AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP H-2022-0052 CITY OF MERIDIAN C�
E IDIAN ---
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND "AHO
DECISION& ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a 100-foot lattice designed
communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian
Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district,by the City of Meridian,for
AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP,H-2022-0052.
For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 6, 2022 (Findings on October 20,
2022)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6,2022,incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of October 6,2022, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S).H-2022-0052—AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP
Page 1
upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of October 6,2022,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC I I-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Judicial Review
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho
Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight
(28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final
decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as
provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of
Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the
subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory
takings analysis.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S).H-2022-0052—AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP
Page 2
G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6,2022.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S).H-2022-0052—AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP
Page 3
By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 20th day of
October , 2022•
COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE
COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE
COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED AYE
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED
COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED AYE
COMMISSIONER MANDI STODDARD VOTED
Andrew Seal, Chairman 10-20-2022
Attest:
� SF,AL
Chris Johns , City 10-20-2022
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By wt -- Dated:`10-20-2022
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S).H-2022-0052—AMI Tower at Well 29 CUP
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N ---
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 10/6/2022 Legend
DATE:
Project Location Y,
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 --
SUBJECT: H-2022-0052 ® ER
AMI Tower at Well 29 ' '® m
LOCATION: 6355 W. Quintale Drive,directly west of
Oaks West Subdivision No. 1 in the NW '
1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 33,
Township 4N, Range 1 W. _
- - ------
-- ------ T
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of
Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of
land in the R-8 zoning district,by the City of Meridian.
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
Description Details Page
Acreage 0.45
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)
Existing Land Use City well site(Well#29)
Proposed Land Use(s) Wireless communication facility(100' tall self-
supporting steel tower for radio communication)
Current Zoning R-8
Neighborhood meeting date June 14,2022
History(previous approvals) AZ-08-004(Oakcreek); H-2017-0010(Rezone); H-2017-
0170(Oaks West Sub.); A-2016-0323 (CZC,DES,&
ALT for Well#29 site).
Pagel
III. PROJECT AREA MAPS
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
— Legend Q W
Legend �
Project Location Project Location 4t W DAPH11:I1
DR
DR _ All I Z W RIVA
— -W,MCMI L LA
- w pr FLU
�► r -Cr W QUINrA�E DR,
c
co
Go
(1 I
L � w '44 Nq DR
_ G
W v V
L4ZY `�� �' r; _�E
1pM' -
M N ¢z��R
Medium?D�ensilIirry�� L I z
Civic U_ esidentraV
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
t
Legend R- 0
Legend
Project Location W DAPHN� Project Location
R-75. DR City Limits
F-
z W RiVA Planned Parcels -
' CMIL`L9A
-- - - - - ---� - `i`�. ,W�MCMI LL-q
RR
C A
!Nr DR
LL
.RUT O '
44 O
'.I R-8� Wl'I W�J 4 AN
R 4 C
u u y
_RUT z z
[—R-4 _ � — f
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Jared Hale, City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642
B. Owners:
City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
Page 2
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning
Posting Date
Legal notice published in
newspaper
9/21/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 1000 feet 9/15/2022
Nextdoor posting 9/15/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
on property 9/27/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Existing Structure(s)/Site Improvements:
The subject 0.45 acre site is currently developed with a City well site building with associated
fencing and landscaping. Proposed tower would not require additional structures or site
improvements as all of these improvements have already been constructed with previous
development of the well site.
B. Site Plan:
A site plan was submitted with this application that depicts the location of the proposed tower to
be on the west side of the existing pumphouse building, in closer proximity to McDermott Road
than to the existing residences to the east and north within the Oaks West Subdivision. According
to the submitted plans,there is no ground mounted equipment being proposed with this
application; should ground mounted equipment be proposed,it is required to be screened per the
specific use standards (see V.D below for more analysis). Therefore,the base of the proposed
tower will be screened from view from any nearby residences due to the existing structures on the
subject property and the tower will be located approximately 95 feet from the closest residential
building lot to the east and approximately 150 feet from the closest residential building lot to the
north. In addition,the Applicant's narrative specifically states that final tower design and location
will be coordinated with the adjacent subdivision HOA. Staff supports working with the adjacent
HOA but some level of design and location is required for approval with the subject Conditional
Use Permit(CUP)request.
C. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed wireless communication facility is listed as an accessory or conditional use in the
R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. In addition, all wireless communication facilities are
subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility
(see below analysis). Code encourages slimline or monopole construction but with conditional
use permit approval,the tower may be of alternative design(i.e.the proposed tower design of
steel lattice). The applicant states the steel lattice design is proposed in order to keep costs down
for the rate payers as this design is cheaper than slimline/monopole towers.
