Loading...
2010 10-21Meridian Planning and Zoninct Meeting ___ October 21, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 21, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Rohm: \ The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there will be some changes to tonight's agenda. Items No. 4-A, B and C, will only be opened for the purpose of continuing this project to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 4th. It will be open just for that purpose, so if there is anybody here tonight to testify to that particular application we will not be taking any testimony. So, with that sole change could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda. A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 10-001 Regency at River Valley by Bach Investments, LLC Located at 2500 N. Eagle Road Request: Modify the Site Plan, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 2 of 25 Building Elevations and Certain Conditions of the Conditional Use Permit Approved for the Regency at River Valley Apartment Project B. Approve Minutes of October 7, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda and Item A is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 10-001 and the approval of the minutes from the regularly scheduled meeting of October 7, 2010. Any additions or corrections? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Action Item. A. .Public Hearing: CPAM 10-001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of Land from Office to Medium Density Residential B. Public Hearing: RZ 10-004 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zone C. Public Hearing: PP 10-003 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic Viiew Drive: Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4 Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 4th. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 3 of 25 Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue the aforementioned items to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Well, we are moving along rather quickly here, aren't we? Okay. Before we open this next item, I'd like to just discuss the process just a little bit and, then, we will go from there. What we do is we will open the item and have our staff give us the staff report and their staff report, basically, speaks to the project as it adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and the UDC and the staff will make their recommendations and once that portion is done, then, the applicant will come forward and give their reasoning for the application and assert their reasons that they think we should move forward with it. Once we have heard those two portions of the process, then, we will open it up for public testimony. Each person testifying to this has three minutes to speak as an individual. If they are speaking for a larger body, such as a homeowners association and there is a show of hands that they are speaking for that group, then, they will be given an extended length of time, I believe ten minutes. Once all testimony has been received, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to come back up and speak to any testimony offered during the hearing, so -- and, then, once that's done, then, the Commission will discuss and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with a conclusion before the hearing is over tonight. Canning: Chairman Rohm? Rohm: Yes. Canning: Before you open the next public hearing, there were about four or five folks signed up for Waverly Place and no one's left the room, so there may be a little confusion about Waverly Place. Okay. Good. Thank you. Sorry. D. Continued Public Hearing from October 7, 2010: CUP 10-009 for Verizon Wireless Meridian High School by Nefi Garcia, TAIC Located at 1900 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a 100-Foot Tall Wireless Communication Facility in an R•4 Zoning District Rohm: All right. Thanks for bringing that up. Appreciate that. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing from October 7, 2010, of CUP 10-009 for Verizon Wireless Meridian High School cell tower and begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 4 of 25 Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The site before you is the Meridian High School site. It's approximately 50 acres in size and currently zoned R-4. Surrounding properties -- the majority of property around the school site are zoned residentially, with some L-O zoning to the east side, which is more of an office complex at this time. The application before you is for a Conditional Use Permit to erect a 100 foot tall pole on the site and co-locate some wireless communication facilities on that pole. Currently the site has an 80 foot pole that has stadium lighting for the football field and the -- that shines on and hangs over the bleachers. Back in -- earlier this year we approval CZC for a co-location for Clearwire. Currently their facilities are located approximately 65 feet in height adjacent to this facility. That -- because they were co- locating on an existing pole, that approval only requires certificate of zoning compliance approval. Now that the applicant, Verizon, is wanting to install a new pole, a hundred foot pole, that change triggers them, in essence, to comply with certain standards of the UDC and also because we deem it as a new use, a new pole, new facility, they have to go through this conditional use process and so that's why we are here tonight. The applicant's proposal includes a structure which houses their mechanical equipment. It is -- it does meet the setbacks prescribed in UDC 11-4-3-43, which is roughly 125 feet from any residential district. There is a -- as I mentioned to you, there is residential housing to the north. The applicant's site plan does show compliance with that setback and, then, they are to have a minimum of a 200 foot setback from the public street. Linder Road, I believe, is to the east boundary and there will -- tucked in far enough, they are not within that 200 foot encroachment, so they are setback far enough on the site as well. Just to let you know -- get to the elevations for you. So, here is what I was describing for you. So, currently, if you look at the elevations here, the equipment will be screened by fencing. The UDC prescribes that. They have to be screened by a six foot tall solid fence and, then, here the applicant -- right now there is some existing microwave drums that are on here and, then, at about 65 feet you have the Clearwire facility that I mentioned to you earlier. This is the stadium lighting, which is at 80 feet currently and, then, as the new pole gets erected or if you approve the CUP Clearwire will actually move their facilities to 90 feet and, then, Verizon will be located on the 100 foot mark. In the letter from the applicant they have informed staff that they are making provisions to allow two more providers to co-locate on this pole, which is consistent with the ordinance as well. So, you can anticipate, if this pole is erected and this goes forward and constructed, you can anticipate at least two more providers using the same pole. Our ordinance does encourage that. We realize that these facilities can be intrusive on the urban landscape and so our ordinance does allow or requires co- location. The applicant -- given the fact that the school district owns the property, they will be entering into a lease agreement with the school district. The school district being the owner of the property will have to grant permission to other providers to use that pole. Mr. Nefi Garcia is in the audience, he's the applicant's -- representing the applicant Verizon Wireless. He will be required to submit that verification with the CZC application. So, to lay out what's going to happen from this point forward, if the CUP is approved the applicant will be required to go through certificate of zoning compliance approval and design review approval and just to let Mr. Garcia know, too, that Clearwire will also have to come back and modify