUBLIC RECORDS -- RIGHT TO EXAMINE. (1) Every person has a right
to examine and take a copy of any public record of this state and there is a
presumption that all public records in Idaho are open at all reasonable times
for inspection except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.
(2) The right to copy public records shall include the right to make
photographs or photographic or other copies while the records are in the
possession of the custodian of the records using equipment provided by the
public agency or independent public body corporate and politic or using
equipment designated by the custodian.
(3) Additionally, the custodian of any public record shall give the
person, on demand, a certified copy of it if the record is of a nature
permitting such copying or shall furnish reasonable opportunity to inspect or
copy such record.
(4) The custodian shall make no inquiry of any person who applies for a
public record, except to verify the identity of a person requesting a record
in accordance with section 9 -342, Idaho Code, to ensure that the requested
record or information will not be used for purposes of a mailing or telephone
list prohibited by section 9 -348, Idaho Code, or as otherwise provided by law,
and except as required for purposes of protecting personal information from
disclosure under chapter 2, title 49, Idaho Code, and federal law. The person
may be required to make a written request and provide their name, a mailing
address and telephone number.
(5) The custodian shall not review, examine or scrutinize any copy,
photograph or memoranda in the possession of any such person and shall extend
to the person all reasonable comfort and facility for the full exercise of the
right granted under this act.
(6) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the custodian from maintaining
such vigilance as is required to prevent alteration of any public record while
it is being examined.
(7) Examination of public records under the authority of this section
must be conducted during regular office or working hours unless the custodian
shall authorize examination of records in other than regular office or working
hours. In this event, the persons designated to represent the custodian during
such examination shall be entitled to reasonable compensation to be paid to
them by the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic
having custody of such records, out of funds provided in advance by the person
examining such records, at other than regular office or working hours.
(8) (a) A public agency or independent public body corporate and politic
or public official may establish a copying fee schedule. The fee may not
exceed the actual cost to the agency of copying the record if another fee
is not otherwise provided by law. The actual cost shall not include any
administrative or labor costs resulting from locating and providing a copy
of the public record; provided however, that a public agency or
independent public body corporate and politic or public official may
establish a fee to recover the actual labor cost associated with locating
and copying documents if:
(i) The request is for more than one hundred (100) pages of paper
records; or
(ii) The request includes records from which nonpublic information
must be deleted; or
(iii) The actual labor associated with locating and copying documents
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=090030038.K 9/12/2007
Idaho Statutes is Page 2 of 2
for a request exceeds two (2) person hours.
(b) For providing a duplicate of a computer tape, computer disc,
microfilm or similar or analogous record system containing public record
information, a public agency or independent public body corporate and
politic or public official may charge a fee, uniform to all persons that
does not exceed the sum of the following:
(i) The agency's direct cost of copying the information in that
form;
(ii) The standard cost, if any, for selling the same information in
the form of a publication;
(iii) The agency's cost of conversion, or the cost of conversion
charged by a third party, if the existing electronic record is
converted to another electronic form.
The custodian may require advance payment of the cost of copying. Any
money received by the public agency or independent public body corporate
and politic shall be credited to the account for which the expense being
reimbursed was or will be charged, and such funds may be expended by the
agency as part of its appropriation from that fund.
(c) The public agency or independent public body corporate and politic
may not charge any cost or fee for copies or labor when the requester
demonstrates either:
(i) The inability to pay; or
(ii) That the public's interest or the public's understanding of the
operations or activities of government or its records would suffer by
the assessment or collection of any fee.
(9) A public agency or independent public body corporate and politic
shall not prevent the examination or copying of a public record by contracting
with a nongovernmental body to perform any of its duties or functions.
(10) Nothing contained herein shall prevent a public agency or independent
public body corporate and politic from disclosing statistical information that
is descriptive of an identifiable person or persons, unless prohibited by law.
(11) Nothing contained herein shall prevent a public agency or independent
public body corporate and politic from providing a copy of a public record in
electronic form if the record is available in electronic form and if the
person specifically requests an electronic copy. A request for a public record
and delivery of the public record may be conducted by electronic mail.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I. C. § 9 -350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
http: / /www3. state. id. us/ cgi- bin/newidst ?sctid= 090030038.K 9/12/2007
Planning & Zoning Minutes
September 6, 2007
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
�i01 4tiXB U/rC r7
v� o
CITY O F
REX
Americas Family Community
Commissioners Atte
Winston Dyer — Chairman
David Stein
Mary Ann Mounts
Ted Hill
Dan Hanna
Mike Ricks
Thaine Robinson
Mary Haley
Randall Porter
David Stein acted as chair for Winston Dyer, who would be late.
Chairman Stein opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
City Staff and Others
Rex Erickson — City Council Liaison
Gary Leikness — Planning Administrator
Stephen Zol finger — City Attorney
Jimmy Barrett — City Attorney
Emily Abe — Secretary
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Mike Ricks, Mary Ann Mounts, Randall Porter, Thaine Robinson, David Stein, Mary Haley, Dan Hanna, Ted Hill.
Charles Andersen was excused.
Minutes:
A. Planning and Zoning meeting — August 16, 2007
Mike Ricks motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for August 16, 2007. Dan Hanna seconded the
motion.
Mary Ann Mounts, Mary Haley and Randall Porter abstained for having not been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda:
Alicia Thornburg asked for clarification on the intent of a condition of approval for her conditional use permit at
366 West 3rd South and 276 Steiner Avenue. She asked how the commission would like her to prevent parking on
the concrete areas next to the driveways.
The Commissioners told her to put something there that will prevent parking on the areas, but it was up to her on
exactly what she wants to do. Planters would be fine.
Public Hearings
7:05 pm — Rezone — RR1 to MDR1 — 796 West 7 South
Kurt Roland Schiess & Associates, 310 N 2 nd E. He said they are proposing to rezone the property from RR1 to
MDR1. He pointed the property out on the map.
Thaine Robinson asked what the impact on schools would be from changing from Rural Residential to Medium
Density Residential. Kurt Roland said they plan to put townhomes on the property.
David Stein asked if there is a development plan or concept plan for the property. Kurt Roland said there is not.
Randall Porter asked if a development plan is required by code. Gary Leikness said the code does not require a
development plan for a zone change request, but the commission could require it.
Chairman Stein opened the public input portion.
In favor: None
Neutral:
Russ Van-Allen 635 Casper Ave. I hope you have read the letter submitted. It was written by members of my
family who live next to this property. I am concerned with Mary Ann Beck's West property line and our East
property line. The GIS map is inaccurate. The line should be straight, not as the map shows it. He does not want
part of his property put into her property. There is an error by the surveyor. Everything is off by 10 feet.
Opposed: None
Written Input:
Letter from Maurine G. Steiner and Teddie Lou Steiner neutral to the proposal.
Rebuttal:
Kurt Roland said Mary Ann Beck will be building a home that will buffer the adjacent property.
Chairman Stein closed the public input portion.
Gary Leikness presented the staff report.
Mike Ricks said if the half -acre for Mary Ann Beck's home will be on the west side, then this will buffer the
residential area. Since the MDR1 zone complies with the comprehensive plan, this sounds okay.
Mary Haley said what has been talked about needs to be in writing, as far as Miss Beck's property providing the
buffer.
Chairman Stein said he feels there should be a concept plan submitted, since this is such a dramatic change in
zoning that abuts residential.
The Commissioners discussed the issue.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the zone change from RR1 to MDR1 at
796 West 7 South. We need to make sure the property boundaries are right, as addressed by Mr. Van-Allen. Ted
Hill seconded the motion.
2
•
None opposed. Motion carried.
•
7:20 pm — Conditional Use Permit — 322 West 4`'' South — Self Storage Unit Facility
Jeremy Bingham said he purchased the property and has already improved it. He said most of the conditions of
approval in the staff report will apply to the building permit. He is worried about the conditions for the masonry
wall and the hours of operation. If you are skiing at Targhee, you can't get back to your storage unit to put your
skis away before they would have to be closed. He said dictating the hours of operation might not be appropriate
for this type of business. This is a good use for the property. It is close to campus and is a business that will bring
revenue to Rexburg.
Winston Dyer arrived at 7:53 pm.
Mary Haley asked if they are planning to have an office frontage to the street. Jeremy Bingham said they are not.
He said people passing by will see a nice rod -iron fence with fir trees, bushes, and nice landscaping. It will look a
lot like what Adam's Elementary did, except it will be 8 feet instead of 4 feet.
Thaine Robinson asked where the entrances would be. Jeremy Bingham said the fence would go across the front
with an automatic gate in the middle of the storage units.
Chairman Stein opened the public input portion.
In favor:
Ryan Orme 3737 Taylor Ln. I am in favor of these storage units. It is a good fit for the community, and I think
there is a need. Storage units are an acceptable use there. I feel this should be approved.
Inel Curtis lives across the street. This is wonderful. We have the other storage unit right in front of our house
and haven't had a problem with it. This is fantastic. When I first heard it was being zoned, I hoped it wasn't going
to be apartments. This is a great idea for this area, and it is really needed.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Input: None
Chairman Stein closed the public input portion.
Gary Leikness presented the staff report.
Thaine Robinson asked how we can address the long rooflines. Gary Leikness said these roofs will only be about
8 of 10 feet tall.
Mary Ann Mounts said the metal roofs concern her, since this will cause all the snow /ice to slide into the
neighbor's property.
Chairman Stein said we have design standards to protect the commercial zones, so his opinion is that these will
have to adhere to the design standards as much as they can.
Dan Hanna asked if the storage units next to this property have limited hours of operation. Gary Leikness said he
does not know.
Mike Ricks said the fence needs to be at least 50 feet from the street so people have places to park. The entrance
way should be at least 24 feet wide, since most people will have trailers in there.
Thaine Robinson said if they buffered this from the street with nice landscaping, he would not be opposed to it.
Winston Dyer said we spent a lot of time comprehensively planning the West 4` South area, and we wanted to
encourage commercial development of that area. We wanted to preserve it as a business corridor. This does not
appear to be the highest and best use of the property. Since the lots here are all narrow and deep and singularly
owned, smaller developments are being proposed. Also, because this is commercial, these people want to run their
business and not have it restricted by hours of operation. When it was zoned commercial, it was a given that they
would run their business as they would. Our City nuisance ordinance could address any problems that arise if the
hours of operation are abused.