The proposed tower is planned to have a radio antenna used for communication with water
meter readers and the existing tower at the City of Meridian Water Department—the
Applicant does not anticipate adding any other wireless communication equipment to this
tower.In fact,the Applicant has requested,through the CUP process,to waive the
requirement to allow additional users to collocate on the subject tower. Since the proposed
Page 3
tower is strictly for a single purpose and not your typical wireless communication facility,
Staff is supportive of the request.
D. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-43): (Staff's comments in italics)
Process(11-4-3-43C):
1. All proposed communication towers shall be designed(structurally and electrically)to
accommodate the applicant's antennas as well as collocation for at least one additional user.
The proposed tower will accommodate additional users but the Applicant is requesting this
requirement be waived through the CUP process.
2. A proposal for a new commercial communication tower shall not be approved unless the
decision making body finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed
tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved structure and/or tower.Proposed
tower is not for commercial use and submitted propagation charts show the need for this
tower to increase the coverage area for water meter readers.
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed tower or antenna cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure. One or more of the following
documentation shall be provided as proof that the new tower is necessary:
a. Unwillingness of other tower or facility owners to entertain shared use.
b. The proposed collocation of an existing tower or facility would be in violation of any
state or federal law.
c. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing towers,as
documented by a qualified and licensed structural engineer.
d. The planned equipment would cause interference,materially impacting the usability of
other existing or planned equipment on the tower as documented by a qualified and
licensed engineer.
e. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height
necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer.
The Applicant has stated there are no existing communication towers in the area to
collocate on. Staff confirms this is accurate.
Required Documentation:
1. For all wireless communication facilities, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and
his,her or its successors to allow the shared use of the tower,as required by this section,if an
additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use.As
noted, the Applicant is requesting to waive this requirement so this document was not
submitted.
2. Propagation charts showing existing and proposed transmission coverage at the subject site
and within an area large enough to provide an understanding of why the facility needs to be in
the chosen location.Propagation maps were submitted and demonstrate the need for the
subject facility to locate in this area.
3. A statement regarding compliance with regulations administered and enforced by the federal
communications commission(FCC)and/or the federal aviation administration(FAA).A
statement was submitted with this application as required and is included in the project
folder.
Page 4
Design Standards(11-4-3-43E). All new communication towers shall meet the following
minimum design standards:
1. All towers shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings
and land uses in the zoning district,or otherwise integrated to blend in with existing
characteristics of the site.Staff believes the existing landscape buffers on the property(to the
north and west), the existence of the pumphouse, and its general location and design make it
architecturally compatible with the adjacent development.
2. The facility shall be painted a neutral,non-reflective color that will blend with the
surrounding landscape. Recommended shades are gray,beige, sand,taupe,or light brown.All
metal shall be corrosive resistant or treated to prevent corrosion. The proposed tower will be
neutral in color and all metal but hot-dipped galvanized steel to prevent corrosion. This will
be verified with the CZC submittal.
3. All new communication tower facilities shall be of stealth or monopole design,unless the
decision making body determines that an alternative design would be appropriate because of
location or necessity.Part of the subject CUP request is for the proposed wireless facility to
be of a steel lattice design rather than a stealth monopole design due to cost reasons, as
noted by the Applicant's narrative.
4. No part of any antenna,disk, array or other such item attached to a communications tower
shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line.No part of any
antenna, disk, array or other equipment attached to the communications tower is proposed to
overhang any part of the property line.
5. The facility shall not be allowed within any required street landscape buffer. The facility is
proposed outside of any required street buffers.
6. All new communication tower facility structures require administrative design review
approval,in addition to any other necessary permits. Structures contained within an
underground vault are exempt from this standard. The Applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application for approval of the
facility prior to application for a building permit. Stafffinds administrative design review
(DES) is not necessary nor applicable for only a lattice communication tower because there
are no design standards specific to tower design.
7. Any equipment at ground level shall be screened by a sight obscuring fence or structure.
According to the submitted plans, no ground level equipment is shown—should any be
proposed, it must be screened with a new fencing material as the perimeter fencing is
wrought iron fencing that does not screen the base of the tower.
8. All tower facilities shall include a landscape buffer. The buffer shall consist of a landscape
strip of at least five feet(5)wide outside the perimeter of the compound. A minimum of fifty
percent(50%) of the plant material shall be of an evergreen variety. In locations where the
visual impact of the tower is minimal,the applicant may request a reduction to these
standards through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5,
"Administration", of this title. There are existing landscape buffers to the north (20 feet wide)
and west(35 feet wide) of the proposed tower location exceeding this code requirement.
Further, according to street view imagery and the submitted landscape plan, it appears at
least half of the plant material in the existing buffers is of an evergreen variety. These buffers
are owned and maintained by the Oaks HOA and not the City so if any additional
landscaping is deemed necessary, the City will have to coordinate with the HOA in order
install additional landscaping.
