HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 01 20 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopine Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/20/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: MODERATE VISIBILITY CELLULAR TOWER APPLICATION—LAND SERVICES
NW LLC ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS LLC, CASES TYP315-00005 AND TYP215-00032
ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing and approve, approve with amendments, or deny a proposal by
Verizon Wireless to construct a 100-foot tall monopine cellular tower at 4992 Main Street.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications for a new wireless telecommunication tower facility within an existing commercial lumber yard at
4992 Main Street. The proposed cellular tower is designed as an imitation evergreen tree
and is classified as a “Moderate Visibility” wireless telecommunication facility requiring Planning Commission approval. Section 4.3-145.F of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC) provides Discretionary Use standards for approving the cellular tower placement.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report and Recommendation for Discretionary Use
2. Staff Report and Recommended Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review 3. Verizon Wireless Application and Exhibits
4. Written Comments from Joseph Tokatly
DISCUSSION: The proposed tower facility is located in the northeast corner of a commercial property on the north side of Main Street between 49th and 51st Streets. An existing building supply
business operating as Square Deal Lumber will remain on the property. The property is
zoned Community Commercial (CC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. Properties in the vicinity are zoned for commercial, institutional, single-family residential,
and multi-family residential development. Moderate Visibility cellular tower facilities are
allowable in the Community Commercial district subject to Discretionary Use approval.
The proposed cellular tower is just south of the Riverbend Elementary School site located at
320 51st Street. There are existing residential dwellings to the west and east of the subject site along 49th Street and 51st Street respectively. The nearest dwelling on residentially-
zoned property is about 325 feet west of the proposed cellular tower. Verizon Wireless has provided evidence of a substantial capacity gap in the mid-Springfield area (Attachment 3), particularly with modern data streaming demands. Additionally, the cellular facility
currently providing coverage for this area of Springfield is located at the International Paper plant just north of this site. The antenna array is planned to be removed to accommodate changes at the International Paper site and is not being replaced. Therefore, the proposed
cellular tower facility would constitute both a relocation of an existing facility to maintain coverage and an improvement to the service capacity in the area.
Staff has prepared a staff report and recommendation based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 4.3-145.F and SDC Section 5.9-120 (Attachment 1). The findings presented
by staff provide a substantive basis for conditionally approving a moderate visibility
wireless telecommunication facility at the subject property. Staff has also prepared a staff report with recommended conditions of approval for the Site Plan Review application,
which is based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 5.17-125 (Attachment 2).
No written comments were received in response to the mailed notice of the Public Hearing
for Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications.
Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use Request (Verizon Wireless)
Hearing Date: January 20, 2016
Case Number: TYP315-00005 Applicant: Ed Fournier, Land Services Northwest LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless
Site: 4992 Main Street (Map 17-02-33-32, Tax Lot 4000)
Request The application was submitted on November 19, 2015 and the public hearing on the matter of the
Discretionary Use request is scheduled for January 20, 2016. The City conducted a Development Review
Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request on December 15, 2015. Site Information/Background The commercial property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located at 4992 Main
Street and operates as Square Deal Lumber (Photos 1-3). The physical location of the proposed cellular
tower is at the northeast corner of the site near the common property line with Riverbend Elementary School to the north. The applicant is proposing to construct a 100-foot high monopine cellular tower with
equipment shelter and fenced enclosure about 10 feet from the north boundary of the subject property.
Monopine cellular towers are classified as “moderate visibility” wireless telecommunications system
(WTS) facilities in accordance with Section 4.3-145.E of the Springfield Development Code (SDC).
Moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities (ie. cellular towers that are camouflaged as imitation trees) are allowable in the Community Commercial (CC) District subject to Discretionary
Use approval in accordance with SDC Section 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1.
Photo 1 – Site Air Photo
SITE 51st Street 49th Street Main Street
Riverbend Elementary School
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 19
Photo 2 – Magnified Aerial View
Photo 3 – On-Site View Looking East
SITE 49th Street 51st Street Location of Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Tower and Enclosure
Riverbend
Elementary School
Location of Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Tower
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 19
The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) in the adopted East Main Refinement Plan (Figure 1). Moderate visibility wireless telecommunication systems facilities are allowable in both the CC and MUC
Districts subject to Discretionary Use approval in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 (Table 4.3-1). The
facility has frontage on Main Street along the south boundary, and access to the site will be derived from
an existing curb cut and driveway approach serving the building supply center and lumber yard. The applicant is proposing to use the existing lumber yard driveway and driving aisles as the primary means of access to the site. Utility connections will be extended from connection points along the property
frontage to serve the proposed tower and equipment shelter. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan
Review application under separate cover (Case TYP215-00032) for the proposed wireless
telecommunications system facility and compound. Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract
Zoning Map Legend
Community Commercial (CC) Public Land and Open Space (PLO)
Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
51st Street Main Street
SITE 49th Street Riverbend Elementary School
Proposed Tower Location
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 19
Notification and Written Comments Notification of the January 20, 2016 public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on January 4, 2016. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The
Register Guard on January 12, 2016.
Public notification was also sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on January 4, 2016 for the companion Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00032). One written comment was received from Joseph Tokatly, 2219 Main Street, P.O. Box 768,
Springfield: “I am responding to the notice I received regarding the pending site plan review application
number TYP315-00005. TTT Ranch, LLC owns the parcel located directly across Main Street south of the subject site. The proposed development will create an eyesore with respect to the development we intend to construct on our parcel. We strongly object to such development unless the aesthetics can be
mitigated through the use of disguised features offered by a variety of companies such as Valmont. Such
disguise will allow the cell tower to blend into the surrounding environment and be less visible. I hope
the planning commission will consider our position and adopt our recommendation, as part of the approval process, to preserve the natural beauty of our community while facilitating development at the same time.”
Staff Response: Staff responded to Mr. Tokatly and advised that the applicant’s proposal calls for an
imitation fir tree design as opposed to a traditional pole or lattice tower structure. In response to the
clarification of the proposed imitation tree design, Mr. Tokatly responded as follows: “That is exactly the response that I was hoping for. If that is the case, we will have no objection to the development
otherwise.”
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.9-100 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Discretionary Use requests. The Criteria of Discretionary Use approval are:
SDC 5.9-120 CRITERIA
A. The proposed use conforms with applicable:
1. Provisions of the Metro Plan;
2. Refinement plans; 3. Plan District standards;
4. Conceptual Development Plans or
5. Specific Development Standards in this Code;
B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering:
1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable);
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 19
2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation;
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and
4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities,
streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the:
1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable;
3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions.
D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-
145.
2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245
3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but
shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in
Section 4.7-195.
Finding: Wireless telecommunications systems facilities are exempt from Criteria A-C in accordance with Section 5.9-120.D.1 of the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, only Criterion D is listed herein.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 19
Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval
Criterion: Discretionary Use criteria of approval:
D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code:
1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145.
Procedural Finding: The approval criteria for wireless telecommunications system facilities are listed in SDC 4.3-145.F – General Standards. The proposed monopine tower (ie. imitation tree) is
classified as a “moderate visibility” facility in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E. The applicable
standards for wireless telecommunications systems facilities are as follows:
1) Design for co-location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate the maximum number of additional users technically practicable.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated on Sheet A-3 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A), the
proposed WTS facility would be designed to structurally accommodate two additional users. A full engineering design will be submitted with the Building Permit.”