their CZC that we approved several months ago for the relocation of their antenna. So, just because they are on the existing pole now Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 5 of 25 doesn't mean that they can just stick their equipment back on the new pole. They will have to go back to the planning department and get approved for their new location at the 90 foot height as well. Currently the -- excuse me. Currently the property is designated medium density -- a civic use, so -- wireless and zoned R-4, so the wireless communication facilities in the conditional use in the R-4 zone, if it's adjacent to residential -- and that's why we are before you this evening. As I have mentioned to you earlier, if they were just to co-locate on an existing pole, they would just be required to go through administrative approval, our CZC approval. So, really, staff did receive some written testimony on the application. The first person that testified or provided testimony was Nefi Garcia. Again, he's the applicant. He's in agreement with the staff report. He is in the audience this evening. Staff also received written testimony in opposition and excuse me if I butcher your last name, but it's from Ed Klopenstein -- Klopenstein in opposition of the tower. I believe his comments are provided in your packet this evening. Hopefully you have had a chance to review that. To staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and staff is recommending approval with conditions attached in the staff report. With that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Marshall: I have a quick question, Mr. Chair. So, you're saying Clearwire needs to go back through, but that would be through the administrative process if this were to be approved today, because they are simply relocating on an existing pole at that point in time if it were to be approved. Parsons: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, that's correct. The staff report spells it out. The previous CZC approved that communication equipment on the existing pole, not the new pole. So, in order to get that reestablished on the new pole, they need to amend -- modify their approved CZC showing the new location. Marshall: But I guess my point is that they wouldn't be back in front of us. Parsons: That is correct. Freeman: Mr. Chair, another question for -- Rohm: Mr. Freeman. Freeman: -- Bill. Bill, you mentioned we can anticipate some future services going on this pole. Do I assume correctly that those each will have to go through the CZC process as well to be put on the pole? Parsons: Commissioner Freeman, that would be correct. We would consider that co- loration. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 6 of 25 Marshall: Again, I would like to ask, then, that would be through administrative approval, though, it would not be back in front of this -- Freeman: CZC. Marshall: Right. Freeman: Correct. Marshall: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Garcia: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners and staff. My name is Nefi Garcia, work with Technology Associates. I represent Verizon Wireless. My address is 9650 West 500 -- I'm sorry. 96 -- we just moved. 9650 South 500 West, in Sandy, Utah. We are here today to seek your approval for this application. First of all I'd like to thank you for your time and also for staff for all the efforts that we put into this. We started this back in June, so this has been a long road to haul to get to this point, but we are here and thanks to everybody who assisted in this matter. Just a quick little history on this site and how it works. You know, I have never been in front of a planning commission or -- I'm sorry -- in front of you all before. I have been doing this for quite awhile in other jurisdictions, but this is the first time I have done a P&Z hearing in Meridian. I have done some CZC's, but, quickly, the way it works is RF, which means radio frequency, engineers, they are the ones that know how each site has to talk to each other and has to see each other. They are the ones that know where they are going to need their future sites and once they have that in the build plan, they give people like myself our marching orders, as they go find somewhere in this area, because they get a map and a ring and say if one goes here that will give us our covered objectives. And so I go out and see -- talk to property owners, see what I can lease, what I can zone, what's allowed for building permit. Bring them three different property owners, submit them to Verizon. All different departments look and say we like this for whatever reason. RF has the main say, so if you're going to -- how the network works. Construction so it's safe, so leasing, zoning, real estate, they all have a say in this. And so other projects were submitted besides the Meridian High School was just south of the tracks there is a T-Mobile tower, submitted that one. And, then, north of the high school, that old guide tower, it's there for a long time, it's not going to be there much longer, is my understanding. Those are the three properties I submitted to Verizon. The reason I submitted those three is because they are all co-location. You know, all the jurisdictions like to see the care go on existing structures, whether it's a roof top or existing structure, so I submitted those three. And RF, this is the one that will give them the best -- best coverage objectives. However, they need a hundred foot. I asked them if they could live with something lower and, honestly, they can't. I mean I wish they could, because, then, we'd do a CZC, but they need that height to be able to -- be able to talk to existing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 7 of 25 Verizon sites that are out in the area and be able to get coverage. That's one of the objectives to provide better coverage in this area. So, because of that this -- this property was selected and that's when I began my negotiations with Meridian High School. We have not actually signed anything yet, but we can come to terms, just a matter of a few things we have to work out. But we are real close to getting the lease signed between Verizon and the school district. As I mentioned, it's a co-location, that's -- all jurisdictions like to see. Staff recommends approval and I'm here to, hopefully, as well obtain your approval and answer any questions I may have for you at this time. Thank you. Rohm: I guess my first question would be you have read the staff report and agree with all the terms created by the -- Garcia: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Yes. Mr. Chair. So, you are also responsible for the microwave communication devices at the lower end of that pole; is that correct? Garcia: That's part of the -- part of the structure, yes, sir. O'Brien: What frequency are those microwaves -- what area? What -- Garcia: Let me explain. O'Brien: Okay. Garcia: The microwaves -- we show those on our drawings in case we can't get Telco or T1 to the site. All the sites operate off a T1. A number of T-1 s, actually. If we can't get T1 and Telco to the site, we have to do microwave shots. Here it's highly, highly unlikely that we will be using these dishes, because, you know, we can -- we can read Telco to the site -- there is telephone, fiber on Linder. If by chance we had to use these, typically they are high gain, they are like in the two to three gig, 800, 900, 1.6 range. O'Brien: Uh-huh. What about radiated immunity? You have RFI, radio frequency interference, but what about radiated immunity, it's a -- microwaves can produce a lot of strong current close by especially. You know, being that low on the pole I was concerned about any safety issues or -- Garcia: Are you talking about -- you're talking about the dish and not the antennas; correct? O'Brien: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 8 of 25 Garcia: I mean there are I think certain rules that follow. Have to show, you know, FCC -- you know, there is studies before or after, you know, there is certain studies they have to comply to. This would be a licensed -- if they do use the dishes it's a licensed frequency and they need permission for that. O'Brien: You know, the biggest concern I have with that would be the fact that it's located low down and, then, during sports activities on that field there is going to be an awfully lot of people -- Garcia: Yeah. O'Brien: -- and I was just concerned about that type of immunity -- radiated immunity or RFI look into the communication devices in that area. Garcia: Yeah. That's our concern. Like I say, there is a high probability that, you know, these dishes won't be used. You know, it's only if we can't, you know, bring Telco to the site and typically that's the case in like mountain top sites, those kind of areas. If we look at all the sites that Verizon has here in the Treasure Valley, I can't think of one that has a microwave dish on it. