HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JUNE 19, 2014
1
Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others:
Thaine Robinson – Chairman Val Christensen – Community Development Director
Gil Shirley Melanie Davenport Nick Cummock – Community Development Intern
Mark Rudd Steve Oakey Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator
Bruce Sutherland Tisha Flora
Chairman Thaine Robinson opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. He welcomed applicants, City staff, and
interested citizens.
Council Liaison Brad Wolfe asked to be excused.
The Chairman welcomed new Commissioner Tisha Flora. The Commission is happy to have
her be a part of the Commission.
Tisha Flora said she has lived in Rexburg for almost 15 years. She loves Rexburg. She feels
privileged to be a member of the P&Z Commission and will do her best.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Mark Rudd, Steve Oakey, Thaine Robinson, Bruce Sutherland, Tisha Flora, Melanie Davenport, Gil
Shirley
Dan Hanna, Chuck Porter, and Jedd Walker were excused.
Chairman Robinson wanted the Commissioners’ opinions on an issue regarding roll call that he
would like to see reflected in the meeting minutes. When Commissioners have communicated to the
P&Z secretary that they cannot be present at a meeting, this would be ‘excused’. If Commissioners
have not let the secretary know that they would not be present, it would be ‘absent’.
None of the Commissioners had objections to this issue.
Cory Sorensen was absent.
Minutes:
1. Planning and Zoning meeting – June 5, 2014
Melanie Davenport motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of June 5, 2014.
Mark Rudd seconded the motion.
Gil Shirley, Bruce Sutherland, and Thaine Robinson abstained for having not been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
1. 7:05 pm – Conditional Use Permit – Verizon Wireless Monopole - 1076 West Main –
The property is in the City of Rexburg Impact Area.
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
June 19, 2014
2
Chairman Robinson explained the procedure that is followed for a public hearing. The applicant
or a representative will present the proposal. The Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant
and also staff for clarification of the proposal. The public may also be given the opportunity to ask
clarifying questions in order for them to better understand the proposal. Public testimony will be
taken; if there is opposition to the proposal, the applicant will have the right of rebuttal.
The Chair clarified that everyone has one voice to express their opinion. If anyone has submitted a
letter of written input, the letter can stand as representing that voice, or they may give public
testimony – but they cannot do both because that would be an unfair advantage of having two
voices.
After the closing of the public hearing input, the staff report will be given. The Commissioners then
will deliberate in order to come to a decision on a recommendation to the Madison County
Commission rather than to the City Council, because the subject property is in the City’s Impact
Area.
Jared White, 1894 West 1690 South, Woodscross, UT, representing Verizon Wireless. The subject
location was shown on the overhead screen.
Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct a new cellular facility 1076 West Main. A Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) is required. The only reason that they build cellular facilities is based on the demand. In
order to create the data speeds necessary, there is a tremendous amount of strain on the network.
Verizon Wireless consistently has to build more sites in order to meet the demand from the public.
Although for different reasons, Verizon and the city want the same thing: to give the best cell phone
coverage that can be provided, with as few cell phones tower facilities as possible. The city wants the
coverage, but there is an impact any time a tower is built. Verizon’s reasons are purely from a
business standpoint. Cell towers are very expensive to construct and maintain, so if Verizon doesn’t
need it, they don’t want it.
The purpose of a cellular facility at this site is that it will enhance the coverage around the immediate
area, and it will increase the capacity on their network to handle volume. It would have a tripling
effect on the entire area, in that it would offload all the towers that surround it, so they provide better
coverage in the area they are in. The tower is designed to help the network all around it. One tower in
one location benefits a much greater area through the offloading.
Verizon Wireless recognizes that no matter where they place a tower, there will be opposition to it.
Everyone wants cell phone coverage and services, but no one wants the tower. There is really not a
way around that. There is federal law that basically says the city cannot prohibit cell towers. The city
can impose conditions to minimize that effect. The towers have to go somewhere. They are a public
utility that everyone uses. There are requirements to meet 911 standards that providers must meet.