Finding 1: The applicant has designed the wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facility
to accommodate additional users, thereby allowing for co-location at the subject site. The
applicant’s submittal (Sheet A-3) shows the location of two additional antenna arrays that
could be mounted below the Verizon Wireless antenna array. Tower loading for the currently proposed and potential future antenna arrays will be reviewed through the building permitting
process for the facility.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
2) Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Applications shall demonstrate that the proposed WTS facility is necessary to close a significant gap in service coverage or capacity for the carrier and is the least intrusive means to close the significant gap.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As detailed in the attached letter report from Verizon Wireless (Exhibit B), the proposed WTS facility is needed to close a significant gap in signal coverage
[and] capacity. Currently, this area is covered by the EUG Springfield location which shall
be decommissioned, and this shall create a significant coverage gap in addition to the system
capacity gap. Because the to-be-decommissioned site (EUG Springfield) antennas had a centerline of 160’ on an existing water tank, the replacement site would either need to match that height or be as tall as permissible. Instead of proposing a new 160’ tall tower, Verizon
proposes to make use of multiple less intrusive facilities. The replacement plan includes the
proposed WTS facility, EUG Aster, a co-location on the existing tower located at 693 36th
Street (Permit 811-SPR2014-02174), and EUG Clearwater a new faux monopine tower WTS located at 4164 Jasper Road (TYP215-00012). Please see the narrative and maps as provided in the letter report (Exhibit B). By using multiple facilities, the proposed WTS facility antennas will have a centerline of 90’, which will provide an acceptable replacement signal
strength, allowing the current customers to maintain service. There are no buildings in the
area of sufficient height to accommodate the needed antenna elevation, as most buildings are
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 19
only 1 level or 2 at the most in the area. Aside from commercially zoned parcels on Main Street, most others are residentially zoned in the area. The WTS towers nearest to this proposed site are to the west approximately 2,200 feet at 4680 Main Street and that tower is at
its structural capacity per the tower owner. The next closest tower site is over 5,500 feet to the
east and near to an existing Verizon Wireless location. This would provide overlapping coverage with the site it is near to and still leave a coverage gap to the southeast of the to-be-decommissioned WTS on the water tank. The next 2 nearest WTS tower sites are the proposed Verizon Wireless installation referenced as EUG Aster and EUG Springfield above. Please
see Exhibit C for the map depicting these WTS locations.”
Finding 2: The applicant’s submittal shows the existing gaps in coverage, along with the location of the existing Verizon Wireless facility at the International Paper plant in mid-Springfield. Upon decommissioning of the existing wireless telecommunications system
facility, there would be coverage and capacity gaps that can be addressed by the proposed
monopine tower.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
3) Lack of Coverage and Lack of Capacity. The application shall demonstrate that the gap
in service cannot be closed by upgrading other existing facilities. In doing so, evidence
shall clearly support a conclusion that the gap results from a lack of coverage and not a lack of capacity to achieve adequate service. If the proposed WTS facility is to improve capacity, evidence shall further justify why other methods for improving service capacity are not reasonable, available or effective.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Due to the decommissioning of the EUG Springfield location, a signal coverage gap will result in an area that already [is] experiencing a system capacity gap. This is detailed in this narrative and in the provided letter report from Verizon Wireless
(Exhibit B).”
Finding 3: The applicant’s submittal indicates that there is an existing capacity gap in the area to be served by the proposed monopine tower. Additionally, with the anticipated decommissioning of an existing facility at the International Paper plant northwest of the
subject property, there will be a coverage gap as well. The proposed facility addresses both
the coverage and capacity gap according to the applicant’s submittal and supporting
information. Conclusion: This standard has been met.
4) Identify the Least Intrusive Alternative for Providing Coverage. The application shall
demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, including, but not limited to, less sensitive sites, alternative design systems, alternative tower designs, the use of repeaters, or multiple facilities. Subsection F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As detailed in the attached letter report from Verizon Wireless (Exhibit B), the proposed WTS facility is needed to close a significant gap in signal coverage
[and] capacity. Currently, this area is covered by the EUG Springfield location which shall
be decommissioned, and this shall create a coverage gap in addition to the capacity gap.
Because the to-be-decommissioned site (EUG Springfield) antennas had a centerline of 160’
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 19
on an existing water tank, the replacement site would either need to match that height or be as tall as permissible. Instead of proposing a new 160’ tall tower, Verizon proposes to make use of multiple less intrusive facilities. The replacement plan includes the proposed WTS facility,
EUG Aster, a co-location on the existing tower located at 693 36th Street (Permit 811-
SPR2014-02174), and EUG Clearwater a new monopine tower WTS located at 4164 Jasper Road (TYP215-00012). Please see the narrative and maps as provided in Exhibit B. By using multiple facilities, the proposed WTS facility antennas will have a centerline of 90’, which will
provide an acceptable replacement signal strength, allowing the current customers to
maintain service. There are no buildings in the area of sufficient height to accommodate the
needed tower elevation, as most buildings are only 1 level or 2 at the most in this area. Aside from commercially zoned parcels on Main Street, most others are residentially zoned. The WTS towers nearest to this proposed site are to the west approximately 2,200 feet at 4680
Main Street and that tower is at its structural capacity per the tower owner. The next closest
tower site is over 5,500 feet to the east and near to an existing Verizon Wireless location. This
would provide overlapping coverage with the site it is near to and still leave a coverage gap to the southeast of the to-be-decommissioned WTS on the water tank. The next 2 nearest WTS tower sites are the proposed Verizon Wireless installation referenced as EUG Aster and EUG
Clearwater above. Please see Exhibit C for the map depicting theses WTS locations.”
Finding 4: The applicant’s submittal and supporting information demonstrates that the
proposed monopine tower, in conjunction with modifications other existing Verizon Wireless facilities in the vicinity, is the minimum-sized facility necessary to address the coverage and
capacity gap in this area of Springfield.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
5) Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection E. defines various types of WTS facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low visibility and stealth facilities. Table 4.3-1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each
of Springfield’s zoning districts.
Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine design, which is a
moderate visibility facility. Moderate visibility facilities are allowed in the subject property’s
Community Commercial zoning district.”
Finding 5: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, wireless transmissions system facilities that are camouflaged, such as imitation trees, are considered “moderate visibility”. In accordance with
SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial
district.
Finding 6: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H, moderate visibility wireless transmissions system facilities require Type III Planning Commission review. The applicant has submitted
concurrent Discretionary Use (Case TYP315-00005) and Site Plan Review (Case TYP215-
00032) applications for Planning Commission review. Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145l.H.4.a, on
December 14, 2015, this application was referred to the Springfield City Council for
consideration of transferring the review and approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council declined this opportunity to replace the Planning
Commission as approval authority for this application, therefore a public hearing before the
Planning Commission has been scheduled for January 20, 2016.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 19
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
6) Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility
facility is allowed on any 1 lot/parcel. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would be a moderate
visibility facility. There are no existing WTS facilities on the subject property.”
Finding 7: The applicant is not proposing a high visibility wireless transmissions system facility or more than one facility on the subject property. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
7) Separation Between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than 2,000 feet from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made under Subsections F.2, 3 and 4 by the Approval Authority.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the attached inventory of existing towers map (Exhibit C), the nearest existing tower is over 2,000 feet to the west of the proposed [WTS] and, per the tower owner, at its structural capacity.”