The Commissioners discussed the hours of operation.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit at 322 West 4`'' South for a Self Storage Unit
Facility with the conditions listed in the staff report (see below), and that the slope of the roofs be inward to the
property in question. She emphasized condition #11 about emergency vehicles, that there needs to be space for a
50 foot vehicle to be able to maneuver. Winston Dyer seconded the motion.
Mike Ricks said there should be fifty feet from the curb so large vehicles with trailers can park safely.
Dan Hanna asked if the motion included #12.
Winston Dyer suggested a condition of approval addressing the storm drainage for the property.
Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion to exclude condition #12, so the hours of regulation are not regulated.
The nuisance ordinance can take care of that. She also added that the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the
gate be at least 50 feet to allow for safely parked vehicles with trailers, and that the storm drainage of the property
be worked out with the City Engineer. Winston Dyer seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Proposed Conditions ofApproval
1. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible from adjacent residential
property.
2. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way. This
screening, if in itself is deemed objectionable by affected property owners or other members of the community, should be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
3. A site plan, elevation plans, and a lighting plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards,
e.g. landscaping, parking, design standards, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
5. Large equipment that is to be located on the subject property and is to be used for heating /cooling /ventilation of the
proposed building(s), or similar uses, shall be located the maximum feasible distance from any adjacent residential dwelling
unit, and shall incorporate any current technology that reduces noise generation.
11
0 0
6. The CBC zone requires a 20 -foot setback from property line; as the property line does not begin until approximately 15
feet behind back of sidewalk, the proposal will essentially need to observe a setback of approximately 35 -feet from back of
sidewalk.
7. The final setbacks shall be approved by the planning department during the review of the building permit application
process. All setback requirements shall be adhered to.
8. Sign permits are not covered by this permit and require a separate submittal for review and approval. Any and all signage
shall comply with Rexburg's Sign ordinance, and shall obtain sign permits prior to installation.
9. A decorative masonry wall, at least six (6) feet in height shall be erected along all property lines which lie adjacent to a
residential zone. This can be modified if the adjacent property owners agree on an alternative material and then this
mutually agreed upon fencing material is proposed and approved by the Planning Commission.
10. One parking space for every 200 units and one space per employee are required. Required parking shall be provided
adjacent to main office. No required space shall be rented for the use for vehicular or similar storage. The site plan to be
submitted with the building permit application shall be reviewed and approved by Madison Fire and Rescue as well as any
other applicable agency /municipality.
11. The site plan shall include a diagram depicting vehicle maneuvering for vehicles the size of the City's large emergency
vehicles. These vehicles should be depicted at corners of proposed buildings.
11 The rnahiraum hours of operation, excluding office ho irs,, is from Sam to 10 pm seven days per week. No use of the
storage units shall occur during the hours of 10pm to San including but not limited to loading and unloading of vehicles,
arrangement of materials inside or outside of st.orage units, and an)- other noise generating activities. (Excluded froze the
motion.)
13. Ten (10) percent of the total parking area must be provided for landscaping and snow removal. The applicant will need to
landscape all other areas not included as parking or maneuvering area. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the
building permit for review and approval by the planning department.
14. To provide adequate screening of the proposed buildings and use, decorative opaque fencing (as reviewed and approved
by the design review committee) shall be included along the front of the proposed buildings and parking area, but not
within the front yard setback. In addition, landscaping shall be established within the front yard setback shall include the
following as a minimum:
a. Fully automated sprinkler system- details to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
b. Evergreen trees- one tree per 20 feet of lot frontage, 7 -feet tall at planting. Drought tolerant and native trees should
be considered.
c. Shrubs- one shrub per 5 feet of lot frontage, five -gallon containers at planting. Drought tolerant and native shrubs
should be considered.
d. Ground cover shall include a majority of grass. Drought tolerant species such as buffalo grass or similar should be
considered.
Winston Dyer was restored as chair.
7:30 pm — Conditional Use Permit — South 2nd East — Cell Tower (Teton Communications)
Tony Hafla. Teton Communications, 545 S. Utah Circle, Idaho Falls. We are a multiple -use company, mostly two -
way radio. Most of our clients are public safety first responders. Our reason for going to a taller tower is because
of requests by those people. You cannot improve coverage on two -way radios by building another tower. You
have to get it all from a single location. We purchased the land in the early 1980s and specifically came to the City
to talk about the land use. We were given a green light, and were the third tower built up there. Since that time,
five additional towers have been allowed. Some of these towers are as close as 20 feet to our fence. We are being
held to all these requirements because these other towers are too close to us. We were there first, these people were
allowed to build, and now we are being denied because they are too close to us. In most communities, the towers
are clumped together so you don't have them all over in everyone's neighborhood. This is not a new use. We have
all been there a long time. Our new tower is proposed to go right next to our old tower, which is only 85 feet tall.
When I called to fill out the form, no one could tell me how high a tower we could even apply for. The current
ordinance is vague. We had to hire an engineer to measure the water tank to give the city the information about the
maximum tower height. There are a lot of pieces to this that have not been tried, tested, and evaluated. There are
9 0
also setbacks to new residential and proposed residential. Interestingly, more residential development has been
approved without protecting our incumbent right. We had a tower, why was residential development approved
within our buffer zone? This needs to be a two -way street. We tried to put our new tower as close to our existing
tower as possible to reduce the additional skyline impact. We also sit basically behind the water tank if viewed from
Highway 20. It is not as intrusive as it might appear to be. The skyline is pretty much dominated by the water
tower and the new temple. The towers that are in between have very little visibility. There were some comments in
the staff report about utilizing the existing facilities that are there. The reality is that these facilities are not
conducive to two -way radio communications. We need the signal to go all directions. If you put a directional
antenna on a monopole, you don't get a signal behind the pole. Monopoles are not used at all in the two -way radio
industry. We also worked really hard with the FAA to get this tower so we did not have to light it. It is a used
tower, and is a very faded red and white. It does qualify as red and white, and therefore does not require lighting.
We felt the lighting would be more of an encumbrance on the than the tower being colored. The other main item
that was brought up in the staff report was the easement, or the access to the site. I don't pretend to be an expert
on how roads become roads, but I know that this particular pathway has been used since the 1950s. Qwest usually
has some pretty high standards before they will install utilities, and there are utilities running down both sides of
that road. I fail to understand why that is an issue and is incumbent upon us of proving access. We will be happy
to donate property if that is what the situation is. Since this is a service corridor, landscaping and some of the other
issues in the staff report become unnecessary.
Mary Haley asked why they are not extending the height of the tower they already have. Tony Hafla said it is not
engineeringly possible. Mary Haley asked if they could tear down the one they have and put the new one up.
Tony Hafla said they possible could do this, but they already have enough interest in potential contracts to fill about
2/3 to 3 /a of the new tower's space. They had originally anticipated building a 200 foot tower, because that is the
type of growth we can envision for this location, but they are limited by the height of the water tower.
Chairman Dyer asked how high the water tank is. Tony Hafla said it is 165 feet. The height of their existing tower
is 85 feet. Chairman Dyer asked if they could double the height of their existing tower. Tony Hafla said this
would be not economical, because we would have to dig up the foundation and replace it.
Thaine Robinson asked him to point out where the tower is proposed to be, and where the existing tower is.
Tony Hafla pointed this out on the map.
David Stein asked if the City of Rexburg first responders were clients of Teton Communications. Tony Hafla said
both Public Works and the Police Department are their clients.
Mary Haley asked if their signal was being blocked right now. Tony Hafla said they are being blocked off the hill
towards the college. The landform is in the way. Mary Haley asked if the new tower will fix the problem. Toni
Hafla said the new tower will have better visibility, although not perfect.
Thaine Robinson asked what color the tower is. Tony Hafla said it is a faded red and white. Thaine Robinson
said the ordinance requires him to reduce visual obtrusiveness. This would probably stand out, especially next to
the other towers. Tony Hafla said their goal was to not have to put lighting on the tower, since they feel this would
be much more obtrusive.
Chairman Dyer asked if the color of the tower could be changed if the tower were lit. Tony Hafla said it could.
Dan Hanna asked conditions of approval the applicant is most concerned about. Tony Hafla said the landscaping
requirement is a concern. Without water, landscaping is hard to do. Also, the residential lots already are landscaped
to provide a buffer. The commercial lighting standards should not apply because we would prefer not to have any
lighting. We can't do much about the shadow from the tower. However, since it is a lattice tower, it will cast much
9 0
less of a tower than the monopoles or city water tank cast. Also, fencing the entire 2 acres seems a bit much. The
landscaping requirements are their biggest concern. He has issues with proposed conditions 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The Commissioners discussed these issues.
Gary Leikness showed pictures of the existing towers in the area, as well as the proposed new location.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion.
In favor: None
Neutral:
Richard Smith 950 S. Millhollow Road. I come tonight not to discuss whether it is a good idea to put towers here
or not to put towers here, but to address historically what has happened on the last two towers that have gone up in
that area. In 2001, a company came to locate a tower about a quarter mile east of this area. It was proposed to be a
cell tower, and because of its height, it was not required to be lit. At that time, the Commission had testimony from
the Life Flight Helicopter operations out of Idaho Falls, and there was discussion that that was a very unsafe
condition. Mr. Hafla is correct in some parts and incorrect in other parts. It is true that FAA may not require the
tower to be lit, but it is not true that he can just build a tower as high as he wants and have FAA approval. The
FAA has approved an instrument approach into the Rexburg Airport. That instrument approach is based upon the
height of the water tower. If penetration of any tower above the height of the Rexburg water tower is allowed,
FAA will take away that instrument approach. They will raise it and make it less usable. The P &Z Commission in
2001 imposed a condition upon the tower that was 1300 feet away that it could not be higher than the water tower,
and that it had to be lit, even though it wasn't required to be lit by the FAA. They did that because of safety
concerns for the life flight helicopter operations going in and out of the area. There was already a tower in the area
that was not lit, and it was a very unsafe condition while flying at night. There are operators around that would
strongly disagree with the idea that it is okay to put up structures that are not lit. Life Flight sent letters to this
body, who reviewed it and imposed a lighting restriction on the tower. I would suggest that whether this is allowed
or not, that those two conditions be required. It should not be above the water tower, and it should be lit. There
are cell towers up there now that really look higher than the water tower. This might be an optical allusion. I
guarantee that that is an enforcement issue. It is the way they were constructed, not the way they were approved.
