Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINDINGS OF FACT - AFL Telecommunications - 117 N 2nd E - CUP for Cell Tower in HBDFINDINGS OF FACT REXBURG CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MONOPOLE APPLICATION AT 117 NORTH 2ND EAST On November 25, 2003, John Clark of AFL Telecommunications presented to the Rexburg City Clerk a Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit on property located at 117 North 2"d East in the City of Rexburg. The requested Conditional Use Permit was for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site. 2. On November 26, 2003, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper on November 28, 2003, and December 15, 2003. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 3. On December 18, 2003, John Clark appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg requesting a Conditional Use Permit on property located at 117 North 2nd East in the City of Rexburg for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site. There was no opposition expressed concerning this request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Monopole. The discussion that took place between the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission was specific to compliance with the conditional use issues set forth in the P&Z Ordinance. The motion was made to recommend denial of the request based upon the failure of the applicant to address buffering and the lack of effort to make the monopole harmonious with the surrounding properties. 4. On or before January 02, 2004, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision be sent to the City Council. 5. On January 02, 2004, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper on January 05, 2004 and January 26, 2004. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 6. On January 28, 2004, the appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation of denial for a Conditional Use Permit for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site on property located at 117 North 2nd East in the City of Rexburg was presented to the City Council of the City of Rexburg. There were no public comments in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit for an 80 foot Monopole, and the discussion by the City Council centered around the basis upon which the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial. It was moved and approved to affirm the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to deny the request until further action was taken by the applicant to address the concerns of buffering and making it harmonious with the surrounding area. These findings accurately and completely represent the facts as they have occurred as of this 4`h day of February, 2004. Stephe ollinger, City Atfolhey FINDINGS OF FACT REXBURG CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MONOPOLE APPLICATION AT 117 NORTH 2"n EAST 1. On November 25, 2003, John Clark of AFL Telecommunications presented to the Rexburg City Clerk a Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit on property located at 117 North 2nd East in the City of Rexburg. The requested Conditional Use Permit was for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site. 2. On November 26, 2003, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper on November 28, 2003, and December 15, 2003. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 3. On December 18, 2003, John Clark appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg requesting a Conditional Use Permit on property located at 117 North 2nd East in the City of Rexburg for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site. There was no opposition expressed concerning this request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Monopole. The discussion that took place between the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission was specific to compliance with the conditional use issues set forth in the P&Z Ordinance. The motion was made to recommend denial of the request based upon the failure of the applicant to address buffering and the lack of effort to make the monopole harmonious with the surrounding properties. 4. On or before January 02, 2004, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision be sent to the City Council. 5. On January 02, 2004, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper on January 05, 2004 and January 26, 2004. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 6. On January 28, 2004, the appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation of denial for a Conditional Use Permit for an 80 foot Monopole for cellular communications at an unmanned site on property located at 117 North 2°d East in the City of Rexburg was presented to the City Council of the City of Rexburg. There were no public comments in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit for an 80 foot Monopole, and the discussion by the City Council centered around the basis upon which the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial. It was moved and approved to affirm the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to deny the request until further action was taken by the applicant to address the concerns of buffering and making it harmonious with the surrounding area. These findings accurately and completely represent the facts as they have occurred as of this 4`s day of February, 2004. Stephe ollinger, City A ey I_)Cc.CIYIk.LI /r;olw� 1—cL IVIII U, L, tvL�J 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications Monopole for Cellular Communications at 117 North 2nd East. The current Zoning is Highway Business District (HBD) — AFL Telecommunications Kurt Hibbert reviewed the location for the request on the overhead screen. It will be located at the east end of the Clair and Dees Tire Store storage building. This location is east of an existing cell tower. The Zoning is