Finding 8: The applicant’s submittal confirms that the nearest wireless telecommunications
system tower operated by Verizon Wireless or any other carrier is more than 2,000 feet from the subject site.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
8) WTS Facilities Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Property. In order to ensure public safety, all towers located on or adjacent to any residential zoning district shall be set back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the facility, including any antennas or other appurtenances. The setback shall be measured
from that part of the WTS tower that is closest to the neighboring residentially zoned
property. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the attached drawings (Exhibit A) the proposed WTS
facility would be set back more than 100% of the tower height from any residential property,
as the nearest residential parcels are east and west approximately 270’, which is greater than the 100’ monopole tower height.” Finding 9: The subject property is zoned Community Commercial, and therefore the proposed
facility is not on or immediately abutting a residential zoning district. The nearest
residentially-zoned properties are about 270 feet west (273 49th Loop) and about 285 feet east
(210 51st Street) of the proposed monopine tower. The dwellings on these properties are set back a greater distance from the proposed tower due to intervening backyard space.
Finding 10: The proposed WTS tower is located adjacent to the southern edge of the
Riverview Elementary School playground and school yard, and is approximately 350 feet from
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 19
the actual school building. The applicant’s submittal demonstrates that the tower will be sufficiently set back from residential property lines in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.8.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
9) Historic Buildings and Structures. No WTS facility shall be allowed on any building or
structure, or in any district, that is listed on any Federal, State or local historic register unless a finding is made by the Approval Authority that the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the building, structure, or district. No change in architecture and no high or moderate visibility WTS facilities are permitted on any
building or any site within a historic district. Proposed WTS facilities in the Historic
Overlay District area also subject to the applicable provisions of Section 3.3-900. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be located on a
historic building or structure.”
Finding 11: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is not located on a historic building, or within the designated Historic Overlay District as depicted in SDC 3.3-910. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
10) Equipment Location. The following location standards shall apply to WTS facilities: a. No WTS facility shall be located in a front, rear or side yard building setback in any
base zone and no portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property
lines; Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in Sheet A-1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A)
the proposed WTS facility would be located no closer than the required 10’ side and rear
setback, further [than] 30’ from a street and there are no guy lines proposed.”
Finding 12: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum interior side yard or rear yard building setback when abutting residential districts is 10 feet. The subject property does
not abut residential zoning, but the applicant has set the tower structure back at least 10
feet from the adjacent property lines.
Finding 13: The proposed monopine tower is not located within a required building setback area and the antenna does not project into a setback area or across a property line.
Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met.
b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30 feet from a property line abutting a street;
Applicant’s Submittal: See 10a. above.
Finding 14: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum front yard or street side yard
building setback is 10 feet. The subject property abuts Main Street along the south
boundary, and the existing building supply store occupies the front of the site. Because
there is an existing commercial building on the property, this standard does not apply. In
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 19
any event, the proposed monopine tower is set back about 470 feet from the edge of the Main Street right-of-way, which exceeds the requirements of SDC 3.2-315.
Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met.
c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all
property lines. Applicant’s Submittal: See 10a. above.
Finding 15: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is
a freestanding structure and does not require guy wire support. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met.
11) Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in this Code. However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall require Discretionary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the approval criteria specified in Subsection I.
Applicant’s Submittal: “There is no maximum building height in the Community Commercial zoning district except within fifty feet of a Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential zoning district. Because the proposed WTS facility is located more than 50 feet
from properties zoned Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, there is no
height limit applicable.”
Finding 16: The subject property does not abut any residentially zoned properties. Therefore, in accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum building height in the Community
Commercial district. The proposed monopine tower is located about 270 feet from the east
boundary of the nearest residential property (273 49th Loop) and is therefore outside the 50-
foot height limitation zone.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
12) Accessory Building Size. All accessory buildings and structures built to contain
equipment accessory to a WTS facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height unless a greater height is necessary and required by a condition of approval to maximize architectural integration. Each accessory building or structure located on any residential or public land and open space zoned property is limited to 200 square feet, unless approved
through the Discretionary Use process.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in Sheet A-3 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A) the
proposed WTS facility accessory equipment cabinets would be not over 12’ in height. Because
the subject property is zoned Community Commercial, the accessory equipment structure is
not limited in square footage.”
Finding 17: As stated in the applicant’s submittal, the proposed utility cabinets will be
approximately 12 feet in height. The cabinets are not considered an occupied building space,
but will likely require building permits for construction.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 19
Finding 18: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105, accessory structures are to be constructed in conjunction with or after construction of a primary structure. There is an existing commercial building on the property (Square Deal Lumber) that is considered the primary structure on the
site. Therefore, an accessory structure is allowable on the property.
Conclusion: This standard has been met. 13) Visual Impact. All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and
camouflage. All facilities shall also be designed to be compatible with existing
architectural elements, building materials, and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to accomplish the coverage objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be sited in a manner to cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring
properties, and distant properties.
Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, and camouflage.
Placement: As illustrated on Sheet A-1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A), the proposed WTS facility monopine would be located on a large parcel more than 470 feet from Main Street, approximately 300’ from the residences to the east-northeast, [and] approximately 350’ from the school building to the north, and the residential building and church to the east.
As illustrated in attached photo simulations (Exhibit D) the proposed WTS facility would be
located near existing trees in the corner of the property, which would help blend the facility in with the site and general mix of [conifer] and deciduous trees in the area. Placement of the [WTS] internally to the storage facility would adversely impact vehicle circulation, loading and storage.
Screening and existing vegetation and sight-obscuring fencing: The proposed WTS facility would be surrounded by a 6-foot tall chain link fence with sight-obscuring slats to the north and the east. Screening to the west and south is offered by the exiting lumber storage yard and buildings. The proposed screening would further minimize the visual impact of the equipment
area and tower base. Landscaping placement is problematic as there is no irrigation
available and the existing lumber yard storage area is completely paved. However, added landscaping shall be placed north of the development site as illustrated on Sheet L-1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A).
Camouflage: The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine. As illustrated on Sheet A-3 of
the attached drawings (Exhibit A) the proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, antennas colored green to blend with the branches, remote units placed behind the proposed antennas and a pole colored brown like the trunk of a typical
tree. The attached photo simulations (Exhibit D) also illustrate the proposed monopine
design. Compared to a traditional design of a monopole tower or lattice style tower, the
proposed facility would blend much better with the general area of the site and as such minimize the visual impact.”
Finding 19: The applicant is proposing to retain some of the existing trees and to install
supplemental landscaping along the northern edge of the fenced enclosure containing the
monopine tower and equipment cabinets. According to the applicant’s site plan, the
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 19
landscaping plants will be drought tolerant native species and will not require intensive irrigation after establishment. The applicant’s proposed site plan would provide for vegetative screening of the wireless transmissions system equipment cabinets and power transformers.
Finding 20: The applicant has submitted sketches of the proposed monopine tower, which is
proposed as a 3 branch per foot imitation pine tree (Sheet A-3 of applicant’s submittal). The proposed design is consistent with another Verizon WTS facility recently approved at 4164 Jasper Road (Case TYP215-00012), and it also mimics the growth form of other coniferous
trees found in the vicinity.
Conclusion: This standard has been met. 14) Minimize Visibility. Colors and materials for WTS facilities shall be nonreflective and chosen to minimize visibility. Facilities, including support equipment and buildings,
shall be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary
background, unless required by any other applicable law. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine. As illustrated on
Sheet A-3 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A) and the photo simulations (Exhibit D), the
proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, antennas colored green to blend with the branches, remote units placed behind the proposed antennas and a pole colored brown like the trunk [of] a typical tree. The associated ground equipment is matte gray or tan in color and will be screened by sight-obscuring fencing to the
north and east, as well as retained trees and added landscaping per Sheet L-1 of Exhibit A.”