In 2004, another tower was permitted in the area. It was on the land that I own and leased them. We removed two
towers from the eastern side of Rexburg. At that time, Verizon came in with a request to put a tower in. This body
placed the following conditions: it would be lit, it would be lower than the water tower, and a 15 year life was
placed on the tower. After 15 years, the tower will go away. These are certainly things that the Commission should
consider. I commend this body for proposing and passing the ordinance regulating cell towers. Right now cell
towers are not allowed within 450 feet of residential zones. I commend you for doing that. It will stop the
proliferation of many of these towers. I want to point out one thing. I am concerned with a related item that
Planning & Zoning is considering in conjunction with the Madison County Planning & Zoning Commission. Right
now the impact area south of Poleline Road extends about 300 feet. There is discussion that that impact area be
shrunk back to Poleline Road. That is directly across the street from a major City subdivision and newly proposed
subdivision all in this area. According to the County Planning code, AG1 allows the building of a cell tower without
any height restriction. To give up your impact area directly across the street from a fully developed subdivision is
not a prudent thing to do. Impact areas are intended to protect the City of Rexburg from intruding uses, and to
impose in that area all the ordinances in the City. I am suggesting to you that even though you have a great
ordinance to stop cellular towers and a great ability to impose conditional use permits on them, the day you shrink
rather than expand this impact area is the day you invite and allow any farmer along that entire route to allow at 200
or 300 foot tower. You really ought to think twice before you allow any changing of that impact area. If anything,
the impact area ought to be expanded at least a half -mile to the south. There is no logical reason that the County
7
9 0
Planning Commission should want to control the growth of Rexburg to the South. Those are my feelings about the
cell towers, and a little history about how you folks have approached these in the past.
Opposed: None
Written Input: None
Rebuttal:
Tony Hafla said Richard was correct in that the FAA has the rule of the land as far as setting tower heights. You
can't just build a tower as tall as you want. You have to apply and they give you a permit if it is over 199 feet. If it
is under 199 feet, they will evaluate it compared to approaches to runways. They may restrict you to a lower height,
and they may force you to light it, paint it or both. Our proposed tower has been approved by the FAA without
lighting at 150 feet. We did have approval through them at 200 feet as well, but this does not fit your current
ordinance. The way we were approved without lighting is because we are already surrounded by six other lighted
facilities. We actually made the argument that we would like to not light it and add to the light pollution up there.
They agreed. You folks might feel differently. As you folks plan Rexburg, everyone carries wireless devices. You
need to plan for that. The ordinance is a very good start at that, but it was probably put together very hastily and
didn't think about a lot of things that you might want to review now. Richard is obviously not opposed to cell
towers since he has one on his property, but he is concerned about issues. The other thing that would come into
play is that is if you are going to allow additional subdivisions, commercial, rezoning, etc, it would be prudent to
look at how you are impacting what is already existing there. When this subdivision was approved, I don't think
anyone made sure the lots were setback 450 feet from the existing towers. It should go both ways.
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion.
Gary Leikness presented the staff report. He recommended the application be denied, based on the criteria of the
ordinance that are not met. He addressed these issues.
David Stein asked how the Commission can approve a conditional use permit if the application does not meet the
ordinance. Gary Leikness said the ordinance allows the Commission to waive some requirements if they feel they
are not appropriate.
Chairman Dyer asked Timmy Barrett if the Commission could approve this when it does not meet the ordinance.
Timmy Barrett said they can deviate from the ordinance as long as it serves a purpose of the ordinance.
The Commissioners discussed the proposal.
David Stein said if we are going to allow towers, he would rather see it in this location rather that somewhere else
in town. There are already numerous towers in the area, and this one will not make a huge difference.
Dan Hanna said he would like to hear testimony from the first responders that this tower is needed. If this is
critical to our community, we need to consider it. This location has already been established as an area for cell
towers.
Mary Ann Mounts said she wants proof that there is not already space there that is not being utilized.
Chairman Dyer asked if cell towers are allowed in the LDR1 zone. Gary Leikness said they are allowed as a
conditional use.
•
•
Chairman Dyer said we wrote this ordinance to try to get our arms around the cell towers in Rexburg and the
communications professionals were complaining that because of the shape of the hill you can't get around it to
serve all the areas of Rexburg. We tried to encourage them to get on buildings at the University, and they came
back with technical reasons why that wouldn't be sufficient. The top of the hill was the most likely place, although
some did go further out into the county that can get in under the hill. We did at the time designated that we would
like to get these towers grouped and get them to share towers whenever possible. We have a real dilemma. Where
do we put cell towers if this is not the place?
Mike Ricks said for the good of the community, if there are going to be cell towers, this is probably where they
should be located. However, a tower this tall ought to have a light on the top.
Mary Haley asked if those towers were ever considered in people buying and developing the surrounding
properties. Chairman Dyer said it wasn't, but it should have been looked at more closely. It is a buyer beware
situation.
Thaine Robinson said there will probably be 300 homes in this area in the next 15 years. The property might have
a right to put this tower up, but he also has a technology that we don't know will be around in 15 years. With
technology changing so fast, maybe this should be taken down in that amount of time.
Mary Ann Mounts asked how we know if this use cannot be accommodated on existing towers.
Ted Hill said with the towers in the area already, this additional tower will not have a huge impact. He does not
feel it should have to be lighted, since the towers around it are already lighted. We should not restrict this tower
with a time period. If the time comes that this towers is not being used, they will take it down.
Randall Porter said he thinks the time will come when people will recognize that we are losing our scenic vistas
and open spaces on the horizons and will ask us to stop building cell towers in that area. However, I don't know if
this one is the straw that will break the camel's back. As soon as homes start popping up in these subdivisions,
people will ask if we really need these towers. Most of these towers are hidden from 2 East, but they won't be
hidden from the communities that are planned in this area.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to deny the Conditional Use Permit for a cell tower on South 2nd East because the
ordinance has not been met, as stated in the staff report. Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts said we have to honor the ordinance. We cannot decide at some future date to start following
the ordinance because the neighbors start complaining. If we don't like the ordinance, we need to change it. If they
don't meet the ordinance, they should be denied.
Dan Hanna said we need more information.
Those in favor: Those opposed:
David Stein Ted Hill
Mary Ann Mounts Chairman Dyer
Mary Haley
Dan Hanna
Randall Porter
Mike Ricks
Thaine Robinson
Motion carried.
I
•
Unfinished /Old Business
New Business
1. Final Plat — Hidden Valley Trails, Phase 1
Chairman Dyer declared a direct conflict of interest and excused himself from the table.
David Stein was selected to act as chair.
Winston Dyer The Dyer Group, 310 N 2 E. He presented the final plat for Hidden Valley Trails, Phase 1. He
pointed the area out on the map. He said the layout of Hidden Valley Road has been changed because of concerns
about a straight shot down the hill. He pointed out some utility services that have been adjusted since preliminary
plat approval. We have put storm drain collectors at certain points, and we have put easements on the plat to be
able to pipe that water down into the bottom of the canyon, where detention basins will be developed. He
addressed the staff review comments.
GM Leikness presented the staff review comments.
The Commissioners discussed the plat.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the final plat for Hidden Valley Trails,
Phase 1 with the condition that at least one more public access be added to the dedicated trail in this phase.
Thaine Robinson seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Winston Dyer was restored as chair.
2. Preliminary Plat — Silver Estates
Kurt Roland Schiess & Associates, 310 N 2nd E. He presented the preliminary plat for Silver Estates. He pointed
the area out on the map. He addressed the staff review comments. He said staff would like the roads to line up
with the grid system. We can move those roads anywhere.
Thaine Robinson asked if a master plan could be submitted, so we can see the design for the entire thing. Kurt
Roland said it has not all been designed yet.
Mary Haley asked if the units would be individually owned. Kurt Roland said they would.
Gary Leikness reviewed the staff review comments. He recommended that the city grid system be adhered to. This
plat does not adhere to the grid system, and it does not provide future connectivity.
The Commissioners discussed the plat.
Mary Haley said she doesn't know how the plat can be approved, since it doesn't line up with the grid system.
10
9 0
Kurt Roland said he would like the City to reconsider the grid system on this piece of ground, because if we put the
road on the south end of the development, we cannot have development on both sides of the road.
The Commissioners discussed the issue.
Mary Haley motioned to table the preliminary plat for Silver Estates until the applicant can confer with the city
and get the further information we need. David Stein seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
3. Preliminary Plat — Professional Plaza Modification Plat
Dan Dummar; 5 Mill Race Road. He presented the preliminary plat for the Professional Plaza Modification. We
are simply re- platting the existing Professional Plaza plat to reflect the current ownership. We are vacating a private
alleyway along the perimeter. He pointed out the private alleyway that is commonly owned by the individually
owners of the subdivision. We are trying to transfer ownership from common ownership to the individual property
owners. The issue is that when people want to do something with their property, they can't because it is commonly
owned. There is currently one person that has expanded his building, and he needs to transfer everything into
individual ownership in order for that to be approved. The owners of the subdivision have met with a city
representative present, and have gone over this in detail. There is no change of zoning. He addressed the staff
review notes.
Stephen Zollinoer said the city has requested that the owners in this subdivision to correct the issue that Dr. Smith
has expanded his building onto property he does not own. This plat is their attempt to do this. If this is not
corrected, he will have to move his building. The other owners in the subdivision all signed an affidavit that it is
okay for his building to be there for the city to approve the building permit, but the mortgage company will not
accept that. This plat will not change anything that the city is concerned about.
The Commissioners discussed the plat.
Chairman Dyer opened the issue to questions from the public.
Ron Lindsay; a neighboring property owner. We are concerned about the Professional Plaza. He asked if this
means that Dr. Smith's building will encroach out onto the alley way. Stephen Zollinger said it already does, but it
does not encroach into the setbacks. Ron LindsaT asked if this is a precursor for encroachment into residential
areas. We have no objection at this time to the proposal.
Chairman Dyer said that the Professional Plaza will still have the required setbacks off of the property lines. We
have required setbacks to keep them from getting too close to the residential area.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the preliminary plat for the Professional
Plaza Modification Plat. Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
Chairman Dyer abstained.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Compliance: None
11
Tabled requests:
1. Preliminary Plat — Henry's Fork Plaza Amended Plat
Randall Porter motioned to pick the preliminary plat for the Henry's Fork Plaza Amended plat up off the table.
Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Kurt Roland; Schiess & Associates, 310 N 2nd E. He presented the preliminary plat for Henry's Fork Plaza. Since
last meeting, we have made the building pads smaller. We have added the two accesses to the East to the Steiner
property. We have also started the landscaping on Henry's Fork Plaza, Division 1 along Yellowstone Highway. It
is almost finished. We have talked to the contractor, and they are going to have the asphalt on Yellowstone
Highway repaired by the end of the month. We also have street lights on the two entrances. We still need to talk to
John Millar about the guard rail. We also staggered the buildings, as requested.
The Commissioners discussed the plat.
Dan Hanna motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the preliminary plat for the Henry's Fork Plaza
Amended Plat. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion.
Ted Hill said each building should have a green area in front of them.
Dan Hanna amended his motion to include that the buildings should be set back enough to allow a green area in
front. Mary Ann Mounts seconded.
Dan Hanna amended his motion to include that no buildings are allowed in the dedicated easements. Mary Ann
Mounts seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
2. Sign Ordinance — Statement of Intent
Issue remained on the table.
Report on Projects:
Gary Leikness said we will be getting a variance request from the school district for their property on 1" East.
Building Permit Application Report: None
Heads Up:
1. Rezone — LDR2 to MDR2 — 710 South 5th West
Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 12:41 am.
12
•
Gary Leikness
•
From: Gary Leikness
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:45 AM
To: 'TONY HAFLA'
Subject: Ordinance 915 question
Tony,
After our conversation on the phone this morning, I reviewed ordinance 915 to look at permitted increases in tower
heights. The ordinance (Section 6(b)(2)(b)) does allow an existing tower to increase its height if the following occurs:
1) This height increase occurs only once during the life of the structure.
2) The tower has to be the same as the existing, i.e. if you replace a monopole, the new one must be a monopole.
However, the ordinance does allow a lattice tower to change to a monopole.
3) The purpose of the height increase is for the purpose of collocation, i.e. If you had an existing tower with an
antenna and your proposal included installing an additional antenna at this time.
4) Height does not increase beyond the height of the city's water tower.
This is the only part of the ordinance that I may have mentioned to you in a previous conversation we may have had last
year. I hope this helps you.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or clarification needed.
Sincerely,
Gary
Gary Leikness
P &Z Administrator
19 E Main
PO Box 280
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
E -mail- garyl @rexbure.ore
Phone- (208)359 -3020 Ext. 314
RADIAN
� Products
PURCHASER:
NAME OF PRODUCT:
FILE NUMBER:
DRAWING NUMBER:
Radian
Communication
Services
6718 West Plank Road
Peoria, IL 61604
Telephone + 1 309 697 4400
Facsimile + 1 309 697 5612
www.radiancorp.com
TETON COMMUNICATIONS
MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO
MAT FOUNDATION DETAIL
060 -3699, 45474EH003
A070277 1 -3
I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED DRAWING AND CALCULATIONS WERE
PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LOADING CRITERIA SPECIFIED BY THE PURCHASER AND THAT I AM A
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF IDAHO.
CERTIFIED BY:
6 11s/aI �� 9098
DATE: E
J. A�
50 Years of Service to the ' om1 tunic o ns
V V LS 2007
CITY OF REXBURG
NOTE: SEE TOWER ASSEMBLY DRAWING FOR FOUNDATION LAYOUT AND
ANCHORAGE EMBEDMENT DRAWING NUMBER.
�.-- 13'- 6"
i
Centroid of }r }-
Mat & Tower j ' �. 13' - 6"
I �
I
I �
�
VOLUME OF CONCRETE
112.6 Cu. Yds.
27'- 0" Sq.
REACTIONS
PLAN Maximum OTM = 1954.2 Ft -Kips
Total Tower Wt = 3 9 s 4 Kips
Total Shear = 23A Kips
Max. Shear/Leg = 15.4 Kips
Max. Ten./Leg = 109.6 Kips
28 No. 7 Horizontal Bars, Equally Max. Comp./Leg = 139 1 Kips
Spaced Each Way, Top and Bottom
(112 Total)
Ground Line ----------- . ------- - - - - -
_�W��
4' -0"
T
tT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —0 1 I
2'- 3" -
I — 3' - 6"
2'- 5" Dia.
1 (Typical) (Typical)
ELEVATION
SITE: Madison, ID
SHEET 1 OF 3
No. A Revision Description A Date Rev By Ckd By Appd By
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RADIAN. IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED,
COPIED OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT.
R ADIAN -
Scale: NONE
By
Date
Title:
Mat Foundation Detail
Drawn:
FDA
05/24/07
For
Teton Communications
Checked:
IbIAfG
s
App. Eng.:
S ��
ENG. FILE: 45474EHO03/060 -3699 DRAWING NO.: A070277 -1
Foundation General Notes
1. A geotechnical report has not been provided to RADIAN for foundation design. Purchaser has
requested foundation design to be based on presumptive soil design parameters. It is the
responsibility of the purchaser to verify that presumptive soil design parameters are
appropriate based upon actual soil conditions. Foundation design modifications may be
required in the event the following design parameters are not applicable for the subsurface
conditions encountered.
A. Allowable net bearing pressure at 3.5 foot depth = 3.2 ksf.
B. Maximum frost depth less than depth of foundation.
C. Ground water table below depth of foundation.
2. Work shall be in accordance with local codes, safety regulations and unless otherwise
noted, the latest revision of ACI 318, 'Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete ". Procedures for the protection of excavations, existing construction and
utilities shall be established prior to foundation installation.
3. Concrete materials shall conform to the appropriate state requirements for exposed
structural concrete.
4. Proportions of concrete materials shall be suitable for installation method utilized and
shall result in durable concrete for resistance to local anticipated aggressive actions.
The durability requirements of ACI 318 Chapter 4 shall be satisfied based on the conditions
expected at the site. As a minimum, concrete shall develop a minimum compressive strength
of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) in 28 days.
5. Maximum size of aggregate shall not exceed size suitable for the installation method
utilized or 1/3 clear distance behind or between reinforcing. Maximum size may be
increased to 2/3 clear distance provided workability and methods of consolidation such as
vibrating will prevent honeycombs or voids.
6. Reinforcement shall be deformed and conform to the requirements of ASTM A615 grade 60
unless otherwise noted. Splices in reinforcement shall not be allowed unless otherwise
indicated.
7. Welding is prohibited on reinforcing steel and embedments.
8. Minimum concrete cover for reinforcement shall be 3 inches (76 mm) unless otherwise noted.
Approved spacers shall be used to insure a 3 inch (76 mm) minimum cover on reinforcement.
9. Foundation design assumes structural backfill to be compacted in 8 inch (200 mm) maximum
layers to 95% of maximum dry density at optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM
D698. Additionally, structural backfill must have a minimum compacted unit weight of 100
lb. /cu.ft. (15.7 kn/m3)..
10. Foundation design assumes level grade at site.
11. Foundation installation shall be supervised by personnel knowledgeable and experienced with
the proposed foundation type. Construction shall be in accordance with generally accepted
installation practices.
12. Foundation design assumes field inspections will be performed to verify that construction
materials, installation methods and assumed design parameters are acceptable based on
conditions existing at the site.
Engr File No.: 45474EHO03/060 -3699 Drawing No.: A070277 -2
Foundation General Notes Continued
13. For foundation and anchor tolerances see structure assembly drawing.
14. Loose material shall be removed from bottom of excavation prior to concrete placement.
Sides of excavation shall be rough and free of loose cuttings.
15. Concrete shall be placed in a manner that will prevent segregation of concrete materials,
infiltration of water or soil and other occurrences which may decrease the strength or
durability of the foundation.
16. Concrete preferably shall be placed against undisturbed soil. When forms are necessary,
they shall be removed prior to placing structural backfill.
17. Foundation design assumes continuous concrete placement without construction joints.
18. Top of foundation outside limits of anchor bolts shall be sloped to drain with a floated
finish. Area inside limits of anchor bolts shall be level with a scratched finish.
19. Exposed edges of concrete shall be chamfered 3/4" x 3/4" (19mm x 19mm) minimum.
Engr File No.: 45474EHO03/060 -3699 Drawing No.: A070277 -3
MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN RESULTS
Total OTM at Base
2046.77
MAT FOUNDATION - v2
Act. Safety Factor for OTM
3.15-
File No: 45474EH003/060
-3699
C #: 1
Client: Teton Communications
1.56'KSF
TwrType: SSV 200.0
Ft
Site
MADISON, ID
Beam Shear Capacity
43.17
Kips /Ft
MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN
PARAMETERS - v2
Kips /Ft
Punching Shear Capacity
Compression /Leg
139.08
Kips
Ult Strength Concrete:
4.00
KSI
Tension /Leg
109.59
Kips
Unit Weight Concrete
0
KCF
Total Tower Shear
23.14
Kips ✓
Yield Strength Rebar
60 ' .00
KSI
Total Tower Weight:
39.43
Kips /
Max Soil Pressure
3.20
KSF
OverTurning Moment:
1954.21
FtKips
, Minimum Factor /Safety:
1.50
Tower Face Width
18.88
Feet ,
Load Factor
1.30
Tower Offset
0.00
Inches
Total Fnd Thickness
4.00
Feet
AncBolt Diameter
1.00
Inches
Fnd Hgt Above Grade
0.50
Feet
AncBolt Per Leg
6 ,-
EA Dimension
26.00
Inches
AncBolt Length
78.00
Inches
EB Dimension
31.00
Inches
AncBolt Circ Diam
10.50
Inches
Minimum Pocket Diam
29.00
Inches
Anc3olt Projection:
6.00
Inches
Final Fnd Width
27.00
Feet
MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN RESULTS
Total OTM at Base
2046.77
Ft -Kips
Act. Safety Factor for OTM
3.15-
Min. Safety Factor
1.50`
Act. Soil Pres /Diagonal Axis:
1.56'KSF
Allowable Soil Pressure
3.20
KSF
Beam Shear Capacity
43.17
Kips /Ft
Actual Beam Shear
9.56
Kips /Ft
Punching Shear Capacity
715.31
Kips
Calculated Pocket Depth
2.25
Ft
Final Pocket Depth
2.25
Ft
Structural Backfill
no
* FINAL MAT DIMENSIONS
27.00
FT SQUARE BY 4.00 FT THICK
Final Pocket Dimensions
29.00
inch diam. BY 2.25 ft deep.