Cities write their codes and ordinances to direct where these facilities should be located.
The providers place the towers in the best position possible, trying to meet the ordinance the way the
city has it written and meet any conditions so they can effectively meet the coverage needs as well as
the ordinance.
The location of the cell tower would be as far back as possible on the parcel. A setback distance from
the existing propane tanks is necessary. The owner has said they would move the propane tanks to
accommodate this if the setbacks cannot be met, to make sure there is no safety hazard.
3
Tisha Flora said the City’s cell tower ordinance states that a 150’ tower would be required to have 3
to 4 co-occupants. She asked if Verizon has spoken with other companies.
Jared White said there is no way to predict when the co-locators will come. The purpose is to build a
tower with the structural capacity to in the future accommodate up to 4 co-locators. It is built that
way from the beginning. His understanding is they do not have to have the co-locators lined up from
the start. All cell phone tower providers have master lease agreements with each other.
Melanie Davenport asked if Verizon Wireless has any obsolete structures.
Jared White stated they do not. They are too expensive to maintain. If the structure is obsolete, they
remove it. All of their leases have exit clauses for that reason. There is no structure now that they
could just replace. Every structure they have in the area is over capacity, which is why the subject
monopole is needed to offload them.
Mrs. Davenport asked if Verizon Wireless could share a monopole somewhere.
Mr. White said there is nothing available.
Bruce Sutherland asked for clarification on the height of the subject monopole.
Jared White said they are proposing a 150 foot height. They need FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration) approval because the location is close to the airport, so they are looking for approval
of up to 150 feet.
Chairman Robinson asked what the radius of reception would be from a cell tower located in this
area.
Jared White said they would be turning down the radius for the existing towers they have, so that
each tower has to cover less area (off-loading). It is capable of transmitting far further than they
would have it transmit, but it would not work.
Chairman Robinson said what about another location.
Jared White felt there was not another place they could move to that has less impact. They also try
to avoid creating an island site, a site that operates on itself. It has to connect to the other sites, or
service suffers. The perfect coverage would probably be on the airport’s runway, which obviously is
not possible.
Steve Oakey asked for clarification on Mr. White’s statement that the City cannot prohibit the
building of cell towers.
Jared White said cell towers are a public utility, so there is federal protection. A city cannot write an
ordinance that prohibits them or effectually prohibits them. Everybody is using the towers so
everybody has to be willing to take some of the impact. Ordinances can be written to mitigate its
impact and direct providers to where they can and cannot go.
Steve Oakey asked if Mr. White is saying cell towers share the same rights as other public utilities.
Jared White said it is not the same rights because there are different laws that protect them. The
Federal Telecommunications Act protects cell towers. A city cannot write an ordinance that says the
cell tower cannot go anywhere. Rexburg’s ordinance does prohibit cell towers in residential, which
is allowed. A cell tower is a use that is allowed with conditions.
Steve Oakey asked if Verizon Wireless has entered into a private agreement with the property
owner.
Jared White said there is currently a verbal agreement. They will enter into an agreement based on
the CUP decision. It typically is a 25- year lease. Verizon Wireless has an out-clause for technological
reasons to meet the law. The property owner does not.
4
Gil Shirley asked if Verizon is looking at this area because of the potential growth on the west side
of town, or other areas on the north for the future.
Jared White said it is hard to speculate. They try to build from the middle out. If growth continues,
a tower could be needed on the north. This location is expanding out from what they already have.
Melanie Davenport asked if there was a plan to camouflage the tower in some way.
Jared White said camouflaging is difficult unless there are surrounding things. It is something that
could be conditioned. They sometimes do a mono-pine, but unless there are lots of trees around the
pole, it would stand out more. It is more obtrusive unless there is something it could fit in with.