Finding 21: The applicant is proposing to use an imitation pine tree that is designed and intended to be as close to a real tree as feasible. The applicant is also proposing to use neutral, non-reflective paint tones for the equipment cabinets and transformers, which will be non-
reflective and should be unobtrusive behind the planned vegetative and structural screening.
The proposed finish materials for the equipment cabinets and tower pole will minimize
visibility of the wireless transmissions system facilities. Conclusion: This standard has been met.
15) Camouflaged Facilities. All camouflaged WTS facilities shall be designed to visually and
operationally blend into the surrounding area in a manner consistent with existing development on adjacent properties. The facility shall also be appropriate for the specific site. In other words, it shall not “stand out” from its surrounding environment.
Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine and a Moderate Visibility facility per City definition and not a Camouflage Facility. However, as illustrated on Sheet A-3 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A) the proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, antennas colored green to blend with the
branches, remote units placed behind the proposed antennas and a pole colored brown like the
trunk of a typical tree.”
Finding 22: The proposed monopine tower is not defined as a camouflage facility. However, the applicant has incorporated a design that mimics a real tree, and provided for structural and
vegetative screening of the associated ground-mounted equipment cabinets and transformers to
minimize the visual impact.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 19
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
16) Façade-Mounted Antenna. Façade-mounted antennas shall be architecturally integrated
into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible,
antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Façade-mounted antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be mounted to an existing structure.” Finding 23: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is a
freestanding structure and is not mounted on a building façade. Therefore, this standard does
not apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
17) Roof-Mounted Antenna. Roof-mounted antennas shall be constructed at the minimum
height possible to serve the operator’s service area and shall be set back as far from the
building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be mounted to
an existing structure.”
Finding 24: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and is not mounted on a rooftop. Therefore, this standard does not
apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met. 18) Compliance with Photo Simulations. As a condition of approval and prior to final staff inspection of the WTS facility, the applicant shall submit evidence, e.g. photos, sufficient
to prove that the facility is in substantial conformance with photo simulations provided
with the initial application. Non-conformance shall require any necessary modification to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Understood as a compliance standard.”
Finding 25: The applicant’s photo simulations and project narrative indicate that the proposed wireless transmissions system facility will be as shown on the pictures. However, manufacturer’s product sheets and design details have not been included with the submittal.
The applicant has stated that the facility will utilize a 3 branch per foot design to better
approximate the growth form of large evergreen trees in the neighborhood and region.
Provided the higher branching density design is used, the monopine facility should largely resemble the photo renderings included with the applicant’s submittal (Exhibit D).
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 19
19) Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Equipment shall comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Compliance is discussed in the response for Section G.2.d later in this narrative.”
Finding 26: The proposed equipment cabinets are freestanding and equipped with cooling
units on the front (south side) that would generate some noise. According to the applicant’s
submittal, the cooling units are oriented to the south into the operating lumber yard and away from noise sensitive areas. The units will be in compliance with the 50dBa nighttime noise level at a distance of 62 feet from the equipment cabinets per calculations with the inverse
square law. The applicant has provided manufacturer’s spec sheets and noise calculations with
Exhibit E of the submittal.
Finding 27: The proposed emergency backup power generator is to be installed along the western edge of the enclosure and will be operated on a biweekly basis, during daylight hours,
to test the system and maintain functionality. According to the applicant’s submittal, the
generator is enclosed in a sound attenuating shroud with a full muffler and emissions system.
Average noise output is 58.3 dBa at 7 meters (approximately 22 feet) per the manufacturer’s specifications. The muffler exhaust port is to be oriented to the south into the operating lumber yard to further mitigate the noise impacts of the generator. Based on the applicant’s
submittal, the projected noise emissions will not exceed provisions of OAR 340-035-0035 for
new noise sources on commercial sites, or for nighttime noise levels as measured 60 feet from
the generator. Conclusion: This standard has been met.
20) Signage. No signs, striping graphics, or other attention-getting devices are permitted on
any WTS facility except for warning and safety signage that shall: a. Have a surface area of no more than 3 square feet;
b. Be affixed to a fence or equipment cabinet; and
c. Be limited to no more than 2 signs, unless more are required by any other applicable law.
Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility will contain only the required identification, warning and safety signage.” Finding 28: According to the applicant’s site plan, the equipment shelter and fence will be
equipped with federally- and state-required warning and safety signs pertaining to radio
frequency fields, the presence of flammable natural gas to fire the emergency backup
generator, and other applicable hazards. The safety signs will meet the limitations of SDC 4.3-145.F.20 in all other respects, including but not limited to total surface area and
placement of the signs.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 19
21) Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the public or private right-of-way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that obstructs
traffic.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be located in the public or private right-of-way.”
Finding 29: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is well-removed from
the public right-of-way for Main Street. Additionally, the applicant’s proposed site plan provides for access and parking that is internal to the existing commercial property and set back from public rights-of-way. As proposed, the site design will not cause traffic to be
obstructed.
Conclusion: This standard has been met. 22) Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the installation of any WTS facility.
Applicant’s Submittal: “There will be no net loss in required on-site parking spaces as a result of the installation of the proposed WTS facility. The [WTS] is proposed in a storage yard and not using any parking spaces.”
Finding 30: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is located north of
existing commercial buildings that face Main Street. The existing building on the subject property is served by paved driveway approaches and driveways that are developed to City standards. The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveways for access to the
equipment compound within the operating lumber yard. Vehicles accessing the WTS
compound would park within the paved lumber yard when occasional maintenance occurs at
the facility. Therefore, the proposed wireless transmissions system facility does not affect the existing or potential future parking for the existing commercial building on the site.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
23) Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair pedestrian use of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private land.
Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated on Sheets A-1 and A-2 of the attached drawings
(Exhibit A), the proposed WTS facility equipment would all be located within the fenced lease area at the back of a lumber yard and would not impair the use of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, or bikeways.”
Finding 31: The proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located internal to the
operating commercial site. There are no existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities
that pass through the area occupied by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on pedestrian or bicycle movements.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 19
24) Lighting. WTS facilities shall not include any beacon lights or strobe lights, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable authority. If beacon lights or strobe lights are required, the Approval Authority shall review any
available alternatives and approve the design with the least visual impact. All other site
lighting for security and maintenance purposes shall be shielded and directed downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5-100, unless required by any other applicable law.
Applicant’s Submittal: “Per the TOWAIR review, no notice to the FAA is required (and thus no lighting), and a review submittal has been made to the Oregon Department of Aviation (Exhibit F). No marking or lighting necessary for aviation safety are expected to be required by the ODA either. As illustrated on Sheet A-2, Note #17 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A)
the light fixtures on the proposed WTS facility equipment area are work lights intermittently
used only, will be shielded, and on timers to comply with the outdoor lighting standards. Please see the manufacturer’s specification sheet (Exhibit K). Finding 32: The applicant’s submittal indicates that no beacon or strobe lights are required or
planned for the monopine tower. The proposed work lights are mounted at a 9-foot level and
are designed to be shielded and fully downcast to prevent glare and light trespass onto
neighboring properties. As stated in the applicant’s submittal, the lights would be used primarily when maintenance personnel are on the site.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
25) Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of the base zone, at least 1 row of evergreen trees or shrubs, not less than 4 feet high at the time of planting, and spaced out not more than 15 feet apart, shall be provided in the landscape setback. Shrubs shall be a variety that can be expected to grow to form a
continuous hedge at least 5 feet in height within 2 years of planting. Trees and shrubs in
the vicinity of guy wires shall be of a kind that would not exceed 20 feet in height or would not affect the stability of the guys. In all other cases, the landscaping, screening and fence standards specified in Section 4.4-100 shall apply.
