Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 20 2015 CMZZ3 CITY OF CHUBBUCK May 20, 2015 Mayor England called the meeting to order at 6pm. Councilmember Ellis led the pledge of allegiance. Dean Funk offered the invocation. AMEND COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA: 1. To include the Brookstone Estates Divisions 5 & 6 Preliminary Plat. Councilmember Ellis moved to amend the agenda adding the Brookstone Estates Divisions 5 & 6 Preliminary Plat. Councilmember Morrison seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall -absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Council Study Session Minutes of May 6, 2015 Councilmember Ellis moved to approve the regular study session minutes of May 6, 2015. Councilmember Morrison seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall -absent. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Appeal of the conditional use permit approved by the Land Use and Development Commission for a mono pole, for T -Mobile, at Stuart Park. Mayor England explained the quasi-judicial role the Council will be assuming during the appeal of the T -Mobile conditional use permit and the concept of ex parte communication to those in the meeting. Mayor England asked each Councilmember to disclose any ex parte communication that they have been involved in. Mayor England disclosed that he attended the Land Use Commission meeting held on April 14, 2015 when the conditional use permit was granted. Mayor England did not speak to anyone at that meeting. Neighbors of the Mayor's, Earl and Marie Phippen, asked the Mayor about the conditional use permit and the Mayor explained to them the concept of ex parte communication. Brady Johnson also approached the Mayor, explained his experience with mobile communications in the National Guard and shared his opinion that T -Mobile should co -locate. There was also a citizen who asked for an appointment with the Mayor. They did not discuss the T -Mobile application. Councilmember Morrison disclosed that he attended the land use commission meeting held on April 14, 2015. He did not talk to anyone at the meeting. Brady Johnson approached Councilmember Morrison and expressed his opinion that T -Mobile should co -locate. Councilmember Morrison stated that the communication would not affect his ability to make a decision in the hearing tonight. Councilmember Ellis received two emails. Both were not in favor of the tower. Councilmember Ellis did not respond to the emails. He also had two members of the Land Use and Development Commission ask him if the Council would be hearing the appeal. He told them yes. Councilmember Ellis stated that the communication would not affect his ability to make a decision in the hearing tonight. Councilmember Lewis disclosed that he had received and email from Roger Porter. A copy of the email has been provided to the City Clerk. Three individuals, Scott Fames, Eric Allen and Mike Schwartz, approached him about the process. He did not talk to them. Councilmember Lewis stated that the communication would not affect his ability to make a decision in the hearing tonight. Councilmember Marshall apologized for being late; he has been at a graduation party. Councilmember Marshall then asked at what date he would need to go back to in his ex parte declaration. It was explained that it would be best to declare all communications he has had concerning the tower. Councilmember Marshall did attend the Land Use and Development meeting on April 14, 2015. After the meeting he did have a conversation with someone who had also attended the meeting. At some point, after the Land Use and Development meeting, Councilmember Marshall engaged in one conversation that was instigated by him. Councilmember Marshall stated that the communication would not affect his ability to make a decision in the hearing tonight. Mayor England asked if there was any comment by City staff. Paul Andrus, City planner, has reviewed the application and has found it in compliance with City code, section 18:13. Mr. Andrus also mentioned that a third party review has been completed by City Scape Consultants Inc. and they also concluded that the application was in compliance with City code. The Mayor asked Rocky Schutjer to explain to the Council why they are pursuing a tower in Chubbuck and the plans for the actual tower and site. Mr. Schutjer explained that T -Mobile does not have any sites in the City of Chubbuck. Most of T -Mobile's coverage comes from their tower location at the Bannock County Fair Grounds. Mr. Schutjer explained that currently, if you're standing on the street, a customer of T -Mobile would get coverage. The problem they are trying to fix is the spotty coverage their customers are receiving while inside a building. T - Mobile initially looks at existing structures. To co -locate on