Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout002 07 91LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION February 7, 1991 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building February 7 1991. ' Present- Chairwoman Sue Parrish; Commission Members: Myrna Cain, Kent Kearns, Richard Pearson, Pete Anderson, Gayle Anderson; Council Representative LeRoy Quick; Engineer Steve Smart; Attorney Tom Holmes; Project Engineer, Gerd Dixon. PUBLIC HEARING: 1.A PROPOSAL BY THE IDAHO 6-CLARK, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 5990 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD, #300 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TOWER WITH A NEW TOWER TO THE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING TOWER to the approved height of 349' at 146 Laurel. Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2) and Industrial (I). Chairwoman Sue Parrish opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the city staff. Steve Smart reviewed the past history of the tower. The studies taken showed that they would need a new tower. Richard Brock, 5990 Greenwood Plaza Blvd #300, Englewood, CO told the commission that the engineering studies show they would need a second set of 3 guy anchors on existing tower. One set would fall in the middle of the dedicated street. A new 340' tower is needed to safely carry all of the needed antenas without a third set of guys, A new tower would be built adjacent to the existing one and then they would dismantle the existing tower. Some concrete in the ground would be left after the tower is removed. Mike Jensen, 1515 Eastridge Dr. #50 is assistant supervisor of the corporation. He talked about the benefits of having the tower here. He maintains the tower and makes sure everything is working right. The commission addressed the radiation exposure question and Mr. Brack informed the commission that they only radiate 100 watts of power. The public hearing was closed. Land Use and Development February 7, 1991 Page 2 Kent Kearns moved to grant the conditional use permit to erect a replacement tower for current existing tower at 146 Laural. That we reiterate the conditions put upon the original conditional use permit being: (1) A screening fence shall be built on the northern boundary of this property. (2) The access road to the side will have an oil base to minimize dust. (3) Tower lights would be screened in such a manor as to minimize the effect on the property owners to the north. (4) Any obsolete or unused facilities must be removed from the site within 12 months of the cessation of the operations at the site. (5) Removal of the existing tower will happen within one month of the new tower becoming operational, Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Pete Anderson, no; Sue Parrish, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; LeRoy Quick, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes. Kent Kearns moved to approve the minutes of the January 3, 1991 a~ written and mailed. Myrna Cain seconaed the motion with a voting in favor. Chairwoman Sue Parrish introduced Gayle Anderson as a new member. Chairwoman Parrish called for nominations of a chairman as she was resigning. Richard Pearson nominated Kent Kearns, Myrna Cain seconded the motion. Richard Pearson then moved that nominations cease. The commission then voted unanimously to have Kent Kearns as the new chairman of the Land Use & Development Commission. Chairman Kent Kearns thanked Sue Parrish for the excellent job that she had done while chairman. Pete Anderson suggested that the commission consider of antennas and towers. definition Pete Anderson moved to adjourn, with Kent Kearns second. yrn~ C(F_~po~' Secre~l~ary Sue Parrish, Chairwoman 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 February 1, 1991, upon the application of Idaho 6 - Clark Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to allow replacement of the existing tower at 146 Laurel with a new tower to the south of the existing tower to a height of 349 feet on the real property located at 146 Laurel 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 General Commercial (C- 2) and Industrial (I), pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as General Commercial (C-2) and Industrial (I) 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. Modification of the existing tower to a height of 349 feet has previously been approved by the Commission. B. Engineering studies show a second set of three guy anchors would be needed on the existing tower; one set of guy anchors would be in the middle of the existing dedicated street. C. A new tower needs to be constructed to allow the 349 feet height. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 chbbck03.071 -A UR 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 not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought 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 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 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 been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonable possible. 8. Owners of adjacent property have not opposed 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: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 chbbck03.071 A. A screening fence shall be built on the northern boundary of this property, as per the original permit. B. The access road to the side will have an oil base to minimize dust, as per the original permit. C. Tower lights would be screened in such a manner as to minimize the effect on the property owners to the north, as per the original permit. D. Any obsolete or unused facilities must be removed from the site within 12 months of the cessation of the operations at the site. E. Removal of the existing tower will happen within one month of the new tower becoming operational. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. w� DATED this _ day of /�ig,, , 1991. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 chbbck03.071