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Rohm: Any other questions? Marshall: I do, Mr. Chair. Rohm: Go ahead. Marshall: Originally when we approved this for the Clearwire tower, they installed a -- what they refer to as a stealth antenna and were able to incorporate everything into the pole. So, this is a singular pole without additional things hanging off of it, your antennas and the like. It appears that you're not offering that or can't offer that or why can't you go to a stealth antenna and their stealth antenna could incorporate several providers within the shield that hid everything. Does that make any sense? Garcia: Kind of. Clearwire -- you have a picture in front of you as well. Marshall: Yes. Garcia: That Clearwire -- there is Clearwire shown between the light standards -- the lights and Verizon. That's the way they kind of look right now, except they are below the lights. You know, I wouldn't call that a stealth design, I mean because you can see the antenna. Stealth is when it's hidden. They don't have a stealth design there. They have kind of a small array of antennas with their microwave dishes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 9 of 25 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, they do not have stealth antenna on that site. They have co-located antennas on the site. But it's not a stealth. Marshall: Oh. It's the other -- the last site that we approved for them at the middle school that had the stealth antenna; is that correct? Canning: Yes. Marshall: So, is there any reason why we can't go to stealth antennas on this site? Garcia: You know, that's -- that's something that can be done. You're talking about the middle school, you know, it's like -- they call that the stealth ones, they can -- where you can't see the antennas at all, everything is, you know, inside the can. Marshall: Correct. Garcia: That's an option, too. You know, it's -- that's something we can look at. Verizon -- if that does happen Verizon -- see, right now Verizon is taking one position, like at a hundred foot. If that does happen, they will take multiple positions because of the antennas that they require. That's esthetics that can be worked on. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Garcia. Just curious, what -- for optimal coverage what kind of a grid spacing are you typically working with between towers? Garcia: It kind of depends on where you are. You know, roughly right now rule of thumb is a mile, maybe two miles. I can tell you the site -- the Verizon neighbor sites, as they are called to this, are -- there is one to the northwest at a storage unit, Ten Mile and Ustick. The other neighbor site would be across from Winco or KFC where the old Enterprise Rent-A-Car was, there is some storage units right there. That's another Verizon site. Over here behind Locust Grove and Winco -- is that right there on Locust Grove? Rohm: Behind Fred Meyers. Garcia: Yeah. Fred Meyers. Yeah. And so those are about amile -- about two miles, probably, so that kind of gives you a good picture feel of what they require. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 10 of 25 Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Garcia: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time I would Mike Harmon like to come forward? Harmon: Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. I live directly to -- Rohm: Please say your name and address for the record. Harmon: Oh. My name is Mike Harmon, 1871 Santa Clara, Meridian, Idaho. Rohm: Thank you. Harmon: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. The tower is directly behind my house. While I'm -- I'm not too concerned with how it looks, I'm very concerned with the safety issues involved with microwave frequencies. The issue lies in that same frequency is the same frequency my microwave cooks coffee with and cooks food. I talked to the people at Planning and Zoning, I talked to a man -- his name is Pete. He said he was going to be here tonight, but I don't know. But when I was talking to him I asked him what are the requirements, then, to do this and he said esthetics and safety. He said that they covered safety. The esthetics have yet to be addressed, believe. You were talking about the stealth antenna, that was -- that was a first that had ever even heard of that being possible there. Also, the -- the extra two services being put on that, it's going to look -- it's going to look pretty horrific, more than the picture shows. As well, back to safety, is there any way that they are going to be monitoring the microwave radiation coming out of these antennas to make sure that it's not harming houses around it? Is there any kind of cyclic testing they are looking at doing to make sure that it stays within FCC standards or is it just one of those things where, hey, we are getting -- we are having problems down here, so we get a hold of the FCC, they go investigate and, then, they push Clearwire and everybody else on that pole to go out there and do maintenance on it. I would feel better if there was reassurances our safety was involved, not just our esthetics. I'm glad it's not going to fall on my house. But that just means the pole won't reach, that doesn't mean secondary projectiles won't come off of there and possibly injury somebody else at my home or anybody else's home or the school. I'm curious if there is any kind of plan in place -- this technology moves very rapidly. You have seen it -- a lot of you probably come from black and white TVs, well, today here we have flat screen LCD, LED, you know, the whole nine yards. Pretty soon -- and it's even in our cars. I don't imagine that these -- it was even mentioned satellite communication is just around the corner as soon as they get it cheap enough. What is going to happen when these -- when this cell tower gets obsolete, who is going to pay for that installation, removal, at that time? Is that part of the plan also? I just -- I just ask you to look at this open-mindedly and cover our safety and our future issues. We don't want the city to get stuck paying for the removal. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 11 of 25 Rohm: Thank you. Harmon: Thank you. Rohm: Matt Harrison. Harrison: Good evening. My name is Matthew Harrison. I live just north of the Meridian High School at 1832 West Santa Clara. I have been a resident of the state of Idaho for over 25 years. I have lived in Meridian for approximately 17 years. Most of that time has been spent living in the Vineyards subdivision. I have seen it grow. I have seen this community grow, so I'm familiar with this -- with this community. My opposition on this is one topic. There is several people here that are going to testify today, so I don't want to go into their issues, but I have two points. I oppose it with regard to the potential safety issues, but, number two, my main point today is I believe it's a nuisance. I believe it violates Meridian City Code 4-2-1. I believe that Mr. Baird is familiar with that. But I think it also violates the Idaho State Code, which is more expansive. Idaho State Code 52-101. The specific language of the Idaho State Code, a nuisance is defined as anything which is injurious to health. But it's also anything which is offensive to the senses. I believe it's offensive to the senses and I think the other members that are going to testify today against this would believe it's offensive to the senses. It's ugly and I think it's going to have a diminution in value when I try to sell my house. People are looking around, they can pick a subdivision that doesn't have a spaceship tower above it, they are going to pick that subdivision, opposed to my subdivision. Number two, it's an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Comfortable enjoyment of life or property I think is very significant. Comfortable enjoyment -- I don't want to go outside in my front yard and see this -- this tower. Number two, it interferes with an enjoyment of my property. It's diminution of value that the property is going to have once this goes in. Is Verizon going to compensate me for the reduction in the sales value on my home once this comes in.? Have they made arrangements to set up a bond or a trust to compensate every homeowner for the value that they are going to lose in their home? I'm going to move on. Reasonableness test. Even if this tower is socially useful, Verizon has not shown that it provides a direct benefit to the citizens of Meridian. I did not hear the applicant testify that this tower is solely for the benefit of the citizens of Meridian. I think they chose this site, because it is -- it is cheap. He testified that there was three choices, they -- the reason they chose this site was because it -- they wanted to use existing structures. I think they wanted to use existing structures to save money. Why not use a structure that they own, that's out in the county away from residents, and why not use the structure that's -- that's near -- that's just south of the railroad tracks. I think that they could -- they could use that structure. There is businesses there. There is very few homes around that area. So, those are my two points. I think it violates Idaho Code. Thank you. Rohm: Thanks for your testimony. Joanne Harrison. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 12 of 25 Harrison: Good evening. I'm Joann Harrison. I'm also a resident of the Vineyards Subdivision. I live at 1832 West Santa Clara in Meridian. In 1951 there was a nuclear test site in Nevada that released the first above ground nuclear bomb. later in Las Vegas nuclear bomb explosions became a widespread tourist attraction. I recall seeing film clips of families gathered around to watch the explosions and, then, have their children in the fallout, like playing like it was fresh fallen snow from the sky. Throughout time there has been a continuation of claims made by large industries that certain products do not pose any potential health hazards. The tobacco company denied for years that smoking cigarettes could cause cancer. DDT was safe. Asbestos was a great insulator. And feeding cows animal bi-products was a good practice. So, how does any of this relate to cell phone towers? There is an associated risk of cell phone towers emitting the electromagnetic radiation, which can cause and pose health risks to all of us that are living near it. I have a quote from Helen Caldicott, a physician and a pediatric co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility. She stated that radio frequencies emitted from mobile telephone towers will have a significant medical effect to people within the near vicinity according to a large body of scientific literature. Babies and children will be particularly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of the radio frequency radiation. It is, therefore, criminal to place one of these aerials on or near the school. I don't feel that Verizon is entitled to use an existing light pole that has been paid for by taxpayer funds to provide corporate gain for themselves. There are numerous other areas in Meridian which are not heavily populated that the tower could be placed. I hope you, the commissioners, will not be persuaded by the large company and allow this tower to be installed. Please, stop and think of the 3,000 kids that attend Meridian High School. And I would like to interject that you have stated that you were 125 feet from the residential areas, you were 200 feet from setback from the street, which was allowable. Not one time did you mention the number of feet that you were located from Meridian High School. Not one mention was made of the potential of those children being exposed by the microwave radiation that could be emitted from the tower, so -- and not to mention the families that are raising their children. Have you made mention -- thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Don Klinger. Klinger: Good evening. My name is Don Klinger. I live at 1823 West Santa Clara. I don't have a lot to add to what's already been said, except to say that I am concerned about safety for children, I'm concerned about the safety of the people that are there for the football games and so on. But it gets really, really personal, because for me when look at my kitchen right where my nook. is, where we eat, the pole is right straight out from my back window. I'm probably the closest one to it. Our bedroom is right beside the kitchen. So, it's not a matter of going there for a few hours every day, it's every night, eight hours a night, every night, very close to that pole. That's my speech. Thank you. Rohm: This next name is the same name that Bill struggled with, so, Ed, would you like to come up, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 13 of 25 Klopenstein: Thank you very much. My name is Ed Klopenstein. I'm at 1786 West Santa Clara Drive. We are roughly about 200 feet from the actual pole. Basically, what I -- the document I sent out to you earlier, what I'm basing that on is two points. One is that there are a fair amount of really good research that comes out of New Zealand and Florida, which, basically, says that if you are within 700 feet, your cost of -- your loss to homeowners sale is anywhere from two percent to 20 percent and those are fairly well documented numbers. And so what, basically, Verizon is suggesting here is that we are going to bear the closest 40 homes next to -- within the radius of this pole, we will have to bear a loss in value of two to 20 percent, basically, depending on how close you are to the pole. I find that a violation of my rights and also kind of a double taxation to a degree. And I don't think the Planning Commission has truly thought this out in terms what is done to -- to a small -- kind of the burden to a small group of people. Also I think that the precedence in how this decision is being made is a bit of a problem. If you notice, if you look at the current stats, all Verizon poles, all cell phone towers are within zoned commercial or zoned light industrial properties. This is rare for a property to be R-4 and still have -- and have this pole installed at this height and it's causing I think a bit of a problem, because, basically, what this is doing is -- is forcing a small group of people to bear the social cost for a large group and I think that's wrong. I realize that, really, what it comes down to, I think, is that it violates the esthetics principal which you're judging this -- this request and I think for that matter you should decline this. Thank you very much. Marshall: I have a question real quick. Klopenstein: Please. Marshall: There is a pole there now; correct? Klopenstein: There is. Yes. Marshall: And it has the large antennas on the outside. You can't go back and undo what's been done already, but my question to you would be which do you think would lower the value more, a stealth pole or one as such exists with all the antennas hanging off of it? Klopenstein: For safety -- this is two things in reviewing this. One is for safety, the other one is for esthetics. Safety, what I found, anyway, that there is -- it's difficult to gauge. For esthetics, though, I have seen some people do things that might make this better and, that's true, it might make things more appropriate for the environment and think that would probably help this matter. You know, I question how much thought has been put into it. It looks like the designs have gone into this more overarching structure and the other issue I would have for that is that what I'm a little concerned is that I have heard tonight that there was future companies that may use this pole and who is to say, then, down the road that what they have as a stealth design now won't be intruded upon by other companies to make it more obtuse. Does that make sense? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 14 of 25 Marshall: I understand. I think it is up to those of us, hopefully, representing the needs of the community to make sure that happens. Klopenstein: I would hope so. And I do appreciate you letting me talk and I appreciate the fact you're hearing this issue through. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Sue Darden. Darden: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Sue Darden and I live at 1858 West Santa Clara Drive. We do have one more legal thing we'd like looked at. 4.2.6, the offensive matter. It shall be unlawful for any person to place upon any property or to allow to remain upon any property within his or her -- within his or its control any matter which is offensive to the senses or potentially injurious to health. I have 17 feet two inches of windows that face that pole. We -- when I bought the house 13 years ago it was -- it was already there with the lights. I understood that. My boys both graduated from Meridian High School. But what I see now, we have had the -- they put in the one cell tower, it's a little lower, it's annoying, but that's okay. But I have people who drive up to my house and they say, oh, what is that and now you want to put a one hundred foot pole that could have up to four more services that are there that that's what we see and so I ask you, does the applicant have a one hundred foot pole that is right in front of his window? Would any of you have it put right in front of yours or would you be here like we are? Would you come and buy my house? Would -- is anybody else going to want to come and buy my house? I have Verizon service. I have been a valuable Verizon customer and I have all of us on a family plan and we do not have any problems with our cell service anywhere in the Meridian area. I work out in Eagle, I drive out there, have never had issues. I don't see a need and I don't see a benefit. What I see is real deterrent. If I ever want to sell my house, who is going to want to buy it? So, please, ask yourself when yourself making these decisions if it was your house would you vote yes? You know, would you buy my house? So, please, consider that we live there, we have a quiet friendly neighborhood, we all get along, and you want to take and put this monstrosity right in front of us. So, please, vote no. Thank you. Rohm: That is all that have. Oh. Okay. That's all that have signed up to speak. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? I'm sorry, sir, you have already had -- please come up to the microphone if you're going to speak. A single question and respond to -- Harmon: Commissioner Marshall, you asked about the current pole that's there. The current pole that's there, there is nothing above the lights. Just below is a little cell array currently. Rohm: Thank you. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Garcia: Thank you. So, it seems to kind of just -- if I could kind of sum up some of the concerns I have been hearing and make sure we address those concerns. Safety Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 15 of 25 issues. You know, RF issues. Nuisance. Fit for the children. Visual impact. Property values. And just don't see a need. I think that kind of sums up what I heard of what some of the concerns are that the neighbors have and they do have valid concerns. You know, I own my house, you know, I like to have a peaceful quiet neighborhood, you know, where I live I, unfortunately, have transmission lines in my backyard and I also have them in the front. You know, that's -- that's part of what happens sometimes, just, you know, technology comes our way. Regarding, you know, safety issues, I know all cell carriers have to show that they are in compliance prior to turning any cell site on. They do testing out there to show, you know, what's -- what's out there right now and, then, when they turn on their cell site they do other studies and they provide that over to FCC. So, there are studies that they do pre and post prior to them turning the cell site on. That nuisance, you know, that's a valid point, but, really, I think we could look at anything in this world as being a nuisance, you know. Cell phones in general can be a nuisance. Anything can be a nuisance. You know, we have -- each jurisdiction has code they have written that will help, you know, address, you know, the needs of the -- of the community and we know -- we meet those -- we meet those codes. Also the federal cal-com act in '96 when it was drafted, one of the main points of that was that RF issue safety, health issues are not subject for denial. You know, those issues cannot be brought forward. Regarding property values, if we look at here in the Treasure Valley, here in Meridian I believe there is four or five schools that have cell sites. If we leave Meridian School District, there is sites just like these at Eagle High School, at Centennial High School, Timberview or Timberline. There is a number, you know, that have been there for quite awhile, you know. Has that affected property values? You know, I think people attribute value just of a cell site. And it was mentioned, you know, Verizon does -- do have needs out in this area. The engineers know what's going on in their network, they don't make this decision haphazardly. Total cost for doing something like this from beginning to end, you know, with buying all the equipment all that is about a million dollars. So, they are just out there thinking, you know, where can we -- you know, where can we -- you know, what can we do, should we put it here. They put a lot of study into this. They know where their sites need to be so the network, you know, can perform. And Verizon does have a great network. have worked for Sprint and Nextel for ten years and their network's not as good. Verizon has a great network, because they understand how the net works and they spend the money into their network. So, there is a -- there is a great need. And I guess the question to ask is, you know, code says co-location, you know. So, that's the question is do we want to see one site with everybody on it or do you want to have five different sites in the area. So, that's a question that you have to answer. Staff in their code thinks it's best to have one for everybody and you can argue both sides of that as well, you know, but per code we have to design this for future co-location. You know, I could reduce my antennas or -- it's called a slim line design where they are hugging the pole. It's called a full array where they are sticking out, you know, for esthetic purposes, you know, there is things that, you know, I can do to reduce that visual impact, you know, but here we are an 80 foot structure, we are only adding 20 more feet on that -- on that and I guess it will be at -- it will add more visual impact, but I think a very minimal impact. So, with that I'm here to answer any questions you may have as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 16 of 25 Rohm: I'd like to talk about this -- the microwave safety issue and ask both you and staff at the same time a question related to the microwave portion of this installation as it relates to the distance from the residential section and the street, but, more importantly, how it relates to the school itself, because one of the -- one of the