an existing structure is always the most economical for a company. Councilmember Ellis asked why the existing towers do not meet T -Mobile's need. In reviewing the 4 existing towers on the east side of Yellowstone Highway, they concluded that they would not meet their need. Mr. Schutjer used the analogy of a sprinkler system to try and explain T -Mobile's need. The most economical answer for T - Mobile is to place the tower (sprinkler) so that a 360 degree circle of signal is fully utilized in providing coverage. The towers on the east side of Yellowstone Highway would provide duplicate coverage with the fairgrounds site that could be as much as 66%. Councilmember Z? --7 Lewis asked about other public sites such as schools and library's. Mr. Schutjer explained that they did initially apply for a site at the school and the conditional use permit at that location was denied. The Library is so close to the proposed site that T -Mobile would consider them equal. T -Mobile did not approach the library as they have pursued the Stuart Park Site. Councilmember Marshall asked Rocky Schutjer how many customers T -Mobile has. Councilmember Marshall would like to know if T -Mobile is trying to satisfy their existing market or are they looking at gaining new customers? Councilmember Marshall asked about the number of complaints T -Mobile is getting about coverage in Chubbuck. Councilmember Marshall asked how T -Mobile can justify the cost. Mr. Schutjer explained that with transferable phone numbers and the mobile customer base, it is extremely difficult to pin down the number of customers using T -Mobiles signals at any one time. Mr. Schutjer mentioned the petition of over 200 T -Mobile customers that was submitted during the application for the permit at the proposed Chubbuck Elementary School site. Mr. Schutjer explained there were 200 sites identified companywide that needed increased coverage. 30 of those sites were budgeted for and one of those 30 was Chubbuck's. Councilmember Morrison asked if the tower was moved south to a location close to Home Depot or the Cinema would that answer their coverage conundrum. Mr. Schutjer said going that far south would make the duplicate coverage close to 50% if it wasn't more. Again, referencing the sprinkler analogy. Mr. Schutjer explained that T -Mobile is trying to be a good citizen. They realize that this is a sensitive issue and they have tried to provide a sensitive solution. The proposed pole is a clean mono pole with flush mounted antennas. There has been some concern about small children being around the facility. Nothing included in the area, the pole or small building would hurt a child. The company does not experience a lot of vandalism. The area will be well taken care of. Councilmember Morrison asked about T -Mobile's ability to allow other companies to co -locate and the effect on the park. Mr. Schutjer explained that the tower, built to 80 feet, would have the possibility of 2 co -locations. However, the third co -location, being so low on the pole, between 50 and 60 feet is really not very desirable. The foot print of the leased ground does not provide for additional locations. If an additional company is allowed to co -locate on the tower, that company would need to make arrangements with the land owner, in this case the City, to locate their equipment at the base of the tower. Councilmember Marshall asked if T -Mobile is planning on co -location. Rocky Schutjer explained that City ordinance requires T -Mobile to build the tower to allow co -location. Councilmember Marshall stated that City Code requires three trees, 75% of the height of the tower. Mr. Schutjer said those are big trees. However, T -Mobile is willing to provide the 225 landscaping required by the City. Councilmember Marshall stated that the company would not be allowed to build the tower more than 100 feet. Mr. Schutjer explained that the conditional use permit granted is for an 80ft tower. Councilmember Marshall is concerned that the waiver of the setback sets a precedent that the City will have to follow in the future. Mr. Holmes, the City Attorney, explained that each application for a conditional use permit would be considered on its own merits. This would not set a precedent that the Council would be bound by. Councilmember Marshall also stated that the antennas in the plan are not flush. Mr. Schutjer did agree with Councilmember Marshall explaining that each is using a different meaning for the word flush. Mr. Schutjer explained that the reason it is explained as flush is that most poles have 10 foot cross bars for the antennas on their poles. The proposed antennas at Stuart Park will be much closer to the pole, without the 10 foot cross bars. Councilmember Marshall asked about the time frame of the lease and the increases in the lease payments. He did not believe