HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 06 07 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopole Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/7/2016 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: HIGH VISIBILITY CELLULAR TOWER APPLICATION—CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS LLC, CASES TYP316-00002 AND TYP216-00021
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and approve, approve with amendments, or deny a proposal by Verizon Wireless to construct a 150-foot tall monopole cellular tower on an existing industrial site at 419
South 28th Street.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications for a new wireless telecommunication tower facility within an existing plywood manufacturing facility at 419 South 28th Street. The proposed cellular tower is a standard monopole design with top-
mounted antenna array, which is classified as a “High 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. Upon referral the City Council declined to conduct the hearing on this proposal.
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
DISCUSSION: The proposed monopole tower facility is located at the southern end of an industrial property that runs along the east side of South 28th Street just south of Main Street. The subject property contains an existing wood products manufacturing business operating as Pacific States Plywood,
which will remain. The subject site is zoned and designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. Properties in the vicinity
are zoned for industrial, commercial and recreational development. High Visibility cellular tower
facilities are allowable in the Heavy Industrial district subject to Discretionary Use approval.
The proposed cellular tower is just west of the Willamalane Regional Sports Center site located at
250 South 32nd Street, and across South 28th Street from Rosboro Lumber. There are no existing residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The nearest residentially-zoned
property is the northern end of the Agnes Stewart Middle School site about 920 feet southeast of
the proposed tower. The nearest residential dwelling is located on South 31st Place, about one-quarter mile (~1,350 feet) southeast of the proposed tower site. Centerline Solutions, on behalf of
Verizon Wireless, has provided evidence of a substantial capacity and coverage 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 about two miles northeast of the subject site. The antenna array at International Paper is planned to be removed to accommodate changes at the facility 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 high 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 telephone calls or 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: June 7, 2016
Case Number: TYP316-00002 Applicant: Robin Smith, Centerline Solutions on behalf of Verizon Wireless
Site: 419 South 28th Street (Map 17-02-31-00, Tax Lot 3400)
Request The application was submitted on April 21, 2016 and the public hearing on the matter of the Discretionary
Use request is scheduled for June 7, 2016. The City conducted a Development Review Committee
meeting on the Discretionary Use request on May 10, 2016. Site Information/Background The industrial property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located at 419 South 28th
Street and operates as Pacific States Plywoood (Photos 1-3). The physical location of the proposed
cellular tower is a vacant corner near a railroad spur line at the southern edge of the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 150-foot high monopole cellular tower with equipment shelter and fenced enclosure about 50 feet from the southern boundary of the subject property. Monopole cellular towers are
classified as “high visibility” wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facilities in accordance with
Section 4.3-145.E of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). High visibility wireless
telecommunications system facilities (ie. monopoles or lattice towers) are allowable in the Heavy Industrial (HI) 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 S 32nd Street Main Street
Willamalane Regional Sports Center S 28th Street Proposed Tower Location
Rosboro
Lumber Mill
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 19
Photo 2 – On-Site View Looking South
Photo 3 – On-Site View Looking Northeast
The property is zoned and designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning
Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram (Figure 1). High visibility wireless telecommunication systems facilities are allowable in the Heavy Industrial District subject to Discretionary Use approval in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5, Table 4.3-1, and 4.3-145.H. The facility has frontage on South 28th
Location of Proposed Wireless
Telecommunication Tower
Location of Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Tower
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 19
Street along the west boundary, and access to the site will be derived from an existing gravel driveway approach at the south end of the property. The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway 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 TYP216-00021) for the proposed wireless
telecommunications system facility and compound. Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract
Zoning Map Legend
Heavy Industrial Medium Density Residential
Community Commercial (CC) Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Low Density Residential (LDR)
Notification and Written Comments Notification of the June 7, 2016 public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet
of the site on May 16, 2016. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The Register
Guard on May 31, 2016.
S 32nd Street Main Street
SITE S 28th Street Willamalane
Regional Sports Center
Proposed Tower Location
Rosboro
Lumber Mill
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 19
Public notification was also sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on April 26, 2016 for the companion Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case TYP216-00021). No telephone calls or written comments were received.