Mark Rudd wondered if this tower was a lot bigger than the other towers in town.
Jared White said a 150’ tower is a tall tower. It gives them the ability to co-locate with other users.
The towers on the Rexburg hill are probably 150-200’ tall. They are a lattice design. This subject
tower is a monopole, which is less intrusive because there is not such a wide base. At the base, it
would be about 4 feet in width and gets thinner going up.
Chairman Robinson asked the height of the tower just to the west of the City parking lot here.
Val Christensen estimated that the tower was about 120’ in height.
The Chair asked if staff had any additional clarifying information for the Commission.
Mr. Christensen had no additional information.
Chairman Robinson asked what currently is at the subject spot for the tower.
Jared White said the subject area is used for storage. The building to the east is more than 150’
away from the planned location.
There was no additional clarifying information from staff.
In Favor:
Shane Johnson, general manager of Alpine Propane at 1076 West Main, representing ALD
Holdings, the property owner. If the Commission is worried about visualization, there are already 6
big propane tanks at the location. To make them a little friendlier, the tanks have been adorned with
smiley faces. When traveling from Idaho Falls to Pocatello, there is a dead spot where calls are
dropped, so he is excited to have the tower here that will improve service. There is a thirty foot
easement on the east side of the property. It would provide access if the property were to be
developed. The tower would not hinder development. There is a tower at Clair and Dee’s tire store
that he had not even realized was there until recently.
Neutral: None
Opposed:
Wayne Erikson, 1040 West Main. His home is right next door to the subject cell tower location. He
has lived there since he was nine. The rest of the Erikson property to the north is in a family trust.
As a family, they hoped to eventually develop it. The property was sold at one time in 2008 but
things did not work out. They are opposed to the tower request. People will not want to develop the
land, especially commercial places. Look at Valley Wide across the street, how beautiful it is and with
good businesses. They are hoping to build more business on their side. The 30 foot right of way
5
road was put in many years ago. The airport is close by. Planes fly overhead constantly. He is
concerned.
Eli Searle, Kimberly, Idaho, representing Valley Wide Cooperative. They are not opposed to
towers in general. They understand the need and necessity for them. They actually have their own
small tower. They feel there are some major issues with this particular location. It is not the best use
for potentially prime real estate. It may impact future development and also limits development and
what can be put there. They have a fertilizer plant on the north side of town. The reason they have
the small tower is to provide connectivity. The tower that is proposed is in the direct path of that
connectivity. They are looking into what it would take to replace their tower utilizing the services of
Fremont Communications and Century Link. The cost would be about $850. a month to replace the
same level of service.
Rod Jones, 3720 West Mountainview. He asked to have his name crossed off of the submitted
written input letter, as he wished to give testimony tonight.
As he looks at what he envisions for the future, the Erikson property is now an open spud field.
Eventually, the Erikson homestead may be taken down. The propane business might stay, but
building levels would be higher than their tanks are. To suddenly have a 150’ post here is really going
to determine the outcome in the future of what buildings go on the Erikson piece of property.
Written Input: Read by Chairman Robinson
1. Letter from nine property owners/representatives, opposed to the proposal
6
7
Rebuttal:
Jared White said in regard to the tower blocking connectivity by being in the line of sight, the odds
of this are very low. He understands the concern. He does not see how it is possible that there could
be interference. The frequency of the tower should have no effect on anyone else.
All items that were brought up in testimony are the items that face every single cell tower request.
He has not seen any proof that a tower lowers property values. He has seen massive developments
come in around cellular facilities that have been built. These are speculations of what may happen in
the future. Verizon Wireless is making an application within the code as to what exists now. At this
point, this is the least impact they can have to build here. He respects everyone’s opinions.
Chairman Robinson closed the public input portion and asked for the staff evaluation and
recommendations.
Val Christensen said Chapter 11 (Cell Tower Ordinance 915) of the Development Code states that
a CUP is required when a cell tower is to be constructed in any zone except industrial or heavy
commercial. The zoning of the property is Community Business Center (CBC).