the payments kept up with inflation. Rocky explained the lease was presented with market rates, was negotiated with the City and approved by the Council in February. Councilmember Lewis asked why T -Mobile has chosen an 80 foot tower rather than something taller or shorter. Mr. Schutjer explained that the engineering of the 80 foot pole meets their needs in filling the coverage gap. Councilmember Lewis asked if there was a nonresidential area that would work in filling T - Mobiles coverage area. Mr. Schutjer answered that there is not. Councilmember Lewis stated that the ordinance requires that the location not interfere with the general use of the park. Mr. Schutjer believes that the selection of the location shows no interruption of the use of the park. Councilmember Lewis asked if there are any multi family structures exceeded 30 feet in the area? Mr. Schutjer answered no. Mr. Schutjer explained that T -Mobile is willing to provide proof of insurance and bonding or letters of credit that might be required by the City. Councilmember Lewis asked if this is the best site for minimizing the visual impacts of the tower. Mr. Schutjer answered yes. Councilmember Lewis asked about the noise that would be generated. Mr. Schutjer explained that there would be no noise from the tower. There would be some emissions from the ACHC and the generator. The noise would not exceed the Land Use requirements of less than 60 decibels. The generators cycle once every month. Councilmember Lewis asked about the physical characteristics of the pole. The pole has not been ordered yet but the dimensions will be provided as part of the building permit application. Councilmember Marshall asked where T -Mobile would put this in the park if the setback waiver is not granted. Mr. Schutjer explained that they did look at the south east corner of the existing tennis court. Mayor England asked for those who have submitted appeals to the City Council to come forward. 23( 1. Suzanne Peck, 370 Lisa — not in attendance 2. Dana Denning, 5315 Stuart Ave. — not in attendance 3. Nick Denning, 5315 Stuart Ave. — not in attendance 4. Roger Porter, 413 Stuart Ave. addressed the Council. Mr. Porter stated that he lives very close to the park. Mr. Porter is concerned about the representations made by T -Mobile's representative. Mr. Porter does not like to hear the "I believe so". Mr. Porter believes the issues presented need to be checked with facts. The neighborhood and widows feel deflated. The idea of cannibalizing our City parks is not in harmony with the intent of the park's use. Mr. Porter, in looking at the coverage maps provided by T -Mobile, does not think T -Mobiles representation of duplicate coverage is accurate. When parks are dedicated to our children we need to keep them dedicated to our children. Folks here at the original hearing have become discouraged. Most of them don't think their concerns have been resolved. Mr. Porter would like T -Mobile to become a good citizen in Chubbuck and satisfy the concerns of the citizens who live around Stuart Park. Councilmember Lewis asked Mr. Porter if he would be specific about what he believes Mr. Schutjer is being vague about. Mr. Porter does not think the Council should accept an answer from T -Mobile to a question such as "I believe so". Mr. Porter explained that as he read the third party review it did not describe why the 4 towers, reviewed for co -location did not work, the review just stated that. Mr. Porter stated that he believes T -Mobile is just doing this because they can. 5. Earlene Porter, 413 Stuart Ave. — declined to comment 6. Steve Gannon, 5389 Lori Ln. — not in attendance 7. Camille Gannon, 5389 Lori Ln — not in attendance 8. Kiersten Lind, 325 Henry — not in attendance 9. Eliza Payne, 5287 Stuart Ave. — not in attendance 10. Jared Payne, 5287 Stuart Ave. — not in attendance 11. Bree Lufkin, 5525 Calen Lane — not in attendance 12. Emily Wright, 544 Calen Lane — not in attendance 13. Jeremy Lambson, 5394 Lori Lane — not in attendance 14. Holly Lambson, 5394 Lori Lane — not in attendance The Mayor brought the discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Lewis asked Mr. Schutjer to explain why towers to the east and west in an 180 degree approach to reach their desired coverage would not work. For T -Mobile to invest in this infrastructure they want to build one tower in the middle of the coverage area that will do the same thing that two towers on the peripheral of the coverage area would do. Again, T -Mobile has done its best to try to provide a service, meet the City's requirements and design a tower that is the least intrusive it can be. T -Mobile believes it has done all this. Councilmember Morrison thinks there is a better place for this tower. Z33 Councilmember Lewis asked Mr. Schutjer if there was any substance to the claim of a