Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 7 of 60 any dollars to this one, so we are not in the decision-making role, we are in the recommending role in this case. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Good job. Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much. Bowman: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. All right. That was very nice. And this brings us to our Public Hearing portion of our evening. I will describe a little bit about our procedures that we will follow, for those of you who don't attend these meetings very often. Our professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of these subjects, so we will begin each Public Hearing with a presentation from our professional staff telling us all where the project is and what the project is and identifying any issues that remain to be resolved. After that the applicant will have the opportunity to come forward and say what they care to say about the project, including addressing any items that the staff has raised, and we allow the applicant 15 minutes for doing that and that includes any engineers or other supporting staff that they bring with them, has to fit within that 15 minutes. Then, we open the Public Hearing for the public to speak and we will start with those who have signed up, but, then, anybody else that has thought of something, we will also ask you if you care to speak. We do ask, so that we all can hear you -- if it was important enough for you to come down this evening, we want to make sure that we hear you, so we ask a couple of things. One is that you only speak when you come up to the microphone and the other is that you speak loudly enough that we all can hear, even if you're at the microphone, don't be afraid of the microphone, but speak up loudly enough that we can all hear you and that our recorder can get things recorded for the record. We do ask you to limit your remarks to three minutes. Generally, the point you wish to be made can be made within three minutes. We do make an exception to that. If somebody identifies them self as a representative of a group -- an example of that would be the president of a homeowners association who is speaking for all of the homeowners in their association, we give that person ten minutes to address us. Following that, then, the applicant can come back up -- they should have been taking notes while the public was making their comments and the applicant can come back up and try and address anything that they can resolve right then that the public has brought up. And if I didn't say it, but the applicant is allowed ten minutes at that point. We do have a handy light system here. When the green light is on you have time to talk. The yellow one will go on when there is somewhere 15 and 30 seconds left, and we do ask that you conclude when the red one goes on. This helps us all not be here until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning if we can move the testimony along and we appreciate that very much. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 05-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunication facility in a C-G zone for Verizon Wireless by Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 8 of 60 AFL Telecommunications - 1776 North Avest Lane: Zaremba: That being said, let us begin with Item 5 on our agenda. This is CUP 05-007 and I will open the Public Hearing for that. It's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunication facility in a CoG zone for Verizon Wireless by AFL Telecommunications, 1776 North Avest Lane, and we will begin with the staff presentation. Guenther: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba. This is a -- like you said, a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The property is off of Fairview and Locust Grove Road. It's on the existing Avest Stor-It site. It's a storage unit site that's located in this kind of L-shaped piece. The proposed location is approximately in the middle of that site. Right in this location they will be losing approximately four parking spaces, which does not affect the overall condition -- or the site for the Avest site. The site will be 12 feet by 28 feet for the -- housing the generator, the pole unit, and the base of the unit and the general location here does conform to all of the requirements of the Meridian City Code, which require it to be three times the height of the structure away from any residential uses, which would be north of the site in this location and I have also detailed that in the staff report. And that's all Barb put in there for me. The site also has one other issue here. The Crickett 85-foot cell tower is also on this site. This is a Verizon one. This is the Crickett site in that location. And at this time I will answer any questions. Staff is recommending approval with the standard conditions that are listed in the staff report. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. We will ask the applicant to come forward and speak, please. Hansen: Thank you, Commissioner and Members of the Commission. I'm Jerry Hansen with AFL Telecommunications, representing Verizon Wireless at 429 Lawndale Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah. I would, before I get into this too far, I'd like to make one correction to your staff report. On the first page, in the applicant's summary, it says the proposed tower will be constructed to allow for co-location for two additional antenna arrays, one at 89 feet and the other at 986 feet. On our actual zoning drawings, those RAD centers were the RAD centers for Verizon Wireless antennas, okay, not for the co- location portion. Do you have a slide of that tower? Guenther: That's what I thought was the third slide that wasn't there. Hansen: That wasn't there. Guenther: Go ahead with your testimony and we will show that here. Borup: We have got that. Hansen: You have that? Okay. Do you all know which one we are talking about? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17.2005 Page 9 of 60 Zaremba: Let me make sure I understand the clarification you're making. There will be three positions for antennas, but Verizon's intention is to use them all? Hansen: No. Zaremba: No. Then I didn't get it right. Hansen: Did you find the slide? It's this page on your drawing. Okay. This is a hundred foot monopole. We have been able to stealth it, so that no antennas extend beyond the circumference of the pole. This height would be 70 feet. Okay. The top 30 feet is being reserved for the antennas. If you can imagine a lazy Susan, there is a center rod that goes up from this 70 feet up to a hundred foot and, then, there are areas where the antennas attach inside of that. Verizon will be occupying the top ten feet. Okay. From the 70 feet to 90 feet is being reserved for co-locations and that will -- and that 30 feet is about the maximum that you can design this pole for when you have that lazy Susan configuration. We can get approximately three co-locators -- I mean three carriers there. I noticed in