individuals that testified spoke to go the distance from this specific tower to the school versus the distance to the residential and/or roadway. So, number one, does the emissions from the microwave portion of this installation, does it disseminate rapidly or can you just speak to that? Garcia: Well, let me first make sure I understand the question. We mentioned microwave. Are you talking -- if we can get back to that elevation drawing. When you talk microwave, are you talking about these -- the round dishes here or the panel antennas on the top of the pole? Rohm: I believe it's the lower ones that Commissioner O'Brien had spoke to earlier. Garcia: Okay. We are talking about the microwave dishes. Sometimes that gets interchanged with the panel antennas. Rohm: Well, it seems to be that -- from a safety perspective is where I'm asking these questions if, in fact, the -- the distance that the code speaks to from 125 feet from the residential and 200 from the street, is that from a safety perspective or is it from an emissions perspective and if, in fact, it's from a distance for safety I would like you to speak to that in relation to the proximity to the school itself. Garcia: The distance you reference is per the city code, so I'm just complying with the code they have. You know, to make it easier on us, I mean I can -- I can go back to Verizon, I can promise you we can get those dishes removed and we can make it a condition on not having micro dishes at all. I don't have a problem with that, if you want to have those removed. But just aquick -- you know, microwave dishes, they send out a lot of energy, just like your microwave oven does. Okay? The way I have been trained and taught is like when you go on roof tops sometimes there are micro dishes, they say to walk behind them, you don't want to walk in front of them. It's -- when the dish is right here and you're right here next to it and you camp out in front of it, that causes some issues. But when you're down here and the energy is up here and it's, you know, shooting to another microwave dish is they are talking to each other, you know, it's that signal right there. Okay. Unless you're, you know, 40 foot tall camp out in front of that dish, yeah, that's going to -- could cause some issues. Rohm: So, what you're saying, then, is the microwave dish emissions don't radiate all the way toward the school building would be -- Garcia: For these micro dishes to operate, they have to have a line of sight, just like IDOC and Department of Safety, you know, highway patrol, they use their radios, because of microwave dishes. Those dishes have to see each other to talk to each other. They are shooting to each other just like it -- if they are rated down below. And Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 17 of 25 antennas, the cellular antennas, they, you know, transmit down, you know, kind of signal, micro dishes are point to point. That's exactly what they are called is point to point. Rohm: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Now, before we go on, I want to ask that same question. of staff. Is the -- is the ordinance a safety issue or is it a -- if the tower were to fall it's not going to -- Canning: Chairman Rohm, exactly. That's -- these are -- at the time the ordinance was written the pole designs were kind of evolving and it was largely concerned with if the pole collapsed, you know, if -- at that time some of them would just fall flat. They are not designed that way anymore, they fold in half if they fall, so -- but that's what the 125 feet is, it's based on the height of the tower and it just falling straight down. That's all it is. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thanks very much. Okay. That's all the questions that I had, but I'm sure there will be others. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question real quick. You already said you would be more than willing to remove the microwave. I am assuming that that location is already served by a T1. I'm sure the high school has a T1, but you're saying it has to have several T-1 s running there? Garcia: Yeah. We have four T1 s to the site. Marshall: And stealth tower wise, you're saying you have a slim line design, is that something like the fully covered where the antenna array is fully covered? Garcia: No. This will be where you can see the antennas, but they are -- they are hugging the pole versus having the T arms, you know, sticking out. Trying to think of where there is a slim line here that -- I can't think of one here. I mean there is -- I did one Overland and Roosevelt. Marshall: I would ask why aren't all of your poles slim line, then? Garcia: Because they like Verizon, Nextel, Sprint, they like -- .they need some separation, you know, vertical and horizontal separation for antennas. They need quite different antennas, you know. Verizon offered three different frequencies. The technology, so if they do slim line they can't limited it, but to counter that that's where they would take like two or three positions on the pole with a different technology of antennas. Marshall: So, what you're saying is, then, you wouldn't be able to offer positions to other companies. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 18 of 25 Garcia: It would take up some of the real estate per se, yes. You know, like Clearwire would probably have to move down if we go with slim line antennas, because we are going to need that space above them. But it would still be designed for other carriers below the light fields. Marshall: Thank you. Rohm: Other questions? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garcia, I think what we really need to see in situations like this, when you have an audience filled with residents that live in and about that area, is that -- what I would like to see is -- have an expert in RFI -- an RFI engineer or -- and/or someone from the FCC speak about these issues and safety issues. It's not going to resolve the esthetics of it, that's a whole other ballgame, but I'm not convinced that -- that the safety is something that should not be a concern. I'm sure there is a lot of testing going on. I was directly involved with RFI and EMI emissions. It -- we took great care in insuring that a product that we produce met those FCC regulations and we are talking about a printer or computer to make sure it doesn't radiate anything out to the person that's using it and they are close proximity of it. So, anyway, I would like to see that have someone speak to us, as well as the residents, to explain what those issues may or may not be. And I think because they are lay people, they are not all engineers and I think it's important that -- that those kinds of things be brought to bear for an audience as such. So, thank you. Garcia: And that's a good idea, Commissioner. If I brought like, you know -- when you say RF -- let me back up. I could bring like a Verizon RF engineer who speak that language, but is that something you're looking for or would you probably want someone not of the Verizon camp. I mean you don't -- O'Brien: Yeah. I don't want someone from Verizon, I want someone that's neutral that deals with this from a variety of aspects as far as radiated emissions go and EMI. Garcia: Okay. O'Brien: It's -- I think -- even the transmission line issues, the cell phones themselves, you know, have cause for safety concerns. I don't think it's really well understood. think there is a long way to go before people really understand those issues and it's not a short term, it's a long term thing. We don't know what it's going to be like ten years from now or the damage. We didn't know what asbestos was going to do when we were working with it 30 years ago and that's along-term effect that you don't see for 30 years. Those are my concerns. We need to really understand those kind of things a lot better than we do today. Garcia: Okay. And, then, the person that we bring in would that become that -- on Verizon's shoulders or the neighborhoods would have to find