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);
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
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 19
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. 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 monopole tower is classified as a
“high 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: “The proposed tower is designed to accommodate two additional users per the attached drawings.”
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 (Attachment 3 to the AIS) shows the location of at least 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.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 19
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: “This site is a proposed new tower located at 419 S. 28th St,
Springfield, Oregon. Verizon Wireless has built a communication network to provide wireless
services, which include voice, data and enhanced 911 emergency services in the area
experiencing a significant gap in coverage in Lane County as shown on the attached maps. Our objective for this site is to improve these wireless services, offload a nearby over-capacity site that is currently providing coverage in this area, and fill in a few areas that do not have
strong enough signal strength to hold a call or access our network. There are no existing
transmission towers within the applicant’s search ring area available for colocation. No other
tower sites would provide the necessary coverage requirement. The facility must be located within the applicant’s search ring parameters to provide the required service and fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage per the attached Exhibits #3 (RF Justification Letter and
Propagation Maps). Documentation is provided demonstrating there are no existing towers
within the applicant’s coverage area that would fill the significant gap in coverage. All the
towers on the AntennaSearch.com Exhibit #12 cannot be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed
facility is included in the Exhibits; this along with documentation provided by Verizon
Wireless RF Engineer’s letter and propagation maps demonstrated that none of these facilities
will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage. ”
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
monopole 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: “Verizon Wireless is working on improving its existing wireless
communications network in the City of Springfield. The fire at the Swanson facility showed
the community the need for reliable 911 service. The decommissioning of the tower at the
[International] Paper Plant has increased the capacity and coverage issues in the area. There are no existing transmission towers within the applicant’s search ring area available for colocation. No other tower sites would provide the necessary coverage requirement. The
facility must be located within the applicant’s search ring parameters to provide the required
service and fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage per the attached Exhibits #3 (RF
Justification Letter and Propagation Maps). Documentation is provided demonstrating there
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 19
are no existing towers within the applicant’s coverage area that would fill the significant gap in coverage. All the towers on the AntennaSearch.com Exhibit #12 cannot be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective.
A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within
four miles of the proposed facility is included in the Exhibits; this along with documentation provided by Verizon Wireless RF Engineer’s letter and propagation maps demonstrated that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage”
Finding 3: The applicant’s submittal indicates that there is an existing coverage gap in the area
to be served by the proposed monopole tower. With the anticipated decommissioning of an existing facility at the International Paper plant northeast of the subject property, the coverage gap will expand. 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: “There are no existing transmission towers within the applicant’s
search ring area available for colocation. No other tower sites would provide the necessary coverage requirement. The facility must be located within the applicant’s search ring parameters to provide the required service and fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage per the attached Exhibits #3 (RF Justification Letter and Propagation Maps). Documentation is
provided demonstrating there are no existing towers within the applicant’s coverage area that
would fill the significant gap in coverage. All the towers on the AntennaSearch.com Exhibit #12 cannot be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed facility is included in the
Exhibits; this along with documentation provided by Verizon Wireless RF Engineer’s letter
and propagation maps demonstrated that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage” Finding 4: The applicant’s submittal and supporting information demonstrates that the
proposed monopole tower, in conjunction with other existing and recently-approved 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.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 19
Applicant’s Submittal: “The applicant is proposing to establish a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) consisting of a 150’ monopole tower with antennas tip height of 153’ and an equipment shelter within the existing lease area.”
Finding 5: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, wireless transmissions system facilities that are
monopole or lattice towers are considered “high visibility”. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, high visibility facilities are allowable in the Heavy Industrial district.
Finding 6: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H, high visibility wireless transmissions system
facilities require Type III Planning Commission review. The applicant has submitted
concurrent Discretionary Use (Case TYP316-00002) and Site Plan Review (Case TYP216-00021) applications for Planning Commission review. Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145l.H.4.a, on May 2, 2016, 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 June 7, 2016.
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: “There are no existing towers on this parcel.”
