HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoningoa
PLANNING AND ZOMNG
ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY
Qz, t
gdla eQ Nis',iru t-24-oo ?*z
l-tz.oo [*r-ru-M*sJ
W.z l- t3-6b D"rr% tYbl"n-)
) -t3-oD A-4+bfb;s
?z- 5 nw)Jrc-,s *
\- te-oo 34 -ua ?+z
Pz-4
ao
Linda James presented the staffreport and uoted that the address of501 ltlaca, as written on the application fonn,
was possibly iacorrect. She asked members to conflrm the ad&ess of the site with the Applicant's represertative
during his testimony, but also noted that if this is not the correct address the error is not significant enough to
warant the request as iavalid.
Randy Hopkins, Applicant's representative, testified in favor and stated the following: the address of 501 Ithaca
was given to him by another person at Idaho Power, but when looking at tho site plan it doesn't make sense; the
request for the communications tower is because it v.ill provide a communication link between Caldwell and
Ontario; the link will be by microwave, which requtes this tower; the tower has to be 100 feet iu height in order to
have the clearance; the comrnrurications tower will not cause interference with other communication systerns such
as TV, radio, telephoue; there is aa existing 125-foot tower at this substation and the 100-foot tower will be
located in close proximity to the existing tower.
Danny McDaniel" an adjacent property o$ner, testifed as treutral but expressed the following: they do not need a
100-foot tower and he doesn't want to have to look at another tower; there are always sparls ftom the tower and
there is noise; there are health a[d safety issues; Idaho Power should buy out the property owners around the
substation-
Anna McDaniel, an adjacent property ownel testified as opposed and expressed the following: interference will be
a probler4 it will be an eye sore and will depreciate the value of their property; it is a quiet neighborhood and the
tower should go in aDother area; they have lived at 1022 I't North Avenue for six months.
Randy Hopkins testified to the foliowing dwing rebuttal: there will not be any energized wires for the
communications tower so there will be no sparks or noGe fieated; cables run up the towq to the microwave dish
and the cable is about l- to 1% " in diameter; the tower needs to be located close to the contol building in order
for the system to work appropriatelyi an altemate site was coosidered but this is the more fiDctioDal place; the
existing 125-foot tower is within 100 feet of the proposed tower and because of their proximity it is considered to
be &e most beoign area within the substation for its location; this tower will provide a high-speed communicarion
link between Caldwell aad Ontario; the frequeacy is less than one watt and does not cause interference; the tower
will be three-legged and will be 12 feet at the base and six feet at the top; this substation has been in place since
the early 1950's.
Public Testimony Closed -Chairman Blacker closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact - Motion Commissioner Beebe. Second: Conmrissioner Teraberry. Accept the general facts
oudined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following as facts: all five of the variance criteria
are true; the Applicaut tesdfied that the wattage of the tower is very low and will not cause itrterference to other
commmication systems; the substation has been in place at this site since the early 1950's; the new tower will be
in close proximity to an existing 125-foot tower. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conclusions of Law - Motion: Commissioner Teraberry. Second: Commissioner Beebe. The Planning and
Z,oning Comission has the authority to hear this case and approve or deny; the hearing was legally noticed aod
conducted within the gui&lines ofapplicable codes and ordinances. Passed: Unanirnous roll call vote.
Order of Decision - Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Cornmissioner Archuleta. Approve Case No. VAR-
15-99 with the standard conditions outlined itr the staffreport. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Public Ilearing Ctosed -{hairmal Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal their
decision should see the Dtector of Community Development.*******************************************************:r*****
C. Case No. VAR-16-99, a request by Clayton Jones for approval of a 75-foot variance in order to install a
Minutes ofJanuary 13, 2000 Q"'.
/,
****j}+*!a**************tt*******t*t:a********r*************l**t****:r**:t*********:r***
B. Case No. VAR-15-99, a rcquest by Idaho Power Conpany for a 55-foot variance il order to install a 100-
foot tall comunications tower in a C-3 zone. If approve4 the tower would be lo€ated at Idaho Power's
Caldwell Substation" 501 Ithaca Street.
Testimony -
v[.
VItr
o o
the requted lot size of6O0O square feet to 4500 square feet and a special use permit to construct a duplex
in an M-l (Light Industial) zone. The two-family dwslling would replace an cxisting single-family
dwelling.
Testimony -
Lfuda James preseated the staffreport and stated that the lot was a legal non-conforming lot and could have a new
siagle-family home colstucted on the site because the existing silgle-family home was "grandfathered" in- The
variance is required because the Applicant wants to build a two-family dwelling and the lot does not meet the
required 6000 square feet. She also noted that there are numerous small, non-conforming lots in the City that were
legally created prior to adoption ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
Brian Kiser, Applicant, testified in favor and stated that the existing house is not in very good condition and that a
new duplex would be an iryrovement to the neighborhood. The standard setback requirements cau be rrt even
though the lot is small.