the staff report that the city wants first right of refusal for police and fire department emergency communications on that pole, which is fine. Verizon has no problem with that. We have another carrier who would like to also co- locate on that pole. So, at this point, if the city were to decide that they wanted their antennas on that pole, that could all be accommodated at the time that the actual construction takes place. And we will present that to the city to see whether or not they actually want to do it now or if they want to reserve the right. They can either have the 80 foot, okay, or the 70 foot, depending on what they opt to do. It's a good design. We have been able to use this design in several locations now where you don't have to have those top hats that have the 12 antennas out on top and this pole can be painted whatever the city would like it to be. The one that Crickett has right now is some kind of a dark green or -- it looks like a dark pole. Crickett could not be co-located on, because the design of their pole would not allow it. It's not capable of having other co- locators on that pole. This is, really, the only pole design that will accommodate those. The need for this pole is not just additional coverage. The increase in communications with the growth of the city and the types of digital communications that are taking place now, for example, you have a lot of digital photos, you have got video streams, and there are so many more phones being used that the actual capacity of existing communication facilities are being stretched. In fact, what will happen is that you will have critical overloads, you will dropped signals when you're in the middle of a call, it will just end, because the capacity of the regular equipment can't handle it. This becomes a critical hand-off site from other existing sites to take off some of that traffic load and, then, this will also provide additional coverage to areas that are not now being covered well. Verizon has been getting complaints from the community about some of the coverage and so that's why they have been looking to try and figure out how to establish a site in this location. It should serve the community for quite some time and the co-location aspect of it is I think a very desirable thing for the city. There aren't too many ways that you can co-locate on a pole without having some stand-off antennas on the pole. So, if you have any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 10 of 60 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Hansen: Yes. Rohm: I have tried to encapsulate what you were saying about the antenna and I'd just like to read back the way I'd like to change the staff report and see if you concur. The proposed tower will be constructed to allow for the co-location of additional antenna arrays. Period. Hansen: That's fine. Rohm: And, then, we don't have to speak specifically to location or otherwise. Hansen: Right. We will present construction drawings that will show Verizon's location and, then, we will also show the applicable areas that are being left open for the co- locators. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Hansen: Okay. Zaremba: If my memory serves me correctly, the Crickett tower that is nearby was approved just before the city realized that we should be doing co-location and I think it's maybe one of the towers that said, hey, we need to make an arrangement to co-locate. So, it was approved before that was a requirement and I appreciate your providing the requirement. Do you know -- certainly if an antenna can be co-located, they don't interfere with each other, but do you know if there is any reason that there would be interference from one that's -- what is it, one hundred feet away from yours or are you on different frequencies or how does that -- Hansen: No. We all have purchased different spectrums -- Zaremba: Okay. Hansen: -- from the FCC. On any give pole -- now, for example, if -- some carriers would interfere or would have a tendency to interfere with Verizon. In that case they would have to have maybe a ten-foot separation between the tip height of one and the bottom of another. In this case, the co-locator that we have been talking to will not have that interference problem and I know from work that I have done up in Caldwell, for example, on their emergency services, that there really is no problem with the emergency services bands in terms of the other locators that are on there, so it should fit very well. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17.2005 Page 11 of 60 Newton-Huckabay: No. I just have a comment. On the pole -- didn't we pick kind of a standard paint color late last year to paint the poles? Rohm: I think the comment that was made was the Idaho Power Company utility gray that all their transmission towers seem to be a rather neutral color and that's the only reference that I can remember speaking to and, I don't know, maybe staff has some comments on that. Hansen: My experience is that most of the challenges come to the color at the jurisdictions and, quite frankly, the ones that seem to work best are the ones that -- like Idaho Power has adopted. They seem to stand against the horizon better. The one that Crickett has really stands out and it could be more neutral than that. Rohm: Well, it seems to me that that was the reference that we had made before, is because of that neutrality of the transmission poles that seemed to be the most -- or the least objectionable of colors. But if staff has some comments on that -- Hansen: Yeah. During your inversions it becomes almost -- Guenther: Anna just indicated that we don't have a standard color that we require. Borup: So, what would that be called, Idaho Power gray? Rohm: Good enough for me. Newton-Huckabay: If I remember right the T -Mobile pole on South Eagle Road, we suggested to them to use a specific color. Borup: And the one out at the -- Newton-Huckabay: And the one out at Ten Mile. Borup: Yeah. Near the storage facility up there. Same thing. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: Those were in the gray ranges, not green, but they were dark, I think. Newton-Huckabay: They were gray. Right. but I guess my suggestion is that maybe we could just suggest that we find out what that color was and just continue with that color, so we don't -- Hansen: That's something the city would have to decide, I guess; I'm willing to bring in the little swatches and you guys -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17.2005 Page 12 of 80 Zaremba: I think if we just work with staff -- I understand the issue is that you can have it baked on at the factory if it's decided before you order it, so you don't to have to paint it on site. Hansen: We just need to know what you need. Zaremba: Okay. I would say work with staff on the color. Guenther: Mr. Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: Craig has referred to me that he did the one off of South Eagle Road and they have the color in that staff report and we can get that to the applicant. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: If that's the color you so choose. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: I think that was a good compromise, so that would be a good one to pick. Borup: And I didn't pay any attention to that color. Maybe it served its purpose, but does it? Is it pretty non-obtrusive? That's all we are looking for is something that's going to blend in and it sounds like we are aware of what works. Did the other one work? Zaremba: I see the one up on Ten Mile and Ustick more than that one and it blends in satisfactorily for me, the one up there. Borup: If we have already worked out a color that works, but -- Rohm: Well, I think it's sufficient it to say that as long as you work with staff between your group and staff we can get the color right. Hansen: As soon as we can get them invisible we will. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: We do have a couple other people signed up to speak. Mr. McFadden, I believe it is? Cameron McFadden? Okay. He's marked as neutral on it. And, then, Nathaniel Curly. Okay. Neither of those choose to add anything. That leaves the applicant with nothing to answer. Any more comment from staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 13 0160 Guenther: Yes, sir. The site specific -- or special consideration that Commissioner Rohm wanted to amend, was that number two that says the applicant shall design tower to accommodate the applicant's antenna and one other? Was that the condition that you were talking about amending? Zaremba: Are you on page four? Borup: I think he was referring to a comment that was in the application summary, so maybe we-- Zaremba: On the first page. Borup: Yeah. So, we don't really need to amend that, it's just -- Guenther: Okay. And, then, just to clarify, the police and fire have indicated that this tower most likely won't be tall enough to meet their needs, but this is something that -- for future references that they want to at least have the applicant contact them when they are going to be building the tower as to be able to locate it within their grid and, then, take a look at it, but, most likely, this one won't be tall enough for them. Zaremba: So, this is the first of a standard procedure? Guenther: They said a minimum of 125. Borup: One hundred twenty-five? Guenther: Was what their desirable range would be, which there is very few other heights in the City of Meridian that meet that. Rohm: So, with that being said -- Zaremba: The hearing is still open, if you'd care to say that on the microphone. Hansen: We initially came in with a hundred feet, because that is kind of stretching it in terms of height and getting approvals in some of the cities. If we are in a stealth design that works, if the city needs it to be taller for their own purposes, then, we can certainly look at a design, as long as Verizon can get the height that they Want on this thing, you know, it's very possible that the city could co-locate on it and we can get a -- if we can get a free-standing 125 foot mono pole, you know, that might help the city out in terms of their needs, so -- I mean we are open to working with staff on that, too. Zaremba: I would guess that the issue for our consideration is whether this is the right location for a telecommunication tower. Since it's within feet of another one I can't see how there would be any objection to that. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 140f60 Zaremba: It meets all the fall zone. Guenther: It actually doesn't meet the fall zone. This one was the -- this one was approximately 310 feet from the residential district and if they went to a 12S, they would not meet that three-to-one fall zone. Zaremba: That's a good point. Guenther: And second in there was Mr. Freckleton has referenced that the City of Meridian is possibly going to a wireless network in the future and so we would just like to change the Meridian police department comment, that condition to read: The City of Meridian, not police and fire, so they would have to contact the city and it's a cover all for us. Hansen: Okay. Zaremba: What page was that comment? Guenther: That would be on page five, the last condition on the -- Zaremba: Okay. So, we are -- Rohm: Page five -- well, what is it again? Zaremba: -- it is important how tall it is, then. Okay. Guenther: It is important how tall it is. It's just -- their requirements for height might not meet this location, as well as their comments to me in the comments meeting that we meet with other agencies was that they most likely have this site covered for police and fire as well. Rohm: That works for me. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Appreciate your willingness to help, though. Okay. Commissioners, I would only make one comment. Are -- and this is, I guess, a question for staff. There are a couple of pages, on page four and page five, that talk about no signs. I think there is an exception to that. They are required to have some like danger, high voltage signs and -- Guenther: That would be like advertising signs. Zaremba: Thank you. I checked with those who signed up. Anybody who did not sign up care to comment? Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP OS-007. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 15 0160 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-007, to include staff comments for the hearing date on March 17th, received March 11th, 2005, with the following changes: On page -- I guess it would be page one, under the application summary -- Borup: Okay. But that's not part of the -- it wouldn't be normally part of the motion, because it's not part of the staff's recommendation. I don't know that you necessarily have to change that. Rohm: Well, I just think just -- Borup: Okay. Rohm: -- we will change it and if they don't need it, it's doesn't hurt anything to reference that. So, on the application summary I'd like to change the third paragraph down, the proposed tower will be constructed to allow for a co-location of additional antenna arrays. Period. And on page five, other agency comments and conditions, number one, change that to read: The city of Meridian must have a first right of refusal for co-location of communication devices as per MCC 11-22-E.3. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 05-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-tenant office building in an I-L zone as required by the conditions of approval for Lot 5, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision No.1 by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. - 150 South Adkins Way: Zaremba: Next item on the agenda, No.6. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05- 009, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-tenant office building in an I-L zone as required by the conditions of approval for Lot 5, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision No. 1 by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc., 150 South Adkins Way. And we will begin with the staff report.