HBD, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular tower. John Clark — 429 Lawndale Drive in Salt Lake City, Utah is requesting an 80 foot monopole. The exiting pole on the property is also 80 feet high. US Cellular owns the other pole. This applicant represents Verizon Wireless Communications. Discussion on the type of equipment that will be located on the pole. Mary Haley asked why they could not attach to the existing pole on the property. John Clark indicated that the RF frequency would require the location to be 15 feet below the top of the pole. Sixty-five feet of height on the existing pole would not allow the Company to reach their objective. They have to be at least 50 feet away from the existing pole. Winston Dyer asked about the location of the existing pole on the overhead screen. John Clark indicated that they will have a similar configuration as is on the US West tower; however, they will not have as many antennas on this monopole. Discussion on having the equipment surface mounted on the monopole. John indicated that it would be possible to surface mount the hardware on the pole. Winston opened the meeting to public input. Those in favor of the proposal: Mike Thueson — 581 Summerwood Drive representing the owners of the property requested that the Commission approve the request. Mike explained that they have contracted with U.S. Cellular for the existing cell tower on the property. He indicated that it was a good fit for the property to have cell towers. The equipment for this request (a monopole) will be located inside the storage building for the tire store. Other locations on their property to the west did not have as good of a location due to easement restrictions and available space. Those neutral to the proposal: None given: Those opposed to the proposal: None given: The Public Hearing was closed to public input: Mary Haley asked if there were any complaints with the existing communications tower on the property. Mike indicated that the frequency is not the same as the garage door openers and other TV or radio communications. The band width that they are using for communications has limited traffic. This frequency by the Ci quency has not been a ty water tower. This location down on thely le side of the City where the hospital is located They have one other for tower on 2nd and Clementsville. and other to ations fartheoor is r east covering towards East The lay of the land Irequires addition locations rt reach the customers.the back Discuale ssion on the Cell Tower Ordinance beingN areas. revised to eliminate the Towers in the residential Kurt Hibbert indicated that there has been is located inside the Ci negative feed back from residents w Companies to find locations ns tha indicated allow clustering indicated that residents do not want their horizons blocked when a cell tower preferable to work with the Cel] Tower g of the towers in special areas. Kurt Winston Dyer mentioned that the location of the cell tow erwith the view of a cell tower, block would help substantially, He discussed the complaints that he has n the lreoeived when a cel tower is located in an area that is noticed b in locations that are zoned for cellular towers. Commercial y the public. He recommended I Mike putting the cell towers Thueson indicated that he had worked on a co did not materialize. must be He mentioned that it had some legal issues.mmittee at did work on met with the request., He indicated that the height of the tower was also Ordinance that they were working on the cell tower Ordinance, The needs of the height of cell towers. general public Highway Hein that they wouldl titter se e dee al problem when y Business Zones (HBD , airport restrictions on the Discussion on the reason for ]ocaPnblic b Discussion on the restriction the Ci Y being located in would have been built to a 100 feet, then a second coni g the tower at this site. Tower City has put on the height of cell towers. If the U. Pole and located at the 80 foot level. S. pant could have used the same Discussions other locations in the City that would be allowed. mentioned as a property that does not allow cell towers. BI U -Idaho property was Mike Thueson reviewed the plan to locate the electronics building on the tire store property. Discussion on the reason that the cell to on the east side of the storage and other equipment inside an existing g building, tower's being located Mary Haley requested the applicant to relocate the tower to a less intrusive 2nd East. Discussion on the 20 foot easement that was given to U.S.ocation away from building. The easement can not be encumbered b the building, SCellular l t the north side of the g Mary continued to pursue other Y an additional cell tower on the north side of Winston D possible locations for the tower on the Commission allowscanotherated atower to be built at that location. property t the mmission is concerned with the reaction of the public if the He indicated that this is a very progressive Commission; "but we are scared spitless of what our public is going to do, if we consider putting another tower up there"; "That's the bottom line". "They are not going to be happy, at all, because they haven't been happy thus far". David Stein indicated that the property has been maximized for cell tower locations. The location is so close to the street that it is an eye sore. Winston Dyer reviewed the underlying zone as Highway Business District (HBD). He asked the Commission to make a decision. Discussion on the reasons to deny the request. Paragraph B on page 52 of the Zoning Ordinance was reviewed by the Commissioners. Winston read some of the conditions; especially mentioning number 9. B. Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits. The approving body shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use and shall find adequate evidence to show that the proposed use will: (1) Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use Schedule. (2) Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City(s Comprehensive Plan and the regulations of this Ordinance. David Stein mentioned number 3: He indicated that it is not harmonious with the business district and so close to the street. He preferred a location away from the street. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use. (6) 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. Mary Haley mentioned number 7: She was not aware of any buffering for the proposal. (7) Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking. (8) 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. (9) Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the community of Rexburg. David Stein moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications Monopole for Cellular Communications at 117 North 2nd East because the finding of fact being that it is not harmonious with the existing character of the section of the Business District and it is so close to the street. David referenced section 6.13, subsection B3 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mary Haley seconded the motion; Discussion on the subjectivity of the issues. Discussion on the location of other cell towers relative to the highway. Winston asked David how close to the street is too close. Discussion on the lack of an Ordinance that specifies the distance to the street. Three hundred feet was mentioned as an appropriate distance. Winston asked Mike Thueson if he had any comments Germaine to the motion. Mike Thueson spoke to the location of the tower in a Commercial Zone verses a Residential Zone. He mentioned that the nature of business's today is to use cellular communications. Mike Thueson indicated that the Business District is an appropriate location for the cell towers to be located. He asked "Where else are you going to put it"? Mike indicated that one option would be to allow higher towers to provide for additional companies to use the same tower. Mike mentioned the territorial issues with competing companies trying to use the same location. This location will provide coverage for the downtown area and the other side of the hill behind the hospital. Discussion on the fact that the Commission is not anti cell tower. There may be other locations that will provide coverage for the applicant and be less intrusive to the Community. Winston Dyer read procedures of the process from page 54 of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Action by the Commission/Council. Within sixty (60) days after the public hearing, the approving body shall either approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. Upon granting or denying the permit, the approving body shall specify: (1) The provisions of this Ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application. (2) The reasons for approval or denial. (3) The actions, if any, the applicant should take to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Appeals. The applicant or any affected person may appeal a final decision of the Commission on a conditional use permit application to the Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the decision of the Commission. Decisions of the Council may be appealed as provided in Idaho Code Section 67-6521. David Stein indicated that the Commissioners have talked about Number One and Number two. The question on number two is the issue of how close to the street is considered non -harmonious to the Business District, since the City does not have an Ordinance that defines that distance. Discussion on the distance from the street that would be considered appropriate in a HBD Zone. Some of the other Cell Tower sites in Rexburg were reviewed as to the proximity to the street. Joseph Laird indicated that he was not concerned with the location of this request because it is located in a Business District and it is hidden in the back of a store on 2nd East. Continued discussion on the location of the proposed monopole. Discussion on the location of the existing cell tower on the property and the inability for the traffic on 2nd East to notice the tower. Winston indicated that it is very visible from the hill; "it sticks out like a sore thumb". Winston mentioned that there are only three structures that are visible from the hill; two cell tower structures and the McDonalds sign. Mike Ricks joined the meeting. Mary Haley indicated that she is opposed to this location on 2nd East due to its proximity to 2nd East. She is not opposed to cell phones. Kurt Hibbert mentioned section C subsection 5 in the Zoning Ordinance; also, Kurt mentioned #7 on the next page. C. Supplementary Conditions and Safeguards. In granting a conditional use permit, the approving body may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. Such conditions to be attached to the permit may include but not be limited to: (1) Minimizing adverse impact on other developments. (2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development. (3) Controlling the duration of development. (4) Assuring the development is properly maintained. (5) Designating the exact location and nature of development. (6) Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities of services; (7) Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Ordinance. Winston Dyer indicated that the motion is to deny. This section will not lend it self to that discussion. David Stein indicated that the nature of the motion is that the applicant indicated that there is not another spot on the property that will work for the tower. As David understood the issue, the monopole could only be located in the requested spot on this property. Winston Dyer called for Question: Those voting for the motion Mary Haley David Stein Winston Dyer Those voting against the motion Robert Schwartz Joseph Laird The motion to deny the request passed by a three to two vote. The request was denied.