The subject location is vacant ground, and all the uses around it have not been determined at this
time
His report included that Chapter 11, Section 7.b.iv of the City of Rexburg Development Code
requires that towers be setback “a distance equal to at least seventy five percent (75%) of the height
of the tower from any adjoining lot line”. This setback requirement may be reduced by the P&Z
Commission. In this case, for this cell tower height, unless a setback reduction is approved, the
setback requirement would not be met.
There would likely not be the need to buffer. However, the city has discussed color of towers on
past requests in order to make the tower more harmonious with the area.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan makes it clear that the City wants to support cell towers.
One concern is that at the tower location the property needs to be kept clean and weeded. This has
been a problem with some of the other tower providers. It is important to maintain the grounds.
The City Engineer review stated the FAA must approve this request due to its proximity to the
airport. The Fire Department did not have concerns on the request.
Val Christensen clarified that the location for the requested cell tower is in the City Impact Area
and is not in the City limits, although City rules would be followed. The P&Z Commission would
make their recommendation to the Madison County Commission rather than the City Council.
The rules of the Impact Area were briefly discussed.
Melanie Davenport asked if the Commission could make the condition of a landscape buffer along
Highway 20.
Val Christensen said it is not the applicant’s property and it is not City property. It belongs to the
State. He is not sure what would be buffered.
Melanie Davenport is concerned about people driving by. The tower would be the welcome to the
City. Landscaping might draw less attention to the tower.
Val Christensen stated there is one cell tower further to the south already that is closer to the
highway than this one would be and about as tall.
8
Tisha Flora asked for clarification that this request does not meet setback requirements.
Val Christensen said that was correct. The ordinance states that the Commission does have the
authority to reduce that requirement.
Chairman Robinson said the issue before the Commission is a CUP for a cell tower. They should
also discuss a reduction of setback, which could change depending on the FAA decision as to the
height of the tower.
Steve Oakey said to require a setback of 75% of the tower height would be difficult for this project.
The applicant has probably planned it in the best location on the parcel. It is quite a distance from
Highway 33. He does not find the request unreasonable, and he has no objections to it.
Mark Rudd thought none of the existing towers in Rexburg seem to meet the 75% requirement. He
agreed with Mr.Oakey and does not see the request as unreasonable for where it is to be located.
Possible conditions were discussed.
Tisha Flora said her worry is the tower height of 150 feet. If she was living next door, this would be
a bother to her. There would also be a light on the top of the tower because of FAA regulations.
Gil Shirley said the City has gone through this matter several times with other towers and with
other companies. Once the tower is built, people seem to forget about it.
Chairman Robinson stated that a concern was expressed that the tower would inhibit commercial
from being built.
Melanie Davenport felt that residential might be inhibited but probably not commercial.
The Chair stated that the FAA is very stringent. It may be that the tower will not be able to be 150’
in height. The setback rule could possibly then be back in place.
Melanie Davenport said the other properties in the area have put a lot into their building structures
and landscaping. If this project is to fit in, it needs to take that same kind of care. A nice fence
might help.
Steve Oakey said to keep in mind that the airport board is in negotiations with the FAA to move
the airport. Perhaps the FAA will take this into consideration when they make a decision on the
tower height. The height decision is out of the Commission’s hands.
Bruce Sutherland thought the FAA would probably make the most stringent decision.
Tisha Flora wondered if the Commission should make a condition for a nice fence and putting in
trees to help buffer the tower from the next door neighbors.
Chairman Robinson said that could be done, but given this location, we are not buffering
residential areas at this point in time.
Steve Oakey felt this is a fairly industrial and agricultural use, so the applicant should not have to
have a landscaping requirement.
Bruce Sutherland agreed. We do not know what future development there will be.
Melanie Davenport felt the fence should be vinyl and not chain link.