drop in property values for those in close proximity to a cell phone tower. Rocky is unware of a report that substantiates the lower property value claims. Mr. Schutjer pointed out that Rockwell Development is putting in a new subdivision with a tower in the back ground and the homes seem to be purchased faster than Rockwell can build them. Councilmember Lewis commented on the safety and eyesore concerns that have been stated in the appeals. There are so many poles and fences around us. We have a fence surrounding the park with a canal on the west side. There are poles along many of our streets. As to the location we certainly do not want this in the middle of the park. Mayor reminded that this Council should make their decision based on the ordinance and decide if there are legal and lawful reasons to uphold or deny the appeal. Councilmember Lewis reminded the Council that their decision here does not set a precedent for future decisions on conditional use permits. Councilmember Ellis moved to deny the appeals of the conditional use permit granted by the Land Use and Development Commission with all the terms and conditions included in the Land Use decision, with the exception that the landscaping fence be 8 feet and brick in nature. Councilmember Lewis seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall - no. 2. First Reading of Water Code Ordinance. Mr. Holmes read the ordinance by title for the first time Josh would like to include a back flow device requirement in the ordinance. Steve Smart commented that the backflow device requirement is in a different section of the code. Steve commented that if we want to do that we should address code section 13.12. 3. First Reading of Speed Limit Ordinance. Mr. Holmes read the ordinance by title for the first time. Chief Severe addressed the Council with his thoughts on the speed limit change from 20 to 25 on most residential streets. Chief does believe the City should be as consistent with our speed limits, with surrounding communities as we can. He mentioned the traffic engineering standards nationwide that has been referenced by Steve is good solid science. There are no issues with vehicle dynamics such as stopping distances. Councilmember Ellis asked staff to consider enforcement with electronic signs. 4. Approval of Brookstone Estates 5 & 6 Preliminary Plat. Kurt Roland from Eagle Rock Engineering presented the plat. The two plats represent about 35 lots. There was a question during the public hearing about the irrigation and how it would be handled. Mr. Roland stated that there would be a berm on the west side of the property to handle any irrigation. Councilmember Lewis is concerned about the size the development is reaching without a second exit. A map showing divisions 7 and 8, and referred to as an exhibit division 8 was provided to the Council. Mr. Roland explained that division 7 and 8 are planned for the spring of 2016 and this would solve the problem of the second exit. Councilmember Lewis would like to know how to ensure the second exit is created even if the development changes. Councilmember Lewis moved to approve the preliminary plat for Brookstone Estates 5 & 6 subject to a development agreement to connect subdivision roads to West Chubbuck Road as shown on the diagram handed to the council labeled division 8. Councilmember Marshall seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall -yes. 5. Approval of Brookstone Estates Divisions 5 & 6 Final Plat. Kurt Roland from Eagle Rock Engineering presented the final plat. There are no changes from the preliminary plat. Councilmember Lewis moved to approve the final plat for Brookstone Estates 5 & 6 subject to a development agreement to connect subdivision roads to West Chubbuck Road as shown on the diagram handed to the Council labeled division 8. The deadline for completion of this road is August 2016 and a monetary guarantee will be provided to the City to ensure the construction of the road. Councilmember Morrison seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison - yes, Marshall -yes. 6. Approval of Short Plat for Hillman Crossing Brice Jolley from Harper Levitt Engineering presented the short plat for the Hillman Crossing. The existing building will be removed. The site is plated for two restaurants and one retail site. There will be one access on each side of the triangular piece of property. Councilmember Marshall moved to approve the short plat for Hillman Crossing. Councilmember Lewis seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall - yes. CLAIMS: Computer printout claims for May 20, 2015 as presented to Mayor England and Council. Councilmember Morrison moved to pay the claims as presented. Councilmember Ellis seconded. Roll call vote: Ellis -yes, Lewis -yes, Morrison -yes, Marshall - yes. ADJOURN: evin England, r Rich Morgan, CitClerk