HomeMy WebLinkAbout010 04 90LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
October 4, 1990
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development
Commission held in the city municipal building October 4,
1990.
Present: Chairman Sue Parrish, Commission Members: Kent Kearns,
Myrna Cain, Pete Anderson, Richard Pearson, Council
Representative Steven England, Engineer Steve Smart, and
secretary Myrna Crapo.
Meeting called to order by Chairwoman Sue Parrish at 8:07 P.M.
Chairwoman Parrish asked for a motion on the minutes. Richard
Pearson moved to accept the minutes as written and mailed,
Myrna Cain seconded with all commission members voting in
favor.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. A PROPOSAL BY LARRY R. BABB, 4859 ELIZABETH, for a
conditional use permit to erect two 47 foot steel towers to
support ham radio antennas. Property is presently zoned
Single Family Residential. (R-l).
Steve Smart, Public Works Director explained the PRB-1 ruling
for cities not to place unreasonable limitations on these sort
of antennas.
Kent Kearns stepped down from the commission because of a
conflict of interest.
Chairwoman Sue Parrish opened the public hearing.
Mr. Babb, 4859 Elizabeth explained that he has lived at this
address for 6 1/2 years and has the antennas in his back yard
on two wooden power poles. He replaced one of these wooden
poles with a steel tower and antenna of 59' total height.
Mr. Babb then read a letter from his attorney Reed Larsen
concerning FCC ruling and examples of cases that had been
taken to court and won by individuals erecting the towers.
Mr. Babb has a amateur radio license. He is presently loading
the tower with 30% of its rating. The conditional use would
be for the one steel tower that he has already installed and
for one more in the future. The future tower would replace
the wooden pole that is there now.
The Bunce subdivision has nothing in its restrictive covenants
that prohibit antennas;
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 4, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Babb then read a portion of PRB-1. "Local regulations
which involves placement, screening or height of antennas
based on health, safety, or aesthetics considerations must be
drafter to accomplish reasonable amature communications and
to represent the minimum practicable regulations to accomplish
the local authorities legitimate purposes. Several different
antennas are needed to operate on a range of frequencies.
Chairwoman Sue Parrish read a letter from Robert Johannsen
opposed to the antennas. This letter was entered into the
minutes.
Robert Johannsen, 776 Monika Court, expressed his opposition
to the antennas.
John Wilson, 14434 Promise Lane, a amateur radio operator told
the commission that he had the same tower and felt it was very
safe. The tower is a grounded structure and is needed to hold
the antennas up.
Kent Kearns, 4831 Elizabeth, has been a resident for three
years. He would like to see the antennas combined into one
tower. He would like to see Mr. Babb remove the 2nd wooden
tower as condition for acceptance of the 59' tower antenna.
Mr. Babb told the commission that he could move the antenna
from the wooden pole to the steel towers. He is at 30% now
and it would make it 60% loaded. Mr. Babb could use a
multiband antenna to take the place of those there.
Odes Brannan, 4873 Elizabeth, has no problems with the
antennas that are there. He doesn't want additional antennas
installed.
Debbie Workman, 4845 Elizabeth has had TV & Telephone
interference in the past. She doesn't have any at this time.
She would like to have just one pole.
Larry Ridgway, 4862 Elizabeth is in favor of the two poles,
they don't bother him. He felt that the steel towers looked
better then wood ones.
Dave Turnnire, 118 N. 11th, works as an amatuer broadcaster.
Interference can be from other things beside ham radios.
Irene Johanssen, 775 Monika, felt like Mr. Babb should have
approached the city before he put the tower up. She was
concerned about children getting hurt.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 4, 1990
Page 3
Chairwoman Parrish closed the public hearing and opened it to
discussion by the board.
The commission them discussed the comments brought forth in
the public hearing.
Pete Anderson made a motion to approve the conditional use
granting Mr. Babb to erect one 47' steel tower to support the
ham radio antennas with the condition that no further towers
be erected on the property. Richard Pearson seconded the
motion.
The commission discussed the public's concerns.
Pete Anderson then added a 2nd condition. That all guy lines
if so required be retained within Hr. Babb's property and are
not attach to any fences or structures that share a common
property line.
The commission then discussed the motion.
Pete Anderson restated the motion. He moved that they grant
the conditional use to Mr. Larry R. Babb at 4859 Elizabeth for
the erection of one 47' tower plus whatever antennas height
to support his ham radio and that the conditions be
1. that there be no further towers on the property
2. that all guylines associated with the tower if
required be contained within Mr. Babb's property and
not attached to any structures, fences or etc that share
a common property.