Public Testimony Closed -Chairmaa Blacker closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact - Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. Accept the general facts
outlined in the staff report as Findings ofFact and include the fact tbat all five of the variance criteria were found
to be true. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conclusions of Law - Motiou: Commissioner Archuleta. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. The Commission
has the authority to hear itris case and to approve or deny; public notice requirements were met, and the hearing
was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ordinences. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote,
Order of Decision - Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. Approve Case Nos. SUP-
72-99 aJld VAR-17-99, with the standard conditions outtined in the staff report. Passed: Unauimous roll call
vote.
Public Eearing Ctosed {hairman Blacker closed the public hearing and uoted anyone wishing to appeal thet
decision should see the Dtector of Community Development.
Plantdng Issues There were no planning iszues brought forward.
.Adjournment -Chairman Blacker adjoumed the meeting at approxfunately 8:30 p.m"
MINUTES APPROVED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN BLACKEB, AT A
REGULARLY SCTIEDULED MEETING IIELD +EBRI'ARTM, 2OOO.
lvtar-l,..1
Jim Blacker
ATTEST
Community Dire ctor
Minutes ofJanuary 13, 2000
\r
r< (
L.!_C\,(
I o
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRTNT CLEARLI')
NAME:o L
STREET ADDRESS:)z7t u) T-J"
CITY/STATEIZIP:a or S-€
L,T-J L.l o
ourtf
'y ck the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative \'
ln favor/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak
Neutral/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak_
Opposed/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak_
Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below
qa
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: I o o ' -1, c*ev
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
(
STREET ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD:5-z
Check the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative
ln favor/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak
Neutral/-/wish to speak__/
do not wish to speak_
Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below.
a*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Opposed/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak_
o o
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
NAME:,1u tl.D,A/ /i t-
STREET ADDRESS: / ,,) .,-- z-/./ Naell Ade
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: -LD P,,Lte e
Check the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative
ln favor/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak
Neutral/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak_
Opposed/
wish to speak_
do not wish to speak '"--
Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below.
olrrlLD ?a,re Nee-J< /. b '(2 A tcaE
S 'ftolt f/< s h.uy' ar*
Zc z .4-
CITY/STATE/Z\P C,J/t,,"1/, TD. 8..,/.a{
Azautil ,Ar 4;s t )L, 12 )hzr. /z ,',rs
QUl'
o o
BEFORE TIIE PLAIIIIING ATID ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO
IN TET'MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPAI{Y FOR A ss-FOOT VARIANCE
TO INSTALL A COMMUMCATIONS
TOWER
CASE NO. VAR.15.99, COTIRSE OF
PROCEEDINGS, GENERAL FACTS,
TESTIMO}IY, A}PLICABLE LEGAL
STANDARDS, YARIANCf, PROCEDT]RE,
FII\IDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, AND ORDER OF DECISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
I COI]RSE OF PROCEEDINGS
1.1 The Caldwell Community Development Department issued a notice of public hearing on
application VAR-15-99 to be held on January 13, 2000. Public hearing notice requiements set
forth in Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Local Plarming Act, were met. On December 29, 1999,
notice was published in the Idaho-Press Tribune; on December 23, 1999 notice was mailed to all
property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and, on January 6,2000 notice was posted on
the site.
1.2 Files and exhibits relative to this application are available for review in the Community
Development Department, Caldwell City Hall, and were available for review at the hearing.
II GENERALFACTS
2.1 APPLICANT (S): I&ho Power Company, P.O. Box 70, Boise, ID., 83707
2.2 OWNER (S): Same as Applicant
2.3 REOUEST: Approval of a 55-foot variance in order to install a 100-foot tall communications
tower. Section 10-02-03, Height, Lot Line Setback and Lot Dimension Schedule, of Zoning
Ordinance No. 1451 provides for a maximum height of45 feet unless a variance is applied for
and approved through the public hearing process.
2.3.1 The Applicant's narrative notes that the tower will be the most visible featwe of a new
microwave link into Caldwell Sub to provide communications circuits for a new transmission line
protection scheme. The like requires unobstructed line-of-sight from Caldwell Sub to Idaho
Power's microwave relay station on Squaw Butte. The 100-foot tower is required in order to
provide adequate and sustainable clearance over the Canyon Hill ridge to the north. The
Applicant also notes that there is an existing 125-foot steel transmission line tower in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed I 00-foot tower.
\1r\
o
2.3.2 Section 10-03-05, Zoning Ordinance No. 1451 sets forth procedures for granting a variance. A
variance can only be granted by Commission members if they find that all five listed criteria (A
through E of subsection 1) are "true."