Page 5
9. All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet(20')of the tower shall be removed except
when the tower is being serviced. The Applicant shall comply.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC Table 11-2A-6):
Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed below for the R-8
district and the specific use standards for the propsoed use of a wireless communicaiton facility
(UDC 114-3-43).Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and deems it in compliance with the
required dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district. The specific use standards separate
the different types of communication towers and their required setbacks (i.e. monopole design,
stealth tower design, or lattice design)when in different districts and/or adjacent to residential
districts. UDC 11-4-3-43 does not specifically state that a lattice design has a setback but
through the applicability section of these standards and the setbacks required for preferred
communication tower designs, Staff applies the noted setbacks within this code section: the tower
must be set back a distance equal to the height of the tower from adjacent right-of-way and/or an
abutting residential lot. The subject 100 foot tower does not meet this setback requirement and
therfore must have its proposed location approved through the CUP process. Per the analysis
above and in subsequent sections throughout this report, Staff supports the proposed tower
location that is approximately 95 feet from the residential property line to the east.
F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access is proposed via the existing curb cut and driveway from W. Quintale Drive.
G. Parking(UDC Table 11-3C-6):
The proposed use does not require parking;there is available parking areas on the existing site.
H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Sidewalks were approved and installed at the project site with previous approvals;therefore,no
additional sidewalk is required.
I. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7):
Any new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
An 8-foot tall wrought iron fence is existing around the perimeter of the subject property. No
other fencing is required as part of this application unless ground mounted equipment is
proposed. Staff will verify if any ground equipment is proposed with the future CZC submittal.
J. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Building elevations were submitted for the proposed steel lattice tower as shown in Section
VILB. The subject tower is not a traditional structure and the City does not have design review
standards specific to lattice style towers with no additional equipment or structures associated
with it. Therefore, Staff does not find it necessary or applicable to require administrative design
review(DES). However,adherence to the submitted and approved design with this application
will be verified with the fixture CZC application.
K. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC):
An application for CZC is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site
design and structure to ensure consistency and provisions in this report prior to submittal
of building permit applications for the development.
Page 6
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff finds the proposed use complies with the applicable UDC standards; therefore, Staff
recommends approval of the Applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 6,2022.At the public
hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request.
I. Summary of the Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Jared Hale,Applicant; Dennis Teller.Applicant:
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting: Dennis Teller. City of Meridian Water Superintendent:
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Tyne of screening,its is height, and its location for the base of the tower:
Verification of the tower design and its height:
Verification tower does not emit any sound or light
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Commission approved the CUP with the requested modifications that the tower be
located within the 100' setback(95 feet) and to waive the requirement to allow
collocation of any other wireless communication provider.
Page 7
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan
dp
tt\
�y\
Q�
N.MCDERMOTT ROAD pp
�a�5�8B5�
Q
OAKS WEST SUB SION 01 —
COMMON LOT
- u\ �rao wxcxc¢mHoaxxx �
\ yn =
CITY CF MERIDIAN J
NiII RI OIAN
RE SEWER UFT STATION
LOT WELL#29 LOT
E
f
z
z r
q q
�Z•� � V 2
z q
W � 6
� � W
� F
Cf 0
V VI
V q
N�
R
J
W
SHEET 2 OF 2
Page 8
N. MCDERMOTT ROAD
rM1 rM1 rM1 r/ PM1 vM1 aM1 vM1 vM1
OAKS WEST ISION 7
COMMONON LOT
IT IEW O COMMUNN TOWER
LJ� M!D CONCRETEE FO FOUNMTgN
EABRNC PERMEABLE
PAVEPS
t E
a
—EXISRNO ABPNPLT— K
t PAVEMENT
W
CITY OF MERIDIAN ® cENERAraR
FUTURE SEWER LIFT STATION CITY OF MERIDIAN
LOT WELL#29 LOT t o
MWPHOUSE
t
♦ �E%ISTND A9PWU�
PAVEMENT
a
IXISIINp PERMEABLE_
A RS
W W W W W N N
Page 9
B. Landscape Plan
N w�
3p
(FuiuReRer [Rsl 6RAUEL ROW �++
ACCESS DRIVE
FENCE Il�/
LEL"E, THE S
Sw � Cn
1� NQRTH ERs RE y j LLI
w
11y1 I O z� a
p rervce w S MULTI
ULT FUTURE W
�Y P cn/V NTL FAMILY _
RlvAor owls �— -- unllrs U
Proposed\ ° S
/�.
II Tower
/ TERSTE`sarFuruREE
t
'wITI •S....II
The red mark-ups were made by0011-11-11-M
the City of Meridian,not theengineer of record.
I
I e
I • i.