Applicant’s Submittal: “No additional landscaping is required per Code, as the [WTS] is located [within] a paved lumber yard, and does not exceed the height of the base zone, and the shade point is not applicable as the property to the north is not LDR or MDR zoned. Existing trees and vegetation shall be retained along the north property line and screening shall be
enhanced via sight-obscuring fencing to the north and east, and added plantings to the north
per Sheet L-1 of the Site Plans (Exhibit A). The existing landscaping to be retained, added plantings, proposed fencing, and [proposed] screening shall comply with applicable Code.” Finding 33: The proposed wireless transmissions system tower does not exceed the height
limitations of the base Community Commercial zoning district. Although not specifically
required, the applicant is proposing to plant trees and shrubs along the northern edge of the site
where it abuts the schoolyard. Review of the applicant’s proposed landscaping plan is detailed in the accompanying staff report for the Site Plan Review application (Case TYP215-00032).
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 19
26) Prohibited WTS Facilities. a. Any high or moderate visibility WTS facility in the Historic Overlay District.
b. Any WTS facility in the public right-of-way that severely limits access to abutting property, which limits public access or use of the sidewalk, or which constitutes a vision clearance violation.
c. Any detached WTS facility taller than 150 feet above finished grade at the base of the
tower. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility is not within the Historic Overlay
District or the public right-of-way and would not be taller than 150 feet. Therefore, this is
not a prohibited facility.”
Finding 34: As stated and depicted in the applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials, the proposed monopine tower is an allowable facility in the Community
Commercial zoning district. The proposed development is not within the Historic Overlay
District or the public right-of-way, and is not taller than 150 feet above finished grade. As
such, the proposed monopine tower is not classified as a prohibited wireless transmissions system facility. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
27) Speculation. No application shall be accepted or approved for a speculation WTS tower, ie. from an applicant that simply constructs towers and leases tower space to service carriers, but is not a service carrier, unless the applicant submits a binding written commitment or executed lease from a service carrier to utilize or lease space on the
tower.
Applicant’s Submittal: “The Applicant is Verizon Wireless and is not a speculative WTS facility.”
Finding 35: The applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials indicate that the wireless
carrier (Verizon Wireless) is proposing the monopine tower as a necessary component of their network facilities in Springfield, both in terms of maintaining coverage and improving capacity. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245.
Finding 36: The proposed development is not a multi-family residential facility. Therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 19
3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. Finding 37: The proposed development does not include a fence requiring Discretionary Use
approval. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195.
Finding 38: The proposed development is not a public school. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the application and supporting information submitted by the applicant
for the Discretionary Use request. Based on the above-listed criteria, staff finds that the proposal meets
criterion D.1 of SDC 5.9-120. Staff recommends support for the request as the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval. Additionally, approval of the Discretionary Use would facilitate
approval of the accompanying Site Plan Review application for a wireless telecommunications system
submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00032).
Conditions of Approval SDC Section 5.9-125 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a
Discretionary Use request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific
language from the code section is cited below:
5.9-125 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Discretionary Use approval to be granted.
Staff has reviewed the Discretionary Use request and supporting information provided by the applicant, and does not recommend any conditions of approval.
The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility has been reviewed and recommended
conditions of approval are described in the Site Plan Review application for this development submitted
under separate cover (Case TYP215-00032).
Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission may choose to apply conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Discretionary
Use criteria.
Additional Approvals The subject Discretionary Use request is the necessary first step for the applicant to proceed with
development plans for the site. The companion Site Plan Review application (Case TYP215-00032) is
intended to address the specific Development Code and detailed site planning requirements for the
proposed wireless telecommunications system facility.
Attachment 1, Page 19 of 19
Type II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW,
staff report & RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Project Name: Verizon Wireless Site Plan Review
Project Proposal: Construct a 100-foot high monopine wireless transmissions system facility on a developed commercial site Case Number: TYP215-00032
Project Location: 4992 Main Street
(Map 17-02-33-32, TL 4000)
Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: MUC (East Main Refinement Plan)
Overlay Districts: Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District (DWP) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: Oct. 20, 2015
Application Submitted Date: Nov. 19, 2015
Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 20, 2016
Appeal Deadline Date: February 4, 2016 Associated Applications: PRE15-00034 (Development Issues Meeting); PRE15-00054 (Pre-Submittal); TYP315-
00005 (Discretionary Use)
APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant: Ed Fournier
Land Services Northwest LLC P.O. Box 302
Bend OR 97709-0302
Property Owner: James Kuykendall
4992 Main Street Springfield OR 97478
Project Engineer: Kenneth Camp, PE
KDC Architects & Engineers 19020 33rd Avenue W, Suite 380
Lynnwood WA 98036
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Kyle Greene 541-726-5750
Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Kyle Greene 541-726-5750
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293
Building Official Building David Bowlsby 541-736-1029
SITE 51st Street 49th Street
Proposed Tower Location
Main Street
Riverbend Elementary School
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 14
Site Information: The subject development site is a developed commercial property on the north side of Main Street between 49th and 51st Streets. The commercial property operates as Square Deal Lumber and contains an
existing parking lot, home improvement store, and lumber storage yard. The proposed wireless
telecommunications system facility – a 100-foot tall monopine tower – is located in the northeast corner of the property. The northern half of the property proposed for the cellular tower is a paved lumber storage yard enclosed
by perimeter fencing.
In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E and SDC Table 4.3-1, wireless telecommunications system facilities designed as
imitation trees are classified as moderate visibility facilities. Moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the
Community Commercial (CC) district subject to Discretionary Use approval. The applicant submitted a concurrent Discretionary Use Request for a 100-foot tall monopine wireless telecommunications system facility under separate
cover (Case TYP315-00005). The Springfield Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing to
adjudicate the Discretionary Use request at a regular meeting on January 20, 2016. A Discretionary Use permit is required for the submitted site plan to be approved for the subject property.
The site is zoned CC in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and designated for Mixed Use in accordance with the adopted East Main Refinement Plan diagram. Other properties in the vicinity of the subject site are zoned
CC (west, south and east of the site); Low Density Residential (northwest and northeast of the site); and Public Land and Open Space (north of the site).
The site is within the mapped 20+ Year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the SP drinking water wellhead and, therefore, is subject to the 20+ Year TOTZ provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-
200. Provisions for water quality protection during site construction and operation have been inserted as conditions
of this decision in order to protect local surface waters and groundwater resources.
DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited
land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. (See Page 13 for a summary of the recommended conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development
Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. The subject application was
submitted and deemed complete on November 19, 2015. Therefore, this application is being reviewed by the Planning Commission on the 62nd day of the 120 days mandated by the State.
Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145.H.4.a, on December 14, 2015, the accompanying Discretionary Use application (Case TYP315-00005) was referred to the Springfield City Council for consideration of transferring the review and
approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council declined this opportunity
to replace the Planning Commission as approval authority for the Discretionary Use application, therefore a public hearing before the Planning Commission has been scheduled for January 20, 2016.