Total Volume of Concrete
112.61
cubic yards.
Area of Steel Required 0.52 sq -in /foot both ways, top and bottom.
Use 28 #7 rebar on 11.78 inch centers, both ways, top & bottom.
Designed By: FDA Date: 05/
Checked By: 1 kvj& Date:
RADIAN
Pmducts
PURCHASER:
NAME OF PROJECT:
FILE NUMBER:
TETON COMMUNICATIONS
MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO
150 FT. MODEL SSV TOWER
060 -3699, 45474EH
Radian
Communication
Services
6718 West Plank Road
Peoria, IL 61604
Telephone + 1 309 697 4400
Facsimile + 1 309 697 5612
www.radiancorp.com
I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED STRESS ANALYSIS FOR THE REFERENCED
TOWER WAS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LOADING CRITERIA SPECIFIED BY THE PURCHASER AND THAT I AM
A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO.
CERTIFIED BY:
DATE:
�
Lei
•
tr u L ?Eli
World Headquarters
6718 W. Plank Rd.
1 0
RADIAN Peoria, IL 61604
PH: 309- 697 -4400 SA
FAX: 30M975612
ROHN PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
Date:
Product Review for:
Product Assembly Drawing:
ROHM File Number:
Radian Job Number:
May 24, 2007
150' SSV Tower Analysis
For Teton Communications
Site: Madison County, ID
C001065 (with noted modifications)
45474EH
060 -3699
Review Criteria: Design Wind Load per 2003 International Building Code (IBC)
Using ANSI/TIA/EIA -222 -F 1996 in Accordance with
Section 3108.4
90 mph 3- Second Gust Wind Speed (1/2" radial ice load)
75 mph Fastest -Mile Wind Speed (1/2" radial ice load)
REVIEW SUMMARY STATEMENTS
TOWER
■ All existing structural members are adequate. Refer to the Reviewer's Comments for additional
information.
FOUNDATION
■ New foundation design is provided.
Please also refer to the attached product review general notes.
Arias, E.I.T.
neering Department
RADIAN
World Headquarters
6718 W. Plank Rd.
Peoria, IL 61604 USA
PH: 309 - 697 -4400
FAX: 309 - 697 -5612
REVIEWER'S COMMENTS
Radian Job No.:
Reviewer:
I. Assumptions
45474EH/060 -3699 Date
Florence D. Arias Checker:
May 24, 2007
Donald Wm. Gall, P.E.
In addition to the assumptions stated in the Product Review General Notes, the following
assumptions have been made and must be verified by others:
• Product review assumes tower orientation is one leg north.
• Product review assumes step bolts for climbing w/ 0.375" safety cable.
• Product review assumes transmission lines are distributed over (2) 15 -hole waveguide ladders
and (1) 8 -hole waveguide ladder mounted on (3) tower faces.
• Product review assumes transmission lines and waveguide ladders are distributed as shown on TX
Line Distribution sketch.
• Product review assumes only the antenna loads per the Antenna Distribution Sheet (a copy is
attached in the report) were considered in this analysis.
• Product review assumes all mounts are designed and supplied by ROHN.
• Product review assumes the existing tower will be removed from the current tower site and will be
installed at a new tower site as a 150' tower. The top 60' of the existing tower will be removed and
replaced with a new 8' tower section.
• Product review assumes 8' future extension has 3.0 EH legs and L1.75 x 3/16 angle bracings.
II. Overstressed Members and Modifications
NONE
11
IV
Reaction Summary
Description
Original Reactions
SA #1
Compression/leg Compression/leg
222.4 kips
139.1 kips
Tension/leg
190.3 kips
109.6 kips
Total Shear
29.7 kips
23.1 kips
Overturning Moment
3241.5 ft-kips
1954.2 ft-kips
Recommendations
• Radian recommends replacing any loose, damaged, and missing hardware or tower components.
• Radian recommends adding 8' future extension before adding proposed tower loads.
"" RADIAN
PRODUCT REVIEW GENERAL NOTES
Radian
Communication
Services, Inc.
6718 W. Plank Road
Peoria, IL 61604
Telephone +1 309 697 4400
Facsimile +1309 697 5612
www.radiancorp.com
Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s Product Review Documents are the property of Radian
Communication Services, Inc. and must not be reproduced, modified or copied in whole or in part
without our written permission.
2. The product has been assumed to be installed in accordance with the referenced drawing on the
product Review Request Form unless otherwise noted. Radian Communication Services, Inc. has
assumed that the product has been properly maintained that no portions of the product have corroded
or have been misused, overloaded, damaged or substituted with other members. No reduction in
capacity has been considered to account for the effects of cyclic loading over the life of the product.
Radian Communication Services, Inc. has not inspected the product nor surveyed the loading
currently supported by the product. Unless otherwise indicated in the reviewer's comments, the
product review has been solely based on information listed or referenced on the Product Review
Request Form.
3. Assumptions made by Radian Communication Services, Inc. concerning antenna and appurtenance
loading were based on Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s understanding of the information
made available at the time of the review. Only the antennas and appurtenances listed or referenced on
the Product Review Request Form were considered for the review unless otherwise indicated in the
reviewer's comments. The results of the review are not intended or represented to be suitable for any
other loading conditions. Radian Communication Services, Inc. has not investigated the possible
interferences between existing and proposed antennas, mounts, appurtenances, etc., unless otherwise
indicated in the reviewer's comments.
4. Radian Communication Services, Inc. has not reviewed the load carrying capability of existing or
proposed mounts supplied by others, or of mounts not identified on the Product Review Request
Form Radian Communication Services, Inc. also has not investigated members of the product for
local stresses resulting from the attachment of such mounts. Radian Communication Services, Inc.
has assumed these items have been or will be investigated by others.
Radian Communication Services, Inc. does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness
of the information supplied to Radian Communication Services, Inc. or for the assumptions made for
this review. Radian Communication Services, Inc. assumes thorough field investigations have or will
be performed by others to verify all information and assumptions used for Radian Communication
Services, Inc.'s review.
6. Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s review has been based on the wind and ice loading for the
standard indicated on the Product Review Request Form The review is limited to the load carrying
capacity of the product for the wind and ice load indicated. The product has been assumed to be
installed on level grade unless otherwise noted on the Product Review Request Form. Radian
Communication Services, Inc. has not reviewed the product for conformance to local, state, or federal
requirements or for the requirements of the site concerning wind load, ice load, grounding,
obstruction lighting requirements, obstruction marking, climbing or working facilities, etc.
7. Unless otherwise requested, product assembly drawings will not be upgraded to reflect proposed
product modifications nor loadings considered for the review.
RADIAN
Product Review General Notes (Continued)
8. Radian Communication Services, Inc. does not accept responsibility for informing insurance carriers,
regulatory officials or other concerned parties of the results of this review or for the proposed
alterations. The customer must accept all liability and responsibility for the use and application of
Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s review. The services of a Professional, Structural, or
Geotechnical Engineer may be required.
9. If proposed alterations to the product are implemented, it shall be the responsibility of others to
maintain the stability of the product and to prevent overloading of any component. Radian
Communication Services, Inc.'s review has not considered stresses due to erection since erection
conditions were unknown.
10. Radian Communication Services, Inc. does not accept responsibility for work performed on the
product, for persons doing the work, or for the safety and adequacy of the procedures, equipment,
temporary guying, scaffolding, or other word aids. Radian Communication Services, Inc. has
assumed that all work performed will be by competent and qualified personnel.
11. Materials for proposed alterations have been assumed to be manufactured or supplied by Radian
Communication Services, Inc. Bolts, nuts, and palnuts for all replacement materials must be new.
Radian Communication Services, Inc. shall be held harmless of any liability when other materials are
substituted.
12. Radian Communication Services, Inc. foundation drawings and calculations have not been reviewed
unless reactions exceed the reactions of the original product. Unless otherwise indicated, Radian
Communication Services, Inc. has assumed that foundations have been installed in accordance with
Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s original foundation drawings that the original soil parameters
provided and/or assumed were adequate based on the conditions encountered at the site. Radian
Communication Services, Inc. assumes these parameters were verified by geotechnical investigations
at the time of installation.
13. Foundation review will not be performed by Radian Communication Services, Inc. when foundation
details have been provided by others. Radian Communication Services, Inc. does not accept the
responsibility of investigating the capacity of foundations designed by others to support the reactions
of the original or proposed loading.
14. Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s product and/or foundation review has been performed
utilizing Radian Communication Services, Inc.'s current review methods. Radian Communication
Services, Inc. does not accept responsibility to provide a new or revised report due to revisions of
standards, codes or review methods.
(Supplier of ROHN Products)
Return form to:
Radian Communication Services
6718 WEST PLANK ROAD PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61604
TEL (309) 697 -4400 FAX (309) 697 -6240
Order #:
RADIAN
ftd�
Project #• N;o ��lY
Request Form #:
REQUESTING COMPANY 7EJTy� �`' /�i�lei�'?C✓�Tl�is
ADDRESS SyS° ,S 411"41-1
CITY �Affi' fib 1 STATE 1/7 ZIP
CONTACT I TELEPHONE NO. +U� S r FAX NO.
PRODUCT INFO
0_11 0
v�
HEIGHT MODEL SITE STATE � Q _ COUNTY
INSTAL ED PER DRAWING NO. e`, ' " FILE NO. yj 7,Y
lqo or, i 1 , F ,
i
REVIEW CRITERIA
BUILDING CODE:
❑ ROOF MOUNTED FT. ABOVE GROUND
DESIGN LOADS: WIND ��CE
SPECIAL
❑ EIA OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS (50 MPH B.W.S. - NO ICE)
SPECIAL:
WN
MOUNTING POINTS
FOR REFERENCING
ANTENNA LOCATIONS
W/G SUPPORTS, LADDERS,
LINES, ETC
ORIENTATION /AZIMUTH OF POINT ONE: DEGREES
4
NOTE: BOTH ORIENTATION AND ANTENNA AZIMUTHS MUST BE MEASURED FROM THE SAME REFERENCE.
ANTENNA DISTRIBUTION
Project No:
060 -3699
Customer:
Teton Communications
Site Name:
Madison County, ID
Engineer:
FDA
Date:
5124/2007
Tower orientation is one leg north
top
lighting
1
314"
150;
*(3T.PD200
147
(12) VR- 16.09009
on 12' mtg frame
12
718"
uR= 160900'
onx.12' mtgframe..