The Chair said the Commission does not want to dictate how a development should be done. The
Commission can make it agreeable with staff and have faith in staff on what has to be done here.
9
Bruce Sutherland motioned to recommend to the Madison County Commission approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (Verizon Wireless) for a 150’ monopole, to be located at 1076 West Main,
which is in the City’s Impact Area, and to include two conditions:
1. The Verizon Wireless monopole shall be in accordance with the FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration) decision on its height.
2. City staff shall determine how Verizon Wireless will make the site as clean and as
unobtrusive as possible.
Melanie Davenport seconded the motion.
The Standard CUP requirements stated in the Development Code No.1026 (“Standards Applicable
to Conditional Use Permits” Section 6.12B) apply to the Conditional Use Permit.
None opposed. Motion carried.
2. 7:20 pm - Conditional Use Permit – Verizon Wireless Monopole – 344 West 4th South
Jared White, 1894 West 1690 South, Woodscross, UT, representing Verizon Wireless, presented the
proposal for a 70’ monopole to be located at 344 West 4th South. The reasons Verizon Wireless is
requesting to construct this cellular facility are the same reasons as he stated in the first hearing
tonight, to offload the existing towers and improve coverage in the area. This tower is really
designed to help. Student housing is a tremendous pull on the network. Most students do not have
anything but a cell phone. Verizon Wireless cannot get much closer to the University and still fit the
City’s ordinances. They are not asking for as high a tower in an effort to mitigate its presence.
Rather than building a fenced area, an existing end storage unit on the adjacent property will store
some Verizon Wireless equipment. They would have liked to go to a height of 125’, but they do not
think that is feasible. They are only going for a 70’ monopole (plus 5 feet for lightening rod).
If something is put in the middle of a parcel, it takes away the ability to develop it. It is more
cumbersome for future development. So, Verizon has tried to stay at the end of the property. The
proposed setback is about 10 feet from the east property line, but they meet setback requirements in
the other directions.
It was clarified that there is HDR1 zoning to the west of the subject location.
Chairman Robinson opened the public input portion of the hearing.
In Favor: None
Neutral:
Jodi Johnson, 527 West Main. The Commission has been addressing the aesthetics of the towers
and how they look in Rexburg. She lives on Main Street. Look at the homes that have sold and are
now rental homes. Their yards look terrible. They are more aesthetically unappealing than cell
phone towers. She does not even notice the towers. There are other things that are more unsightly
in Rexburg..
Shane Johnson, 527 West Main. Fences were being discussed earlier. In 2011, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) Security Act was enacted. He is the general manager of Alpine
Propane. They like to see their propane tanks from the road, and they like security to see that, in
case there is something that could pose a threat. The cell phone towers are huge communication
facilities. They should be visible at the base – so slats instead of something solid for fencing would
be good. It is something to consider.
10
Opposed: None
Written Input: None
Chairman Robinson closed the public input portion and asked for the staff evaluation and
recommendations.
Val Christensen said his staff report is similar to the first hearing’s report. The property is zoned
Community Business Center (CBC).He read from his report that “Chapter 11, Section 7.b.iv of the
City of Rexburg Development Code requires that towers be setback “a distance equal to at least
seventy five percent (75%) of the height of the tower from any adjoining lot line”. Furthermore,
Table 1 of the said section requires the cell tower to be constructed a distance of 200 feet or 300%
of the height of tower whichever is greater from single family or duplex residential units and 100
feet or 100% of the height of the tower whichever is greater from multi-family residential. The
section allows these setback requirements to be reduced by the P&Z Commission.”
This Table was not discussed in the first hearing tonight, because staff review of that matter showed
though the property to the east has residential, the zoning is commercial. Staff felt that property
would eventually go to commercial.
Clearly, in this case for the CUP at 344 West 4th South, Table 1comes into play because of the
existing residential uses in the area.