Richard Pearson seconded the motion. Myrna Cain, yes; Pete
Anderson, yes; Steven England, yes; Sue Parrish, yes; Richard
Pearson, yes.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. Discussion on a proposed ordinance to define self-service
storage facilities in the schedule of land use controls.
The commission discussed spelling errors that needed to be
corrected:
1. Page 2 b. (or four areas) should be R-4
2. Page 2 B acre should be areas
Throughout the ordinance the words "minim" warehouses should
be self service storage facility.
It was discussed whether to take this ordinance home and
review it or to hold a public hearing and get the publics
opinions.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 4, 1990
Page 4
If it was going to be done this year it would have to be
scheduled for the November meeting.
Pete Anderson moved that we hold a public hearing on the
ordinance at the November meeting. Kent Kearns seconded the
motion with all voting in favor.
Discussion on proposed ordinance to require a ten foot
landscaping strip for commercial and industrial zones.
Public Works Director Steve Smart gave a history of why this
ordinance was being considered.
The Commission then discussed: 1. 10' setback all commercial zones
2. 5' landscaping areas
Pete Anderson moved to hold a public hearing on this ordinance
on our November Meeting.
The commission then discussed:
1. Changing D.1 to reflect the planting area be
landscaped whether a building, parking lot, or etc. or
using the word "structure"
2. Having a 10' setback in commercial zones with the
entire setback being landscaped.
Pete Anderson withdrew his motion. The ordinance needed to
be redra~ted reflecting the changes listed above.
Pete Anderson moved to send the ordinance back to Tom Holmes
for a rewrite· Kent Kearns seconded the motion, All voted
in favor.
Kent Kearns moved to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. ~,~ ~.' ........
Sue Parrish, Chairwoman
Myrna cra~o, Secretary
CITY OF CHUBBUCK
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
This matter having come before the Commission for public
hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on October
4, 1991x} upon the application of Larry Babb (hereinafter referred
to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to erect two 47
foot steel towers to support ham radio antennas on the real
property located at 4859 Elizabeth, Chubbuck, Idaho and the
Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and
being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as
particularly described above.
2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have
been met.
3. The property in question is zoned (R-1) Single Family
Residential pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of
Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as (R-1) Single Family
Residential in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Chubbuck.
5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of
this application are set forth in Idaho Code section 67-6512 and
in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant
criteria and standards are as follows:
A. The Federal Communications Commission, by ruling
designated as PRB-1, has enacted a limited preemption of local
land use regulation of such towers. Specifically, said
preemption indicates:
"Local regulations which involve placement, screening
or height of antennas based on health, safety or ecstatic
considerations must be drafted to accomplish reasonable
amateur communications and represent the minimum practical
regulations to accomplish the local authority's legitimate
purposes.
B. Applicant has lived at 4859 Elizabeth for six and one-
half years and has previously had antennas in his back yard on
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
chbbckll.211
two wooden power poles. One of those poles has been replaced
with a steel tower totaling 59 feet.
C. The present steel tower is loaded to 30% of its rating.
A second tower, if erected in the future, would replace the
second wooden pole that is there now.
D. There are no restrictive covenants within the
subdivision that prohibit such antennas.
E. Applicant indicates it would be possible to combine his
antennas that he has now on to the one steel tower that would
then be 60% loaded.
F. Local residents have expressed varying degrees of
opposition and support for the application.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The use for which the permit is sought will/will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought, as modified, will not produce an
adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on
transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public
parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict
terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use
for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with
the noise and traffic conditions now exiting does not indicate
that the permit .should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought, as modified,
shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property
owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of
changes made in the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use, as
modified, will not conflict with aesthetic qualities of the
surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other
development within the City has not been minimized by Applicant
as much as is reasonable possible.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
chbbckll.211
8. Some Owners of adjacent property have expressed
approval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit.
9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted,
should be maintained subject to the conditions set forth below.
DECISION
1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the
foregoing, finds that the request of the applicant should be
approved.
2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed
upon the granting of said conditional use permit and applicant,
by taking advantage of said conditional use permit agrees to the
imposition of the same:
A. The existing steel tower already erected by applicant
is approved, provided, however, all guidelines associated with
the tower are to be contained within applicant's property and are
not to be attached to any structures, fences, etc. that share a
common property with other landowners.
B. There are to be no further towers on the property.
--N
C. The existing wood poles, which has been previously used
as a tower would be removed by August 1, 1991.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is
granted, subject to the foregoing conditions.
DATED this day of 1990.
LAND USE AND DEVE MENT COMMISSION
By:
Chairman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
chbbckll.211