120
*(3) PD200
leg mtd
3
112"
IW
*(3jh;PD200r
A(egxmtd,,
112.
80
*(2) 6' std dish
0 +180
leg mtd
2
EW63
Uniform Load
stepbolts for climbing w/ 0.375" safety cable
(2) 15 -hole waveguide ladder mounted on (2) tower face
*indicated proposed loading
APPURTENANCE LOADING
Describe and located all appurtenances such as mounting frames, platforms, climbing ladders, safety devices, waveguide supports,
obstruction lighting, de -icing equipment/lines, insulators, signs, special items, etc.
❑ The following descriptions are for appurtenances to be considered for review in addition to the appurtenances
indicated on the referenced assembly drawing.
❑ The following descriptions cover all appurtenances to be considered for review. (Appurtenances listed on the
referenced assembly drawing will not be considered unless listed below.)
/% " zlv6f
G 5 2 k _l � ;Ve j
�3j i
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMMENTS
Describe all modifications made to the product or foundations and any changes required to the original design assumptions. Include as
much data as possible. The product review will only be as accurate as the information listed or referenced on this form.
Form completed by: �i�l✓ ��'�`' Date:
Reference Documents:
NAME DATE FILE NO.
RADIAN mugms VQ41 C),5 "a —,, i o CGO, 3 �-qo
Products
CUSTOMER PAGE
PROJECT
mK
C
DATE- 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 1
TIME- 13:08:22 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY:
: rF FDA
T 7?
LEVEL - 5R0.7NT -------------------------------------------------------- --------- ------ --- ----- ---- ----✓ �W V 101k {lA1 - --
NOTE -TOWER DESIGN, WIND PRESSURES, AND SHAPE FACTORS CONFORM TO STANDARDS SET BY TIA /EIA- 222 -F -1996.
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOLLOWS-
/
1. 150' SSV TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS
2. SITE: MADISON COUNTY, ID 11
3. DESIGN WIND LOAD PER 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) /
4. USING ANSI /TIA /EIA -222 -F 1996 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3108.4
5. 90 MPH 3- SECOND GUST WIND SPEED (1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
6. 75 MPH FASTEST -MILE WIND SPEED (1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
7. STEP BOLTS FOR CLIMBING W/ 0.375" SAFETY CABLE
B.
9. This data is located@ W: \Engr \W \fda \060 \060- 3699- 3wg.c.,'3q p Wt�UL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -- ---- --- ------ -- - ---- ------ --- - - - - --
INPUT PARAMETERS
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
TOWER HEIGHT = 150.0 FEET
EXPOSURE = C PROJ. AREA OF LADDER, ROUND = .000 / SQ.FT /FT
FACE = S
BASE ELEVATION =
.0 FEET
IMPORTANCE
FACTOR
= 1.000
PROJ. AREA OF LADDER, FLAT
= .019
/SQ,FT/FT
FACE - S
WIND VELOCITY =
75.00 MPH
RADIAL ICE =
.00 INS UNIFORM WEIGHT OF LADDER = .00Y
RIPS /FT
Gh = 1.133
ESCALATED WINDLOADS ARE CALCULATED AT
EACH SECTION MID- HEIGHT,
WINDLOADS ARE LISTED FROM
TOP TO BOTTOM
FROM 150.0 FEET TO 140.0 FEET
USE
.0249 KSF
FROM 140.0 FEET TO 120.0 FEET
USE
.0241 KSF
FROM 120.0 FEET TO 100.0 FEET
USE
.0230 KSF
FROM 100.0 FEET TO 80.0 FEET
USE
.0217 KSF
FROM 80.0 FEET TO 60.0 FEET
USE
.0202 KSF
FROM 60.0 FEET TO 40.0 FEET
USE
.0184 KSF
FROM 40.0 FEET TO 20.0 FEET
USE
.0163 KSF
FROM 20.0 FEET TO .0 FEET
USE
.0163 KSF
ANTENNA
WIND
EFF. ANT.
DEAD LOAD
PROJ. AREA OF APPURTENANCES DEAD LOAD
EFF.PROJ.
ASSUMED
ELEVATION
PRESSURE
PROJ-AREA
OF ANT.
(SQ.FT. /FT.) OF APPUR.
AREA-M.A.
TORQUE
(FEET)
(K /SQ-FT)
(SQ.FT.)
(KIPS)
(KIPS /FT)
(SQ.FT-FT)
(FT -K)
DESCRIPTION OF LOADS
ROUNDS FACE FLATS FACE
LIGHTING ---- ------ - - -- --
150.0'
.0252
4.80
.10
.088 1 .000 0
.001
.00
.00
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD - - - --
150.0,
.0252
12.20
.10
.159 1 .307 1
.005
4.30
.11
(12) VR -16 -09007 -- - - - - --
147.V
.0250
52.00
1.73
1.116 1 .000 0
.012
35.90
.90
ON 12' LP MTG FRAMES - - --
147.0
.0250
.00
.00
.000 0 .000 0
.000
.00
.00
(12) VR -16 -09007 -- - - - - --
137.6
.0245
52.00
1.73
1.116 2 307 2
.016
35.90
.88
ON 12' LP MTG FRAMES - - --
137.6
.0245
.00
.00
.000 0 .000 0
.000
.00
.00
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD -- - --
120.0)
.0236
12.20
.10
.159 2 .000 0
.001
6.20
.15
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD - -- --
100.0
.0224
12.20
.10
.159 / 3 -7), 279 / 3
.004
8.10'
.18
(2) 6' STD DISH (0 +180) -
80.0
.0210
75.101
1.60
.334 000 0
.001
444.40
9.34
t 21 �5 v a l
(f� v.ao o�_-W;
w ! 6
v -09"L.
DATE - 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 2
TINE - 13:08:22 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5RO.7NT -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
WINDLOAD ON TOWER SECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS
++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 1* *COLUMN 2* *COLUMN 3* *COLUMN 4* *COLUMN 5* * COLUMN 6 * *COLUMN 7* *COLUMN 8* *COLUMN 9*
* TOWER * *WIND ON * *WIND ON * * TOTAL * * WEIGHT * *WT. OF EA.* * TOTAL * *WT. /SEC.* * ACCUM. *
* * * SECTION* *CONCENTR. *WIND FOR* *OF BDWE.* *SECTION W/* * ACCUM- * *OF TOWER* * WEIGHT *
*SECTION * * S UNIF.* *EFF.PROJ* *EA. TWR.* *FOR EACH* *ICE /HDWE. -* * ULATED * * STEEL * *OF TOWER*
* * * APPURT.* * AREAS * * SECTION* * SECTION* *IF PRESENT* *SEC.WTS.* * ONLY * * STEEL *
* NUMBER * * (RIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) *
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++
6NB * *N .827 1.728 2.555 2.08 2.73 2.73 .65 ( .35) .65
7N * *N 2.103 1.562 3.665 2.48 3.83 6.56 1.35 ( .80) 2.00
8N * *N 2.307 .273 2.580 .82 2.42 8.98 1.60 ( .90) 3.60
9NE * *N 2.490 1.578 4.068 2.40 4.59 13.58 2.19 ( 1.35) 5.79
LONE * *N 2.512 .000 2.512 .82 3.12 16.70 2.30 ( 1.35) 8.09
11N *.N 2.453 .000 2.453 .82 3.19 19.88 2.37 ( .96) 10.46
12NR * *N 2.306 .000 2.306 .82 3.80 23.69 2.98 ( 1.25) 13.44
13NH * *N 2.540 .000 2.540 .82 4.49 28.18 3.67 ( 1.71) 17.11
TOTAL INCREASED TOWER WEIGHT, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD TOWER SECTIONS = 8.67 KIPS
* * * ** SECTION STATUS INDICATORS * * * **
FOR EXAMPLE, 6NB * *N ( INDICATORS ARE: (PERIOD) ---- = MEMBER NOT BEEFED
^ ...HORIZONTAL BRACE INDICATOR I * (ASTERISK) -- = MEMBER BEEFED
II .... DIAGONAL BRACE INDICATOR I ( = NO MEMBER LARGE ENOUGH
..... LEG INDICATOR I ? (QUESTION) -- = INCORRECT DATA
I N ------- - - - - -- = NOT APPLICABLE
DATE - 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 3
TINE- 13:08:22 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5RO.7NT --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- - ----- --------- ------- - --
SHEARS, OVERTURNING MOMENTS AND LEG DATA
+++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + ++ + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ + + + + +++
*COLUMN 10* *COLUMN 11* *COLUMN 12* *COLUMN 13* *COLUMN 14* *COLUMN 15*
++ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
+ TOWER + + DIST- * * APPROX. * * TOTAL * * TOTAL * * MAXIMUM
+ + + ANCE * * CENTER- + + ACCUM. * * OVER- * * TENSION
* SECTION * * BELOW * * CENTER * * SHEAR ON* * TURNING * * FOR ONE
+ + + TOP * * OF LEGS * * TOWER * * MOMENTS * * LEG
* NUMBER * * (FT.) * * (FT.) * * (RIPS) * *(FT-KIPS)* * (KIPS)
6NB * *N 10.0 4.63 2.55 17.34 3.46
7N * *N 30.0 6.68 6.22 110.66 17.22
8N * *N 50.0 8.68 8.80 258.13 31.87
9NH * *N 70.0 10.78 12.87 459.03 45.40
1ONH * *N 90.0 12.82 15.38 741.52 62.25
11N *.N 110.0 14.83 17.83 1073.66 78.28
12NE * *N 130.0 16.92 20.14 1453.39 92.89
13NE * *N 150.0 18.88 22.68 1881.59 107.57
+ + + + + + ++ + ++ ++ + + ++ + + + ++
*COLUMN 16* *COLUMN 17*
+ + + + + + ++ + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
+bg"v + +MAXIMM+
* COMP. * *ALLOWABLE*
* FOR ONE * * LEG
* LEG * *CAPACITY
* (KIPS) * * (KIPS)
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
5.33[ .051 105.08
21.87[ .171 131.36
38.37[ .251 154.03
55.23[ .261 209.62
74.43[ .363 209.62
92.86[ .441 209.62
110.28[ .511 215.58
128.22[ .481 268.66
+ + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 18*
+ + + + + + + + + ++
* TOWER *
* LEG *
*DIMENSION*
*(INCHES)
+ + + + + + + + + ++
PIPE3.OE.H pi
PIPE3.5E.9
PIPE4.0E.H
PIPE5. OE. H
PIPE5.0E.H
PIPE5.OE.H
PIPE6.OEHS
PIPE6.OE.H
««< NOTE » »> THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PERCENT INCREASE.