Steve Oakey asked if the purpose of setbacks was a safety issue.
Val Christensen stated in this case it is when commercial is abutting residential property. It is not a
safety issue, but more of a perception that you are close to an industrial-type zone.
Steve Oakey asked if the setback numbers are based on an engineering formula or arbitrary
decisions.
Mr. Christensen said it is not an engineering question but if there is an adverse effect on residential
neighborhoods for whatever reason.
Tisha Flora stated she verified with staff that all property owners within 350 feet were notified of
this hearing. The property was posted. No one in attendance tonight has expressed opposition to
this request.
Mark Rudd thought the stigma of having a tower nearby a few years ago has become more
acceptable. The poles are more common and better looking now. It is not as intrusive. He wondered
if some of the restrictions could be lessened because of this.
The Chair said some neighborhoods are more opposed than others in regard to cell towers.
Steve Oakey stated that this neighborhood appears to be in transition; therefore this particular
project is probably of little concern. There are some homes or properties that have fallen in
disrepair. There are two storage unit properties.
Bruce Sutherland agreed that the 4th South area from 2nd West to 5th West has been and is in
transition, to either commercial or high density residential.
Gil Shirley felt this was a good location for the tower.
11
Steve Oakey motioned to recommend to the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(Verizon Wireless) for a 70’ monopole to be located at 344 West 4th South, as stated, with no
conditions.
Gil Shirley seconded the motion.
Bruce Sutherland said the east property line setback is out of compliance. The setback requirement
would need to be relaxed.
Steve Oakey restated his motion (adding a condition), to recommend to the City Council approval
of a Conditional Use Permit (Verizon Wireless) for a 70’ monopole to be located at 344 West 4th
South, and to include one condition:
1. The setbacks shall be relaxed so that the tower can be placed as specified.
Gil Shirley seconded the restated motion.
(Chapter 11, Section 7.b.iv of the City of Rexburg Development Code requires that towers be
setback “a distance equal to at least seventy five percent (75%) of the height of the tower from any
adjoining lot line”. Furthermore Table 1 of the said section requires the cell tower to be
constructed a distance of 200 feet or 300% of the height of tower whichever is greater from single
family or duplex residential units and 100 feet or 100% of the height of the tower whichever is
greater from multi-family residential. Setback requirements may be reduced by the P&Z
Commission.)
The Standard CUP requirements stated in the Development Code No.1026 (“Standards Applicable
to Conditional Use Permits” Section 6.12B) apply to the Conditional Use Permit.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Unfinished/Old Business: None
New Business: None
Compliance: None
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None
Report on Projects: None
Tabled Requests:
1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment –City of Rexburg – 3rd West Neighborhood –
Moderate-High Density Residential to Low-Moderate Density Residential
Building Permit Application Report: None
Heads Up:
July 3, 2014: P&Z Meeting Cancelled
July 17, 2014:
1. Conditional Use Permit – 471 West 1st North – to allow a duplex in an existing home
2. Rezone – Approximately 99 Valley River Drive – LI to MU2
Chairman Robinson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 pm.
rl
N
OD
d
O
N
LO
N
E' rn m rn
x x x x v a
U ai w
K K x K
0
E
Z E v
ALO @ c v
LL. �: i m NI
0
E
a
N
m
N
M
N
v>
M
2 m
O
V
M
M
Y �I
I0
L6
O
h
d
0
O
Q_
O
O
C
O
H y «
°'
� N J
O
N
o
N
0
N
0
N
d
d
1O
N
N
O
a
E
p
y
c
H
E
0
>
`
5
C
N
O
V
O
O
V
2)
O
E
0
0>
0
N
n
n
t
N
O
T
E
N
w
Lu
$
E
E
0
E
Z E v
ALO @ c v
LL. �: i m NI
0
E
2 m
_
J NJI O
Y �I
I0
L6
N
d
O!
Q_
O
O
C
O
H y «
� N J