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application
(SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision).
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 14
Procedural Finding: On December 15, 2015, the City’s Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (7 Sheets – KDC Engineers & Architects Sheets T-1, SV-1 and A-1 to A-3; and Lauchlin R Bethune
Associates, Inc. Landscape Architecture & Planning, Sheet L1.0) and other supporting information. City staff’s
review comments have been reduced to findings and recommended conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site
Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal
approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit
Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on January 4, 2016. One written comment was received from Joseph Tokatly, 2219 Main Street, P.O. Box 768, Springfield:
“I am responding to the notice I received regarding the pending site plan review application number TYP315-
00005. TTT Ranch, LLC owns the parcel located directly across Main Street south of the subject site. The proposed development will create an eyesore with respect to the development we intend to construct on our parcel. We strongly object to such development unless the aesthetics can be mitigated through the use of disguised
features offered by a variety of companies such as Valmont. Such disguise will allow the cell tower to blend into the surrounding environment and be less visible. I hope the planning commission will consider our position and adopt our recommendation, as part of the approval process, to preserve the natural beauty of our community while
facilitating development at the same time.”
Staff Response: Staff responded to Mr. Tokatly and advised that the applicant’s proposal calls for an imitation fir
tree design as opposed to a traditional pole or lattice tower structure. In response to the clarification of the proposed imitation tree design, Mr. Tokatly responded as follows: “That is exactly the response that I was hoping
for. If that is the case, we will have no objection to the development otherwise.”
CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, “the Director shall approve, or
approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria A through E of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the
application.”
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding 1: The site is zoned Community Commercial in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is
designated Mixed Use Commercial in the adopted East Main Refinement Plan diagram. The applicant is not proposing to change the zoning for the site.
Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1, Moderate Visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in the Mixed Use Commercial district subject to
Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review procedures. Because the subject cellular tower is allowable in both
districts, a mechanism to address the plan/zone conflict for the site is not warranted with this application.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development,
unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Development & Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
Finding 3: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of a 100-foot tall monopine wireless transmissions system facility (ie. imitation coniferous tree) within a fenced enclosure, along with ground-
mounted equipment cabinets, transformers, and screening landscaping on a developed commercial parcel.
Finding 4: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design
the site improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services.
Finding 5: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscaping plan on December 15, 2015. City staff’s review comments have been incorporated in findings and recommended
conditions contained herein.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Water and Electricity Improvements
Finding 6: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for
maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield
city limits.
Finding 7: The proposed development is a non-combustible wireless telecommunications system tower with
ground-mounted utility cabinets and transformers that are not designed or intended for occupation. There is no water service proposed to the tower enclosure and none is required.
Finding 8: The applicant is proposing to install underground electricity and telecommunication lines from a connection point near the southeast corner of the property to serve the cellular tower. To accommodate the
underground utility lines, a utility easement will be necessary. SUB Electric requests a 7-foot wide utility easement centered on the high voltage line. The easement should extend from the connection point at the
northwest corner of the adjacent property to the east (Tax Lot 3900) to the termination point at the utility
cabinets.
Finding 9: SUB Electric requests provision for access to the fenced compound to allow for meter reading or to
pull the meter in the event of an emergency. Access to the compound can be provided by way of a SUB-installed lock used in tandem with a Verizon Wireless lock, or a key to the Verizon Wireless lock issued to
SUB personnel.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a utility easement satisfactory to SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site.
2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a SUB Electric supplied lock or issuance of a key to SUB Electric personnel for the fenced compound surrounding the transformer and utility
cabinets. Access to the fenced compound shall be afforded SUB Electric personnel for the purpose of reading the electrical meter or pulling the meter in the event of an emergency.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14
Conclusion: The existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities
Sanitary Sewer
Finding 10: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall
provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Finding 11: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is designed and intended as a non-
occupied utility compound. There is no water service or floor drains planned for the development site. Therefore, sanitary sewer service is not required.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Stormwater Management (Quantity)
Finding 12: SDC 4.3-110.B requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where
adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Development & Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
Finding 13: SDC 4.3-110.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development.
Finding 14: SDC 4.3-110.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
Finding 15: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality.
Finding 16: To comply with SDC 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the project site will be directed into nearby catch basins equipped with filtering inserts prior to discharge into the public stormwater system. The
public stormwater system is located in Main Street.
Finding 17: The existing public stormwater system, which the applicant proposes to connect with, has limited
capacity. The proposed development is within an existing, paved lumber storage yard. As such, the new wireless telecommunications system tower and enclosure will not create an appreciable amount of new
impervious surface requiring additional constructed stormwater management facilities. Site drainage will be
discharged to the pavement surface and flow overland to existing catch basins outside the south edge of the fenced enclosure. Overflow drainage from the proposed development site, if any, will not affect the public
stormwater management system or adjacent properties. Therefore, no additional stormwater management
facilities are required for the subject development.
Finding 18: As part of the Final Site Plan approval process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City, whereby the applicant or their designee will provide routine maintenance of the proposed catch basin filter inserts.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Springfield whereby the applicant or their designee will provide routine maintenance for functionality of the catch basin filter inserts.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Stormwater Management (Quality)
Finding 19: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and
has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable
(MEP).
Finding 20: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City’s MS4
plan to address six “Minimum Control Measures”. Minimum Control Measure 5, “Post-Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment”, applies to the proposed development.
Finding 21: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) appropriate for the community.
Finding 22: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City’s EDSPM, and
the Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP).
Finding 23: As required in SDC 4.3-110.E, “a development shall be required to employ drainage management
practices approved by the Development & Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and
the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual”.
Finding 24: Section 3.02 of the City’s EDSPM states the Development & Public Works Department will
accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of the City’s EDSPM and the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual.
Finding 25: Sections 3.02.5 and 3.02.6 of the City’s EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are
designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop
impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods and
100% of the area shall be pre-treated.
Finding 26: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility (monopine tower), fenced compound,
and utility cabinets will not create any new, non-rooftop impervious area. To meet the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit, the SDC and the EDSPM, the applicant is proposing to install catch basin filters in the
existing catch basins adjacent to the cellular tower enclosure. The proposed stormwater quality treatment
measures are acceptable to the City as a part of the overall site development. A standard Operations & Maintenance Agreement for the catch basin filters will be required to ensure they are installed and maintained
by the property owner or their designee in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan satisfactory to the City for the long-term maintenance and operation of the stormwater catch
basin filter inserts. The operations and maintenance plan should designate responsibility for operating and maintaining the filtering inserts, and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
Finding 27: The subject site is within the northeast corner of an existing, developed commercial parcel that has
frontage on Main Street along the south boundary. Along the site frontage, Main Street is a fully improved
arterial street with striped vehicle and bicycle lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting. The applicant is not proposing to improve the frontage beyond the existing condition, and no public street
improvements are required for the proposed development.
Finding 28: The traffic generated by the proposed development (after construction and installation of the facility)
would be limited to occasional visitation by maintenance personnel. The traffic volumes would not be
appreciably different than the current commercial traffic generated by the existing lumber and building supply store.
Finding 29: It is expected that the existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns generated by the proposed development in a safe and
efficient manner.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
Finding 30: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards.