««< NOTE » »> [ l SHOWS LOAD /CAPACITY RATIO.
REACTIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
+ + + + + ++ + + + + + ++ + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + ++
COMPRESSION /LEG
128.22 KIPS
TENSION /LEG
107.57 RIPS
SHEAR /LEG
15.12 KIPS
TOTAL SHEAR
22.68 KIPS
OVERTURNING MOMENT
1881.59 FT-KIPS
ANCHOR BOLTS REQUIRED (1 � " 0 x 10- L b"
DATE -05 /24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 4
TIME - 13:08:22 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5RO. 7NT -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------------- ----- --- --
BRACING LOADS, SIZES AND BOLTS
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 19* *COLUMN 20* *COLUMN 21* *COLUMN 22* *COLUMN 23* *COLUMN 24* *COLUMN 25 * *COLUMN 26* *COLUMN 27*
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
* TOWER * * HORIZ -. * * HORIZ. * *REMAINING* *MAX.AXIAL* *AXIAL LD.* *ANGLE /PIPE* * * *NO.& SIZE*
* * * COMP. OF* * COMP. * * SHEAR TO* *LOAD FOR * * COLUMN * * /SOLID RD.* * BRACE * * OF BRACE*
* SECTION * * SHEAR IN* * OF LEG * * BE TARN* * TOWER * *CAPACITY * *BAR/ BRACE* * CONNECT.* * BOLTS *
+ + * ONE FACE* * LOAD * *BY BRACES* * BRACING * *OF BRACES* * DIMENSION* * CAPACITY* *REQUIRED *
* NUMBER * * (RIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (INCHES) * * (RIPS) * *PER CONN.*
z
0
6NB * *N 1.954 .000 1.954 1.302 ( .193 10.598 L1.75X3/16 QD 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP w
7N * *N 4.498 1.105 3.393 1.932 ( .283 8.243 L1.75X3/16 Qfl 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
8N * *N 6.161 1.984 4.178 2.355 ( .353 7.191 L 2X2X3/16 QD 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
9NH * *N 9.816 2.838 6.979 4.021 [ .593 8.714 L 2.5X3/16 QD 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
IONH * *N 11.294 3.855 7.439 4.109 [ .623 6.645 L 2.5X3/16 aD 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
/ .250 IN. CLIP
11N *.N 12.789 4.826 7.963 4.377 ( .843 5.187 L 2.5X3/16 <M> 6.80 1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
12NH * *N 14.215 5.727 8.488 4.993 ( .633 7.975 L 3X3X1/4 aD 12.19 1- 3 /42N.DIA( *)
.375 IN. CLIP
13NE * *N 15.827 6.645 9.182 5.238 [ .483 10.800 L3- 1/2X1/4 <MD 12.19 1- 3 /4IN.DIA( *)
.375 IN. CLIP
««< NOTE » »> THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PERCENT INCREASE.
««< NOTE » »> 13 SHOWS MAX.LOAD /CAPACITY RATIO.
IF THE SYMBOL- -( *) -- APPEARS AFTER THE BOLT SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THREADS MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM SHEAR PLANES.
IF THE SYMBOL- -(H) -- APPEARS AFTER THE LOADS ABOVE, IT INDICATES THAT THE LOADS ARE FOR THE MAIN HORIZONTAL.
IF THE SYMBOL - - * -- APPEARS AFTER THE CLIP SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THE HORIZONTAL BRACE CONTROLLED THE CLIP AND BOLT SIZE.
IF THE SYMBOL- -( +) -- APPEARS AFTER THE DIAGONAL CAPACITY(COL. 24), IT INDICATES THE HORIZONTAL BRACE CAPACITY CONTROLS
THE DIAGONAL BRACE CAPACITY.
THE LETTER APPEARING BEFORE THE CONNECTION CAPACITY IN COLUMN 26 INDICATES THE CONTROLLING FACTOR.
<B> = BRACE BOLT CONTROLS CONNECTION CAPACITY; <C> = BRACE CLIP CONTROLS; <M> = BRACE CONTROLS.
DATE- 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS
TIME- 13:08:22 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699
LEVEL- 5R0.7NT ---------------------------------------------------- --------- -------- --- --------- --
TWIST AND DEFLECTION DATA
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + ++ + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 28*
*COLUMN 29*
*COLUMN 30*
*COLUMN 31*
*COLUMN 32*
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
* TOWER *
* TWIST *
* TOTAL *
* DEFLEC- *
* TOTAL *
+ +
+ FOR EACH*
* ACCUM- +
*TION FOR *
* ACCUM- *
* SECTION +
+ TOWER +
* ULATED *
*EA. TOWER*
* ULATED *
* *
* SECTION *
* TWIST *
* SECTION *
* DEFL. *
* NUMBER *
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
6NB * *N
.010
.094
.005
.316
7N * *N
.014
.084
.031
.311
8N * *N
.008
.070
.044
.280
9NH * *N
.022
.062
.040
.236
10NE * *N
.016
.040
.047
.197
11N *.N
.014
.025
.053
.149
12NH * *N
.006
.010
.052
.096
13NH * *N
.004
.004
.044
.044
PAGE NO. 5
BY: FDA
DATE - 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 1
TIME- 13:07:41 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5RO.7NT ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ------ ----- --- - - -- I vCs SI��To� --
NOTE -TOWER DESIGN, WIND PRESSURES, AND SHAPE FACTORS CONFORM TO STANDARDS SET BY TIA /EIA- 222 -F -1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOLLOWS -
1. 150' SSV TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS
2. SITE: MADISON COUNTY, ID
3. DESIGN WIND LOAD PER 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC)
4. USING ANSI /TIA /EIA -222 -F 1996 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3108.4
5. 90 MPH 3- SECOND GUST WIND SPEED (1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
6. 75 MPH FASTEST -MILE WIND SPEED (1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
7. STEP BOLTS FOR CLIMBING W/ 0.375" SAFETY CABLE
8.
9. This data is located@ W: \Engr \W \£da \060 \060 - 36991 -3w - SSIJ
------------------------------------------ ------------- -- ---------- ----- --------------------------------------------------
INPUT PARAMETERS
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
TOWER HEIGHT = 150.0 FEET EXPOSURE = C PROJ. AREA OF LADDER, ROUND = .000 SQ.FT /FT FACE = S
BASE ELEVATION = .0 FEET IMPORTANCE FACTOR = 1.000 PROJ. AREA OF LADDER, FLAT = .069 SQ.FT /FT FACE = S
WIND VELOCITY = 75.00 MPH RADIAL ICE _ .50 IN. UNIFORM WEIGHT OF LADDER = .001 RIPS /FT
Gh = 1.133
ESCALATED WINDLOADS ARE CALCULATED AT EACH SECTION MID - HEIGHT,
WINDLOADS ARE LISTED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
FROM 150.0 FEET TO 140.0 FEET USE .0187 SSF
FROM 140.0 FEET TO 120.0 FEET USE .0181 KSF
FROM 120.0 FEET TO 100.0 FEET USE .0173 RSF
FROM 100.0 FEET TO 80.0 FEET USE .0163 &SF
FROM 80.0 FEET TO 60.0 FEET USE .0152 XSF
FROM 60.0 FEET TO 40.0 FEET USE .0138 ESP
FROM 40.0 FEET TO 20.0 FEET USE .0122 ESP
FROM 20.0 FEET TO .0 FEET USE .0122 RSF
» »» >>> NOTE : ALL WIND PRESSURES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO 756 OF ORIGINAL PRESSURES <<< «««
ANTENNA WIND EFF. ANT. DEAD LOAD
ELEVATION PRESSURE PROJ.AREA OF ANT.
(FEET) (R /SQ -FT) (SQ.FT.) (RIPS)
DESCRIPTION OF LOADS
LIGHTING ---------- - - - - -- 150.0
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD - - - -- 150.0
(12) VR -16 -09007 -- - - - - -- 147.0
ON 12' MTG FRAMES - - - - - -- 147.0
(12) VR -16 -09007 -- - - - - -- 137.0
ON 12' MTG FRAMES - - - - - -- 137.0
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD - - - -- 120.0
(3) PD220 - LEG MTD - - - -- 100.0
(2) 6' STD DISH (0+180) - 80.0
0189
4.80
.15
0189
18.20
.15
0188
67.00
2.60
0188
.00
.00
0184
67.00
2.60
0184
.00
.00
0177
18.20
.15
0168
18.20
.15 ,
0158
75.101
2.40/
PROJ. AREA OF APPURTENANCES DEAD LOAD EFF.PROJ. ASSUMED
(SQ.FT. /FT.) OF APPUR. AREA *M.A. TORQUE
(RIPS /FT) (SQ.FT-FT) (FT -R)
ROUNDS FACE FLATS FACE
.171 1 .000 0 .002 .00 .00
.411 1 421 1 .010 6.40 .12
2.120 1 .000 0 .018 46.40 .87
.000 0 000 0 .000 .00 .00
2.120 2 �.421 2 .025 46.40 .85
.000 0 j .000 0 .000 .00 .00
.411 2 .000 0 .003 9.20 .16
t
.411 3 ; .385 3 .009/ 12.19 .20
.502 13 j .000 0 .004 1 I 444.59 7.01
Y �
a
i
1
j
k �
J
1
W
DATE - 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 2
TIME- 13:07 :41 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5R0.7NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ --------- -- --------- - - ---
WINDLOAD ON TOWER SECTIONS AND SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS
*COLUMN 1* *COLUMN 2* *COLUMN 3* *COLUMN 4* *COLUMN 5* * COLUMN 6 * *COLUMN 7* *COLUMN 8* *COLUMN 9*
* TOWER * *WIND ON * *WIND ON * * TOTAL * * WEIGHT * *WT. OF EA.* * TOTAL * *WT. /SEC.* * ACCUM.