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I -
I -
I
I -
I
I
I
ERIFv/SCALE
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN -
oEslcnlEo: �r/o143
oRawN: oe
C-6
Page 10
C. Elevation
I -a"
18}0 A4��
ASTM
o
x According to ANSI/EIA-222—F 1996
90 mph/78 mph + 1/2' radial ice w/ (3 second gust)
per OHC AND IBC
CaAa Flat Plate Area I Weight Elevation
ray x 1810---F4G No Ice 34.0 aq ft 18.09 aq ft 000 Ibs 100 It
° 9\ 1/2' tee 42.0 aq It 23.33 eq ft 1100 Ib 100 ft
x x3 I No Ice 59.0 sq f 32.78 sq ft 75D Ibs 100 ft to 70 ft
�a�v
n =V 1/2' Ice 71.5 aq ft 39.72 aq ft 1300 lb!100 ft to 70 ft
'3 v: (1)-7/8" coax Elevation 0 ft to 100 ft
Climbing Ladder Elevation 0 ft to 80 ft
m m SECTION I3 Z
70 mph/61 mph + 1/2'radial ice (Fastest MPH) per EIA-222-F
x x CaAa Flat Plate Area Weight Elevation
d
No Ice 35.5 aq ft 19.72 aq Ill. 800 lb- 100 ft
1/2' Ice 43.0 aq f 23.89 sq ft 1100 Ib 100 ft
b N No Ice 62.0 sq f 34.44 sq ft 750 Ibs 100 ft to 70 ft
I 1/2' Ice 74.5 sq 41.39 sq ft 1300 Ib 100 it to 70 ft
(1)-7/e" coax Elevation 0 ft to 100 ft
Climbing Ladder Elevation 0 ft to 80 ft
SECTION 7—""'
ci
x
ro so,
r7 g
ci
1\n e\n 1
x x V
va
m M n PIPF LEGS 42 KSI MIN YIELD
10 GA TUBE LEGS 30 KSI WN YIELD
� J J
x o
VI SECTION 5
n
c4 g
N m
I a
3
q1 "r INFERIOR BRACING
N NOT REQUIRED -
c V
x N N FOUNDATION REACTIONS
in x x TOTAL MOMENT: 226 FT-KIPS
N cJ. SECTION 5 TOTAL SHEAR: 4 KIPS
20'-C^ TOTAL DOWNLOAD: G KIPS
J
p O
m m
N O rW� U S
Q J iJ
`�` Ac�mrana
AMERICAN TOWER COMPANY
ISO 9001-2000
P.D.Bm 0 SWby.Obb 41e75
�w hRoft—boll-
4i.%'7r1Im ease NO f4127 w-1e54
100' STANDARD
sr.DW MIE 12/21/a2
DWG NO. 1061
Page 11
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Conditional Use Permit Conditions:
1. Future development shall be consistent with previous approvals of the subject site including
but not limited to: AZ-08-004(Oakcreek); H-2017-0010 (Rezone); H-2017-0170(Oaks West
Sub.);A-2016-0323 (CZC, DES, &ALT for Well#29 site).
2. The site plan included in VII.A is approved as submitted.
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B is approved as submitted. However, should
additional landscaping be required,it will be verified at the time of Certificate of Zoning
Compliance(CZC) submittal and the City may have to work with the Oaks HOA to add more
landscaping.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43:
Wireless Communication Facility except for those specifically allowed through the CUP
process i.e. tower location and waiver of colocation requirement).
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district.
6. The Applicant shall allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to
meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use as required by UDC 11-4-3-43D.1,
unless otherwise waived through the Conditional Use Permit process. Commission waived
this requirement through the CUP process so an allowance of shared use of the tower is not
required.
7. The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless
otherwise approved by the city. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as
permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the
conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of
permanent footings or structures on or in the ground.
8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted prior to submittal
of a building permit application for review and approval of the proposed site design and
structure to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards,and provisions in
this report.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. No changes in public sewer infrastructure shown in record. Any changes must be approved by
public works.
2. Record is for a communication tower.No conflicts or impact to the public water infrastructure.
C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=272860&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
hty
Page 12
IX. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-511-6):
Required Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit
request upon the following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional
and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Stafffinds the subject property will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and
the dimensional&development regulations of the R-8 zoning district and those listed in the
specific use standards for 11-4-3-43 (see Analysis Section Vfor more information).
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in
accord with the requirements of this title.
Stafffinds that the proposed use will be consistent and harmonious with the UDC and the
Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant develops the site consistent with code requirements.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses
in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the
existing and intended character of the area. Further, the existing landscape buffers and
nearby structures offer adequate concealment of the base of the tower.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed
use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal,water,and sewer.
The subject site will continue to be serviced and maintained by essential public facilities so
Stafffinds the proposed will be served adequately by public facilities and services.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Stafffinds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare due to the
Applicant's desire to construct a more affordable lattice design structure.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors.
Stafffinds the proposed use should not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare of the area.
Page 13
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any
natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
Page 14