someone, what -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 19 of 25 O'Brien: I'm not sure which -- you're the applicant. t think you need to have those questions answered and to satisfy the people that are going to -- may be affected by it. I'm not saying they will be, but we don't know. Freeman: Mr. Chair and Commissioner O'Brien, I understand what you're saying. My concern or my question about that is my understanding is these things already have to go through FCC approval and licensure and meet all those standards, so are we opening up kind of Pandora's box and asking for experts that might increase the standards the FCC already has on these? That puts me -- that makes me really uncomfortable. If it meets the current requirements of the FCC -- or the FCC, who are we to go beyond that and say we have additional safety requirements? O'Brien: Yes. And I agree with you to a point. The argument still is what is the long- term effect. I don't think the FCC even knows and I have worked with them for 20 years. They have standards that you have to go through -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien -- O'Brien: Wait. Wait. Let me finish, please. I have the floor right now. I think it's important that we understand these things and that people that live in that area have to understand it. I don't -- I'm not an expert, I can't say for sure that I can guarantee that people that live around that area that that's going to be safe and you can't either and FCC has a standard that they go by, just like they do with transmission lines, they say, okay, they are safe, but do you want to live underneath one? 1 don't. I don't want to live next to a cell tower just for that reason, so that I have worked enough about -- I know what the damage can be done to people and the environment for a long time. I have worked in that area. I know what it can do. That's why they are so strict on it. And the FCC goes out of their way to make sure that margin of error is in favor of the people around it than not, just like airplanes, I guess, too. It's -- so, it does. Rohm: Thank you. I think you have made your point. Commissioner Marshall, do you have -- Marshall: Very quick yes or no answer. Commissioner O'Brien, do you own a cell phone? O'Brien: Yes. Marshall: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions for this applicant? Thank you, sir. Garcia: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 20 of 25 Rohm: I think at this time we should make a motion to close the public hearing and, then, we will have our discussion amongst the Commission. So, could I get a motion, please? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 10- 009 for Verizon Wireless Meridian High School. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 10-009, Verizon Wireless Meridian High School. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion. Commissioner O'Brien, I'd like to just start with you and state your assessment of this application. O'Brien: I think there is enough unknowns in this that my concern is for the people that live in and around those particular towers is sufficient for me to say I'm against it at this point, because I don't think I have enough information. Rohm: Okay. I -- we don't -- you don't need to restate of the things you did. O'Brien: But I own a cell phone, Commissioner Marshall, but I use it sparingly. I don't work -- if I was at a job or something that would probably be different, but, yeah, I -- it's limited. Not that it -- I don't think -- we don't know enough about that, so we all use them anyway. We don't know enough about cars, we still use them, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I personally think that I don't have the scientific qualifications to determine if the FCC is doing their job in regulating the cell phone industry, the wireless industry, the broadband industry, and I have to take confidence that that is the case. The issue for me -- we have a lot of cell phone towers that have come before us and generally we don't have a lot of people who come out against those, so I think, really, the issue is whether -- if this is an appropriate conditional use close to a residential area. As I understand it that's why it has to have a CUP. Somebody shake their head yes or no, so I -- and part of our -- part of our task with a CUP is to determine if that's an appropriate use in that area based on the reality around it and I will make my decision with that mind. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Yes, Mr. Chair. I heard various arguments and it sounds like it comes -- well, it comes down to three things, property values, the esthetics and safety. I agree with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 21 of 25 Wendy, we cannot -- I don't see how we can trump or assume that there is more information available to us than the FCC has who regulates this as far as safety goes. So, from a safety standpoint, you know, we can play the we don't know game forever, we may never know, but this is a modern accepted technology which most of us in this room are using and if the FCC says this is safe, I as a citizen have to assume that it's safe until I have better evidence to the contrary and I don't have that. As far as the esthetics of this tower, I want to restate that these -- this tower already exists, it's an 80 foot tower, it's going to become a hundred foot tower. I did some measurements on Google Earth and it's, you know, two to three hundred feet away from the nearest residence according to those rough estimates. It's already there and I can't see that another 20 feet is going to make much difference, frankly, and -- and that kind of addresses the property value issue, too. This tower is already there. We are talking about the difference between an 80 foot tower and a one hundred foot tower. It's been approved, it's gone through the CZC already. This is just going to make it 20 feet taller and I don't see that a 20 -- a tower 20 foot taller is going to make a substantial difference in what property values are already or even in the senses, the esthetics of the situation. So, the last item was -- well, I have addressed them. The senses, values, and safety. So, that's it for my comment. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I appreciate everything everybody has said. We have a lot of good points here. I have been ripped back and forth in my thoughts. I do like the fact that this pole will not need the microwave. I hope that alleviates some concerns. As far as esthetics go -- and I think that is a serious concern to be addressed, but I look at this, this is -- this is a pole that holds lights for the football field and the baseball field and I believe there is several poles out there, they are shown here at 75 foot high for the lights or 72. In there. Seventy-two to seventy-five foot for the lights. There has got to be several poles out there holding up the lights. Again, I'm one of the problems. I own a cell phone. Verizon isn't going to do this just to -- because we want a pole everywhere, it's because, obviously, they are addressing some dropout issues somewhere -- somewhere there is some dropout issues or they wouldn't be investing a million dollars. The company doesn't do that without some good reason. I, too -- you know, I'm having to trust in the FCC. I do every day as I carry my cell phone and use it, because I'm putting it up to my ear. Yeah, I'm not right under a tower, but, again, I'm actually fairly close to a bunch of towers that have lights on them and if they end up -- by a high school, another high school, and if they end up putting a cell phone tower on top, to be honest, it's probably better there than some other locations I can think of. If they want to put that in my backyard I'll go with it, because right now I use the service, 1 think we all use that service, and it needs to be somewhere, it's got to be somewhere, and I personally get very frustrated if I have a phone drop out on me. I don't feel qualified to speak on the