* * * SECTION* *CONCENTR. *WIND FOR* *OF HDWE.* *SECTION W/* * ACCUM- * *OF TOWER* * WEIGHT
*SECTION * * S UNIF.* *EFF.PROJ* *EA. TWR.* *FOR EACH* *ICE /HDWE. -* * ULATED * * STEEL * *OF TOWER*
+ * * APPURT.* * AREAS * * SECTION* * SECTION* *IF PRESENT* *SEC.WTS.* * ONLY * * STEEL
* NUMBER * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (RIPS) * * (KIPS)
6NB -1 * *N .917 1.691 2.608 3.16 4.04 4.04 .65 ( .35) .65
7N -1 * *N 2.432 1.554 3.985 3.80 5.54 9.58 1.35 ( .80) 2.00
8N -1 * *N 2.656 .306 2.961 1.33 3.37 12.95 1.60 ( .90) 3.60
9NH -1 * *N 2.616 1.184 3.800 3.76 6.43 19.38 2.19 ( 1.35) 5.79
10NE -1 * *N 2.563 .000 2.563 1.44 4.31 23.69 2.30 ( 1.35) 8.09
11N -1 *.N 2.471 .000 2.471 1.44 4.57 28.26 2.37 ( .96) 10.46
12NH -1 * *N 2.280 .000 2.280 1.44 5.17 33.43 2.98 ( 1.25) 13.44
13NH -1 * *N 2.467 .000 2.467 1.44 6.00 39.43 3.67 ( 1.71) 17.11
TOTAL INCREASED TOWER WEIGHT, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD TOWER SECTIONS = 8.67 RIPS
* * * ** SECTION STATUS INDICATORS * * * **
FOR EXAMPLE, 6NB -1 * *N I INDICATORS ARE: (PERIOD) - - -- = MEMBER NOT BEEFED
^^ ...HORIZONTAL BRACE INDICATOR I * ( ASTERISK) -- = MEMBER BEEFED
II....DIAGONAL BRACE INDICATOR I ! (EXCLAMATION) - NO MEMBER LARGE ENOUGH
I..... LEG INDICATOR I ? (QUESTION) -- = INCORRECT DATA
( N ---- ---- - - - -- = NOT APPLICABLE
DATE- 05 /24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 3
TIME - 13:07:41 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5RO. 7NT ------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------- -- -- ------------
SHEARS, OVERTURNING MOMENTS AND LEG DATA
+++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ + + + + + ++ + + + + + + ++ +++ + + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 10* *COLUMN 11* *COLUMN 12* *COLUMN 13* *COLUMN 14* *COLUMN 15*
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
* TOWER * * DIST- * * APPROX. * * TOTAL * * TOTAL * * baLTIM M *
* * * ANCE * * CENTER- * * ACCUM. * * OVER- * * TENSION *
* SECTION * * BELOW * * CENTER * * SHEAR ON* * TURNING * * FOR ONE *
* * * TOP * * OF LEGS * * TOWER * * MOMENTS * * LEG
* NUMBER * * (FT.) * * (FT.) * * (RIPS) * *(FT- RIPS)* * (KIPS)
6NB -1 * *N 10.0 4.63 2.61 17.47 3.09
7N -1 * *N 30.0 _ 6.68 6.59 114.10 16.98
8N -1 * *N 50.0 8.68 9.55 272.51 32.78
9NH -i * *N 70.0 10.78 13.35 489.77 47.26
1ONH -1 * *N 90.0 12.82 15.92 782.49 64.32
11N -1 *.N 110.0 14.83 18.39 1125.57 80.45
12NE -1 * *N 130.0 16.92 20.67 1516.15 95.05
13NH -1 * *N 150.0 18.88 23.14 1954.21 109.59
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + +++
*COLUMN 16* *COLUMN 17*
+ + + + + + + ++++ + + + + + + + + + ++
• MARIMOM * * MAXIMUM +
• COMP. * *ALLOWABLE*
• FOR ONE * * LEG
• LEG * *CAPACITY
• (KIPS) * * (RIPS)
+ + + + * + * + + *+ * * * + * * + * * +*
5.87[ .063 105.08
23.801 .181 131.36
42.24[ .271 154.03
61.46[ .291 209.62
81.88[ .391 209.62
101.53[ .481 209.62
120.06[ .561 215.58
139.08[ .521 268.66
+ + + + + +++ + ++
*COLUMN 18*
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ TOWER *
* LEG *
*DIMENSION*
+ +
*(INCHES)
PIPE3.OE.H
PIPE3.5E.H /
PIPE4.OE.H /
PIPES.OE.H
PIPES.OE.H /
PIPES.OE.H /
PIPE6.OEBS
PIPE6.OE.H j
««< NOTE » »> THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PERCENT INCREASE.
««< NOTE » »> [ ) SHOWS LOAD /CAPACITY RATIO.
REACTIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
COMPRESSION /LEG
139.08 KIPS
TENSION /LEG
109.59 KIPS
SHEAR /LEG
15.42 KIPS
TOTAL SHEAR
23.14 KIPS
OVERTURNING MOMENT
1954.21 FT -KIPS
ANCHOR BOLTS REQUIRED (10) \" d� 7 _lO kf-Jt
DATE - 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS PAGE NO. 4
TIME- 13:07:41 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699 BY: FDA
LEVEL- 5R0.7NT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRACING LOADS, SIZES AND BOLTS
+ + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + ++ + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++
*COLUMN 19* *COLUMN 20* *COLUMN 21* *COLUMN 22* *COLUMN 23* *COLUMN 24* *COLUMN 25 * *COLUMN 26* *COLUMN 27*
* TOWER * * HORIZ. * * HORIZ. * *REMAINING* *MAX.AXIAL* *AXIAL LD.* *ANGLE /PIPE* * * *NO.S SIZE*
* * * COMP. OF* * COMP. * * SHEAR TO* *LOAD FOR * * COLUMN * * /SOLID RD.* * BRACE * * OF BRACE*
* SECTION * * SHEAR IN* * OF LEG * * BE TAKEN* * TOWER * *CAPACITY * *BAR/ BRACE* * CONNECT.* * BOLTS *
+ + + ONE FACE* * LOAD * *BY BRACES* * BRACING * *OF BRACES* * DIMENSION* * CAPACITY* *REQUIRED *
* NUMBER * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (KIPS) * * (INCHES) * * (RIPS) * *PER CONN.*
6NB -1 * *N 1.985 .000 1.985 1.323 [ .191 10.598 L1.75X3/16 < > 6.80 1 -5/8 IN
DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP u
7N -1
* *N
4.742
1.139
3.603
2.052
[ .303
8.243
L1.75X3/16
<M> 6.80
1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
8N -1
* *N
6.664
2.094
4.570
2.576
( .383
7.191
L 2=3/16
<M> 6.80
1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
9NH -1
* *N
9.890
3.028
6.862
3.954
[ .581
8.714
L 2.5X3116
<M> 6.80
1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
IONS -1
* *N
11.442
4.068
7.374
4.073
[ .611
6.645
L 2.5X3/16
<M> 6.80
1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
11N -1
*.N
12.977
5.059
7.918
4.352
[ .841
5.187
L 2.5X3/16
<M> 6.80
1 -5/8 IN. DIA.
.250 IN. CLIP
12NH -1
* *N
14.409
5.974
8.434
4.961
( .621
7.975
L 3X3X1/4
<M> 12.19
1- 3 /4IN.DIA( *) i
.375 IN. CLIP
13NH -1
* *N
15.988
6.902
9.087
5.183
[ .483
10.800
L3 -1 /2X1 /4
<M> 12.19
1- 3 /4IN.DIA( *)
/
.375 IN. CLIP
««< NOTE » »> THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES ON THIS ANALYSIS INCLUDE A 33.3 PERCENT INCREASE.
««< NOTE » »> L I SHOWS MAX.LOAD /CAPACITY RATIO.
IF THE SYMBOL- -( *) -- APPEARS AFTER THE BOLT SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THREADS MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM SHEAR PLANES.
IF THE SYMBOL- -(B) -- APPEARS AFTER THE LOADS ABOVE, IT INDICATES THAT THE LOADS ARE FOR THE MAIN HORIZONTAL.
IF THE SYMBOL - - * -- APPEARS AFTER THE CLIP SIZE, IT INDICATES THAT THE HORIZONTAL BRACE CONTROLLED THE CLIP AND BOLT SIZE.
IF THE SYMBOL- -( +) -- APPEARS AFTER THE DIAGONAL CAPACITY(COL. 24), IT INDICATES THE HORIZONTAL BRACE CAPACITY CONTROLS
THE DIAGONAL BRACE CAPACITY.
THE LETTER APPEARING BEFORE THE CONNECTION CAPACITY IN COLUMN 26 INDICATES THE CONTROLLING FACTOR.
<B> = BRACE BOLT CONTROLS CONNECTION CAPACITY; <C> = BRACE CLIP CONTROLS; <M> = BRACE CONTROLS.
DATE- 05/24/07 ROHN SELF - SUPPORTING TOWER ANALYSIS FOR TETON COMMUNICATIONS
TIME- 13:07:41 Output is NOT to be reproduced without Rohn's written consent.- FILE NO. 060 -3699
LEVEL- 5R0.7NT ---------------------------------------------------- ------------- -- --------- - ---- --
TWIST AND DEFLECTION DATA
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + ++ ++
+ + + + + + + + +++
*COLUMN 28*
*COLUMN 29*
*COLUMN 30*
*COLUMN 31*
*COLUMN 32*
+ TOWER +
* TWIST *
* TOTAL *
* DEFLEC- *
* TOTAL *
+ +
* FOR EACH*
* ACS- *
*TION FOR *
* ACS- *
* SECTION +
+ TOWER *
* ULATED *
*EA. TOWER*
* ULATED *
* *
* SECTION *
* TWIST *
* SECTION *
* DEFL. *
* NUMBER *
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
*(DEGREES)*
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + ++ + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + ++
+ + + + + + + + +++
6NB -1 * *N
.010
.081
.005
.332
7N -1 * *N
.014
.072
.032
.326
8N -1 * *N
.008
.058
.046
.295
9NE -1 * *N
.017
.049
.042
.249
10NE -1 * *N
.013
.032
.050
.206
1IN -1 *.N
.011
.020
.056
.156
12NE -1 * *N
.005
.008
.054
.100
13NH -1 * *N
.003
.003
.046
.046
PAGE NO. 5
BY: FDA