2.4 LOCATION: Idaho Power's Caldwell Substatlon , 501 Ithaca Street
III TESTIMOITIY
3.1 Linda James presented the staff report and noted that the address of 501 Ithaca, as written on the
application form, was possibly incorrect. She asked members to conlirm the address of the site
with the Applicant's representative during his testimony, but also noted that if this is not the
correct address the error is not significant enough to warrant the request as invalid.
3.2 Randy Hopkins, Applicant's representative, testified in favor and stated the following: the address
of 501 Ithaca was given to him by another person at Idaho Power, but when looking at the site
plan it doesn't make sense; the request for the communications tower is because it will provide a
commtmication link between Caldwell and Ontario; the link will be by microwave, which
requires this tower; the tower has to be 100 feet in height in order to have the clearance; the
communications tower will not cause interference with other communication systems such as TV,
radio, telephone; there is an existilg 125-foot tower at this substation and the 100-foot tower will
be located in close proximity to the existing tower.
3.5 Danny McDaniel, an adjacent property owner, testified as neutral but expressed the following:
they do not need a 100-foot tower and he doesn't want to have to look at another tower; there are
always sparks llom the tower and there is noise; there are health and safety issues; Idaho Power
should buy out the properly owners around the substation.
3.4 Anna McDaniel, an adjacent property owner, testified as opposed and expressed the following:
interference will be a problem; it will be an eye sore and will depreciate the value of their
property; it is a quiet neighborhood and the tower should go in another areal they have lived at
1022 ln North Avenue for six months.
3.5 Randy Hopkins testified to the following during rebutal: there will not be any energized wires for
the communications tower so there will be no sparks or noise created; cables run up the tower to
the microwave dish and the cable is about 1- to l% * in diameter; the tower needs to be located
close to the control building in order for the system to work appropriately; an alternate site was
considered but this is the more fimctional place; the existing 125-foot tower is within 100 feet of
the proposed tower and because of their proximity it is considered to be the most benign area
within the substation for its location; this tower will provide a high-speed communication link
between Caldwell and Ontario; the fiequency is less than one watt and does not cause
interfereace; the tower will be three-legged and will be 12 feet at the base and six feet at the top;
this substation has been in place since the early 1950's.
III APPLICABLELEGALSTANDARDS
o
City of Caldwell 1977 Cornprehensive Plan, as amended.
City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, as amended.
Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act
3.1
3.2
3.3
o
VARIANCE PROCEDURE
Planning and Zoning Commission members found that all of the following five variance criteria
are true:
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, applicable to the
property involved, which do not apply generally to other properties within the same
zoning district.
That the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in conjunction with a literal
interpretation and application of the regulaton would result in undue hardship by
depriving the applicant of reasonable use and enjol.rnent ofthe Foperty or of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties located in the same zoning disbict.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege.
That the granting of such relief will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or interest, or injurious to the Foperty or improvements of other
prop€rty owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvement.
That the granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the spirit and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and will not effect a change in zoning.
V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A}IALYSIS
5.1 Not applicable for this request
vI FINDINGSOFFACT
6.1 Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following
as facts: all five of the variance criteria are true; the Applicant testified that the wattage of the
tower is very low and will not cause interference to other communication systems; the substation
has been in place at this site since the early 1950's; the new tower will be in close proximity to an
existing 1 25-foot tower.
\,[ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to hear variance requests and to approve
or deny; public hearing notification requfuements were met, and the hearing was held within the
guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances.
YIII ORDEROFDECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Planning and Zoning Commtssion
members find that Case No. VAR-15-99, a request by Idaho Power Company a 55-foot variance
in order to install a 100-foot communications tower at the Idaho Power Substation located at 501
Ithaca Street is approved with the following conditions:
o
IV
4.1
C
D
E
8.1
A.
B,
oo
8.2 The specific terms and conditions placed on this variance shall run wrth the land and remain valid
upon a change of ownership. The variance approval is not transferable from the Caldwell
Substation site at 501 Ithaca Street.
8.3
8.4 The Applicant shall obtain all applicable building permits pnor to installing the tower.
CASE NO. VAR.15-99 WAS HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS
AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD JANUARY 13, 2OOO.
WRITTEN FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THE ORDER OF DECISION WAS
ADMIMSTRATTVELY APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN JIM BLACKER ON THE
DATE NOTED BELOW.
t/tt/",>ATTEST:
Jim Blacker o{te
Community t Director
The tower shall be installed no later than one year from signing of the Order of Decision or the
Applicant shall seek a one-year time extension from the Community Development Director. If
the Director determmes that significant development changes have occurred within the goreral
vicinity, the Applicant may be required to apply for approval for an amendment to VAR-15-99
following the public hearing procedures.