safety issues and I got to rely on the FCC and so it comes down to the property values and esthetic issues and, again, because there are several poles for the lights, this is also, again, only another 20 foot taller. To be honest, I tend to lean towards it, with serious concern for those homeowners and Iknow -- I have heard them and it has weighed heavily with me and I worry about that, but at the same time I have to balance Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 22 of 25 that against -- you know, the cell phone tower is going to go somewhere, because we are all using it, we are all demanding it and we already have a tower here and it's replacing a light pole that's already going to be in the ground. We already have a Clearwire tower there as well and to me that's better than building a new pole somewhere else. So, that's my -- Rohm: Thank you very much. And, basically, my only concern was the -- in relationship to the microwave and the applicant, in my opinion, did an excellent job explaining how that site to site and it's -- he responded to my concerns appropriately. So, I'm, for all intents and purposes, in favor of this project. So, at this time I'd like to get a motion. Freeman: If you make a motion are you going to put in the drum exclusion? Marshall: Okay. I can do that. Freeman: I was just curious. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 10-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date October 21st, 2010, with the following modification: That the microwave drums are to be removed and to be serviced only by T1 line. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on November 4th, 2010. Freeman: I second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-009 with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? O'Brien: Aye. Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: There were three in favor and two against, so motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. E. Public Hearing: RZ 10-003 Police Department Rezone by City of Meridian Planning Department Located at 1401 E. Watertower Street (Lot 8, Block 2, Murdoch Subdivision No. 2) Request: Rezone of 9.33 Acres From R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) Zone Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 23 of 25 Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on RZ 10-003 for the police department rezone of city planning department located at 1401 East Watertower Street and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located at 1401 East Watertower Street. Right now the property is approximately 9.33 acres. The application before you is to, essentially, rezone city owned property, which currently houses the police department. I'm going to give you a quick timeline of what's transpired since 2000 until now to get to where we are and what we are discussing tonight. So, quickly, in 2000 the .city was going through their Comprehensive Plan update to -- and they were working on the current comp plan that we use today and at this time the city was contemplating a new police station, so in order to get the police department station under construction and get moving, the current developer or the developers at the time annexed into the city under the presumption that when the new comp plan was approved they would be able to rezone the property to a commercial designation. Again, the police department -- or the city was eager on moving forward with the applicant and construction of the police station and that required a Conditional Use Permit per the annexation of the property in 2000. Originally the property annexed in as R-8, consistent to what you see now with the police department and that included approximately ten commercial lots that are along the north side of East Watertower Street and, then, the three lots west of Locust Grove and, then, of course, the police department. All those properties platted with the subdivision known as Murdock Subdivision Number 2. Well, staff was informed not too long ago that the police department is looking to expand and include a training facility on the site and so after I was tasked to do some research on the property I came across all these entitlements and previous history on the site that could not only hinder the project, but could prolong construction of it due to the fact that hearings would have to occur in order to get the use approved on the site. So, looking at the surrounding land uses and given that the fact that there are addition properties to the north and to the east have already been rezoned in 2002 and the country property to the south is slated -- is designated commercial on the future land use map, our staff felt time to initiate -- or planning staff it was appropriate to initiate a rezone and a DA mod to clean up this site and allow it to develop in a fashion that's more consistent with the UDC. Keep in mind that this property when it was annexed it pre-dated the Unified Development Code and the design manual. So, staff feels that it would be more appropriate to rezone the property to C-G, given the surrounding uses of the property and given the fact that we have better tools in place now that can address the esthetics and the site design of the site and also would help facilitate adjacent commercial lots that are currently vacant and also the police department to proceed with development with the CZC and the design review -- administrative approval, rather than a public hearing process. So, that's, really, the gist of what we are proposing. So, again, development isn't proposed before you this evening, the request is really to, one, move forward to City Council the rezone application and, then, as we go to Council, Council will act on the development agreement modification, which staff has recommended that they just pretty much terminate that agreement. Again, the fact that everything around this, again, is commercial or planned to go commercial. Staff did receive written comments from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 24 of 25 land commission and did not see any conflict with the proposed rezone. There are no outstanding issues before you this evening and staff is recommending approval and I'd stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no questions, but I just want to commend the staff on not subjecting us to multiple hearings on a residential zone in a commercial zone. Rohm: I think that's a good move also. Thank you. Canning: The police chief is happy as well. Newton-Huckabay: I imagine so. Rohm: Wonderful. Newton-Huckabay: We only have three neighbors living 300 feet as it is, I think, so -- Rohm: Okay. No additional questions of staff? Is there anybody in the audience that is here to speak to this application? Okay. Great. Thank you. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the public here on RZ 10-003 for the police department rezone by the City of Meridian Planning Department. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing of RZ 10-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Could I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: I guess I was on a roll, wasn't I. Rohm: Yes, you were. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant -- staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 10-003 and MDA Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2010 Page 25 of 25 10-007, as presented in the staff report for hearing date of October 21, 2002, with no modifications. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 10-003 and MDA 10-007, to include the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Could I get one more motion, please. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to adjourn. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you, everyone. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPRO ED MIC AEL RO - HAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ^, t . ;~ ~~~ ~,. ~ .. ~ ~T J~°~~3 ~ A C OL CITY CLERK ~, .; ; i Via., a ~' . ~~ T _ ~~ ~` ~,, ~ ~ Sc ~o ~.Q,e . ~~~f l~° T~ , ~~~