The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless
otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to:
1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140)
Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities (4.3-145) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-300 Community
Commercial Zoning District
Community Commercial Schedule of Uses (3.2-310)
Community Commercial District Development Standards (3.2-315)
Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100)
On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100)
3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Drinking Water Protection Overlay District C.1 Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
Access
Finding 31: All fire apparatus access routes are to be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb.
imposed load in accordance with the 2014 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14
Access to the project area is afforded from Main Street. The nearest responding fire station (Station #14) is located at 4765 Main Street.
Water Supply
Finding 32: The proposed cellular tower, ground-mounted equipment cabinets and transformers are considered
utility installations and do not require sprinklers or additional fire hydrants for protection.
Finding 33: The applicant is proposing to use a natural gas powered backup generator which does not require
special permits from the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department. Use of a natural gas generator also qualifies the applicant for an exemption to Drinking Water Protection permitting requirements. The Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District requirements are discussed in Section C.3 of this report.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140)
Finding 34: SDC 4.3-140.A requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or
land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-of-way and internal
to private properties shall be 7 feet, unless the Development & Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance access.
Finding 35: As stated and conditioned previously in this report, a utility easement will be required to accommodate the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the proposed cellular tower.
Finding 36: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide private access easement across the site to reach the cellular tower enclosure at the rear of the fenced lumber yard. The proposed legal and physical access to the
cellular tower enclosure is acceptable for the purpose of this review.
Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of corresponding
access and utility easements. The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Wireless Transmissions System Facilities (4.3-145)
Finding 37: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for
moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities in Springfield. Imitation trees such as the
proposed monopine tower are classified as a moderate visibility facility. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial district subject to Discretionary Use
approval. Therefore, the proposed development requires approval of a Discretionary Use permit initiated by
Case TYP315-00005 and approval of a Tentative Site Plan initiated by the subject application, Case TYP215-00032.
Finding 38: Specific details of the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility are reviewed and addressed in the staff report for the Discretionary Use permit submitted under separate cover (Case TYP315-
00005) and incorporated herein by reference.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP315-00005.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 14
Page 9 of 14
C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-300, Community Commercial Zoning District
Community Commercial Schedule of Uses (3.2-310) Finding 39: In accordance with SDC 3.2-310, wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in
the CC District subject to the special provisions of SDC 4.3-145. SDC Table 4.3-1 states that moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities such as a monopine (ie. imitation tree) are allowable in
the CC District subject to Discretionary Use permitting.
Finding 40: The applicant has submitted a request for Discretionary Use approval for the subject development
under separate cover (Case TYP315-00005) and is incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use
request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing meeting on January 20, 2016.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Community Commercial Standards (3.2-315) Finding 41: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum parcel size for properties in the CC District is
6,000 ft2 with at least 50 feet of public street frontage.
Finding 42: The proposed development site is approximately 106,900 ft2 (2.45 acres) with about 206 feet of frontage on Main Street. The parcel size and frontages meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-315.
Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum setbacks for structures is 10 feet for front, rear and
street side yards, and 5 feet for interior side yards.
Finding 44: The proposed development has a 10-foot setback from the north (rear yard) property line; a 10-foot
setback from the east (interior side yard) property line; and about a 465-foot setback from the south (front yard)
property line. The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-315.
Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum building height for structures within the CC District provided the development site is more than 50 feet from a residential district property line.
Finding 46: The proposed monopine tower is 100 feet high and is located more than 270 feet from the nearest residential property line, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-315.
Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum lot coverage for structures within the CC District provided the required building and parking lot setbacks are observed.
Finding 48: The proposed development site occupies a fractional amount of the potential site building coverage, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-215.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100)
Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 4.4-100, all required setbacks are to be landscaped. Acceptable forms of
landscaping include trees, shrubs, turf grass and ground cover plants. The site is a paved lumber storage yard with a few existing trees along the north boundary of the property. The applicant is proposing to keep existing viable trees and to plant additional native, drought-tolerant trees and shrubs along the north edge of the fenced
compound. The north edge of the site backs onto the Riverbend Elementary School site.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14
Finding 50: The applicant is not proposing to install landscaping along the front and sides of the proposed cellular tower compound as it would interfere with access to the fenced enclosure and also obstruct traffic
circulation within the existing lumber yard. Staff agrees that landscaping along the west, south and east
perimeter of the fenced enclosure is not warranted with this proposal.
Finding 51: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.25, additional screening vegetation is required for wireless
telecommunications system facilities that exceed the height limitations of the base zone. The applicant’s proposed 100-foot tall monopine tower does not exceed the height limitations of the district.
Finding 52: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.13, the visibility of wireless transmissions system facilities are to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable by camouflage, screening and landscaping. The applicant’s
proposed landscaping plan (Sheet L-1) provides for installation of drought-tolerant vegetation that will form a
screening hedge as it matures. After an additional establishment period, the vegetation is intended to be low-maintenance and non-irrigated.
Finding 53: The applicant is proposing to install sight-obscuring fencing along the northern and eastern edges of the facility to screen the ground-mounted equipment and transformers. The proposed structural screening
meets the requirements of the City’s Development Code.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
Finding 54: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within a commercial district is the height of the principal building on the site or 25 feet, whichever is less. According
to the submitted site plan, the applicant is proposing to mount work lights at the 9-foot level within the fenced
cellular tower compound. The light is proposed to be a downcast, pedestrian-scale light with sharp cutoff to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties. The applicant is also proposing to have the lights
equipped with timers to ensure they are turned off when maintenance personnel are not present on the site.
Based on the applicant’s submittal the size and positioning of the proposed work lights should not have any adverse effect on neighboring institutional, commercial, or residential properties.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Finding 55: In accordance with SDC Tables 4.6-2 and 4.6-3, there is no vehicle or bicycle parking requirement
for unoccupied utility facilities. Verizon Wireless personnel visiting the site for occasional maintenance will park inside the existing lumber storage yard. There will be no impacts to public streets or adjacent commercial
development.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 56: The site is within the adopted East Main Refinement Plan area. According to the Refinement Plan
diagram, the subject site is within a zone designated for Mixed Use. The development site is currently zoned CC in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1,
Moderate Visibility wireless telecommunications facilities are allowable in both the CC and Mixed Use Commercial districts subject to Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review procedures. Therefore, a land use action to address the plan/zone conflict is not warranted with this proposal.
Finding 57: The subject site is located within the mapped 20+ year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the SP
drinking water wellhead. Therefore, the site is subject to provisions of the 20+ year TOTZ Drinking Water
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14
Protection Overlay District found in SDC 3.3-235.D. The applicant’s submitted site plan indicates that a natural gas powered backup generator will be installed to serve the wireless telecommunications system
facility. A natural gas fired generator should qualify for a Drinking Water Protection Exemption. The
applicant will be responsible for obtaining a Drinking Water Protection Exemption in accordance with City and SUB requirements.
Finding 58: As a “Best Practices” recommendation for this site, care must be taken during site construction and operation to prevent contamination from chemicals that may spill or leak onto the ground surface, including
fuel and automotive fluids (such as lubricants and antifreeze, etc.). Fluid-containing equipment, including
vehicles parked on the site, shall be monitored for leaks and spills. Any chemical spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately and cleanup materials disposed off-site in accordance with Lane County and State
DEQ requirements.
Finding 59: The applicant shall provide the following notes regarding drinking water protection on the site
construction plans:
“Chemical spills or leaks at this location have the potential to contaminate Springfield’s drinking water
supply. Any chemical spills or leaks shall be cleaned up immediately and clean-up materials disposed off-
site in accordance with Lane County and DEQ requirements.
Chemical handling, storage, and use: Contractors/developers shall be responsible for the safe handling
and storage of chemicals, petroleum products, and fertilizers and the prevention of groundwater and
storm water runoff contamination. Chemicals used during construction, including paint and cleaning
materials/wastes, must not enter the soil or be washed into the storm water system. All chemicals should
be stored in adequate secondary containment.
Equipment maintenance and fueling: Precautions must be taken to prevent fluid-containing equipment
located outside from leaking, including providing a dedicated area for fueling and maintenance of
equipment. This area should be prepared and maintained in a way that prevents spills or leaks from
migrating to the soil or storm water drainage system.
No fill materials containing hazardous materials shall be used on this site.”
Finding 60: The applicant will need to install a wellhead protection sign on the fence surrounding the cellular tower enclosure to remind employees of the importance of cleaning up and reporting fuel spills. Wellhead
protection signs are available from SUB Drinking Water Source Protection – please contact Amy Chinitz at
541-744-3745 for further information.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Drinking Water
Protection Exemption from SUB Drinking Water Source Protection and provide evidence thereof. 7. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be
used on the site, as detailed in Finding 59 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00032.
8. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign on the fence surrounding the wireless transmissions system facility compound.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14
Page 12 of 14
D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public
areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Finding 61: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability
of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and
driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance areas where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of
decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety.
Finding 62: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, site driveways shall be designed to allow for safe and efficient
vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City’s EDSPM, and the Springfield Development & Public Works Department’s Standard Construction Specifications. Ingress-egress points must be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion, and minimize curb cuts on public streets.
Finding 63: The applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial driveway onto Main Street at the south
edge of the site. The existing site driveway is suitable for the proposed use, which is limited to construction
traffic during initial installation of the wireless telecommunications system facility and occasional maintenance vehicles thereafter.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this criterion.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified
in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
Finding 64: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are no
natural features on this site that warrant protection.
Finding 65: The applicant is not proposing to remove any qualifying trees from the property to facilitate site
development. In accordance with SDC 5.19-110.A, a tree felling permit is required for removal of more than 5 trees greater than 5-inches in diameter in any 12-month period. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable.
Finding 66: Stormwater runoff from the subject site flows to the Willamette River system. This river is listed with the State of Oregon as a “water quality limited” stream for numerous chemical and physical constituents,
including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of stormwater quality. The
proposed site development will not create an appreciable amount of new impervious surface requiring constructed stormwater management facilities for runoff quantity or quality control.
Finding 67: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater protection must be observed during construction on the site. The applicant shall maintain the private stormwater facility on the site to ensure the
continued protection of surface water and groundwater resources. Conclusion: The proposed development provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with
SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115.
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17-125. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions contained herein and as summarized below.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a utility easement satisfactory to SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site.
2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a SUB Electric supplied lock or issuance of a key to SUB Electric personnel for the fenced compound surrounding the transformer and utility cabinets. Access to the fenced compound shall be afforded SUB Electric personnel for the purpose of reading the
electrical meter or pulling the meter in the event of an emergency.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Springfield whereby the applicant or their designee will provide routine maintenance for functionality of the catch basin filter inserts. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan satisfactory to the City for the long-term maintenance and operation of the stormwater catch basin filter
inserts. The operations and maintenance plan should designate responsibility for operating and maintaining the filtering inserts, and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site.
5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP315-00005.
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Drinking Water Protection Exemption from SUB Drinking Water Source Protection and provide evidence thereof.
7. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 59 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00032. 8. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign on the fence surrounding
the wireless transmissions system facility compound. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL?
Upon approval of the Tentative Site Plan by the Springfield Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit five
(5) copies of a Final Site Plan, the Final Site Plan application form and fees, and any additional required plans,
documents or information as required by the Planning Commission decision to the Current Development Division within 90 days of the date of the Planning Commission decision (ie. by April 19, 2016). The Final Site Plan
application form and fee information is available on the City’s website here: http://www.springfield-
or.gov/DPW/Permits.htm#LandUsePermits. In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 – 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision.
The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed and approved.
Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed
during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is
required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14
The applicant may submit permit applications to other City departments for review prior to final site plan approval in accordance with SDC 5.17-135 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for
compliance with the final site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 will not be issued
until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised. CONFLICTING PLANS CAUSE DELAYS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and
the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is accompanied by, and is subordinate to, the Type III Discretionary Use Request initiated by Case TYP315-00003 and is therefore considered a Type III decision of the
Planning Commission. As such, this decision may be appealed to the Springfield City Council. The appeal may be
filed with the Development & Public Works Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted with a fee of $2,420.00. The fee will be
returned to the applicant if the City Council approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on February 4, 2016.
QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Current Development Division of the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird@springfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this process.
PREPARED BY
Andy Limbird
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 14
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 34 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 35 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 36 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 37 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 38 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 39 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 40 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 41 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 42 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 43 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 44 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 45 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 46 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 47 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 48 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 49 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 50 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 51 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 52 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 53 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 54 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 55 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 56 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 57 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 58 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 59 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 60 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 61 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 62 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 63 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 64 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 65 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 66 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 67 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 68 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 69 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 70 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 71 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 72 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 73 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 74 of 75
Attachment 3, Page 75 of 75
From: Joe Tokatly <joet@mckenzieglass.net>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:16 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: RE: Planning Case TYP315-00005
Hello Andy,
That is exactly the response that I was hoping for. If that is the case, we will have no objection to the
development otherwise.
Best regards,
JOE TOKATLY
2219 MAIN STREET
P.O.BOX 768 SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
V 541.726.7721
F 541.726.0859
C 541.510.8454
CCB # 175904
joet@mckenzieglass.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain
information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited.
From: LIMBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird@springfield-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:09 AM
To: Joe Tokatly
Subject: RE: Planning Case TYP315-00005
Mr. Tokatly: Thank you for providing comments on this application and they will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for consideration at the public hearing meeting on January 20, 2016. Please note
that the applicant’s proposed tower is an imitation fir tree as opposed to a traditional pole or lattice
tower to help it blend with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided artist’s renderings of the
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 3
proposed facility’s appearance from the east, west and south (the Main Street frontage) if you are
interested in reviewing this matter in more detail. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Best Regards,
Andy Limbird
City of Springfield
From: Joe Tokatly [mailto:joet@mckenzieglass.net]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:55 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: Planning Case TYP315-00005
Attention: Mr. Andy Limbird
Dear Andy,
I am responding to the notice I received regarding the pending site plan review application
number TYP315-00005.
TTT Ranch, LLC owns the parcel located directly across Main street south of the subject site. The
proposed development will create an eyesore with respect to the development we intend to construct
on our parcel. We strongly object to such development unless the aesthetics can be mitigated through
the use of disguised features offered by a variety of companies such as Valmont. Such disguise will
allow the cell tower to blend into the surrounding environment and be less visible.
I hope the planning commission will consider our position and adopt our recommendation, as part of
the approval process, to preserve the natural beauty of our community while facilitating development at
the same time.
Best regards,
JOE TOKATLY
2219 MAIN STREET
P.O.BOX 768 SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
V 541.726.7721
F 541.726.0859
C 541.510.8454
CCB # 175904
joet@mckenzieglass.net
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 3
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain
information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 3