Finding 7: The applicant is proposing a high visibility wireless transmissions system facility on the subject property, and there are no other similar facilities on the property or adjoining sites.
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: “Exhibit 12 shows that there are no towers within 2000’ of the proposed site.”
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.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 19
Applicant’s Submittal: “This site is not adjacent to residentially zoned property.” Finding 9: The subject property is zoned Heavy Industrial, and therefore the proposed facility
is not on or immediately abutting a residential zoning district. The nearest residentially-zoned
property is the northern edge of the Agnes Stewart Middle School site about 920 feet southeast
of the proposed monopole tower. The nearest residential dwelling is off South 31st Place about one-quarter mile (~1,350 feet) southeast of the project site. The applicant’s submittal demonstrates that the tower will be well removed from residential properties 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.
Finding 10: 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 Submittal: “The proposed tower is not to be located in a front, rear or side
yard. All setbacks are met. No portion of the antenna array extends beyond the property
lines.”
Finding 11: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the minimum front yard and street side yard building setback is 10 feet. The subject property does not abut residential or Campus
Industrial zoning so there are no other specific building setback requirements.
Finding 12: The proposed monopole tower, equipment cabinets, fenced enclosure, and related appurtenances are not located within a required building setback area and the top-mounted antenna array 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;
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 19
Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed tower is being located on the site of a lumber yard with an existing building. This requirement does not apply.”
Finding 13: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the minimum front yard or street side yard
building setback is 10 feet. The subject property abuts South 28th Street along the west
boundary and the existing plywood manufacturing facility occupies the northern half of the site. Because there is an existing industrial building on the property, this standard does not apply. In any event, the proposed monopole tower is set back about 90 feet from the east
edge of the South 28th Street right-of-way, which exceeds the requirements of SDC 3.2-
420.
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: “This is not a guyed tower. This requirement does not apply.”
Finding 14: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopole 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: “The proposed tower is 150’ height, with an additional 3’ antenna tip height needed per RF engineering. A Discretionary Use Application is included.”
Finding 15: The subject property does not abut any residentially zoned properties. Therefore,
in accordance with SDC 3.2-420, there is no maximum building height in the Heavy Industrial
district. The proposed monopole tower is located about 920 feet from the northern boundary
of the nearest residential property (Agnes Stewart Middle School) 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: “The proposed equipment compound and cabinets do not exceed the
12’ height limit.”
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 19
Finding 16: As depicted in the applicant’s submittal, the proposed equipment cabinets will be approximately 8 feet in height. The cabinets are not considered an occupied building space, but will likely require building permits for construction.
Finding 17: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105, accessory structures are to be constructed in
conjunction with or after construction of a primary structure. There are existing industrial buildings on the property (plywood manufacturing) that are considered the primary structures 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 chosen site is in the Heavy Industrial Zone which is a preferred zone that allows [Moderate] and High Visibility Towers. The applicant is proposing to establish a WCF consisting of a 150’ monopole tower with antennas tip height of 153’ and an
equipment shelter within the existing leased area. Great care and expense has been taken by
the Applicant, Verizon Wireless, to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and minimize the perceived visibility of this site. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with a 6’ height, sight-obscuring fence with green slats to blend into the existing property. All improvements will be installed within a leased premises.
A 5-foot landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound from view. Impact to public
facilities and services will be minimal as the location at the southern portion of property is inside a fenced compound and far from any existing offsite uses. During construction or operation of the site, minimal traffic would be generated as a result of the facility. Once construction is completed, an equipment technician would visit the site approximately one time
per month for routine maintenance purposes only. No public services (such as sewer, water,
etc.) are proposed to be utilized for the facility.”
Finding 18: The applicant is proposing to install a sight-obscuring fence around the project site to screen the ground-mounted equipment cabinets and other appurtenances. Perimeter
screening landscaping also will be planted around the fenced enclosure. According to the
applicant’s site plan, the landscaping plants will be drought tolerant 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 19: The applicant has submitted sketches and photographic renderings of the
proposed monopole tower from nearby vantage points. The applicant is not proposing to camouflage the tower or to install a monopine style facility at this location. Staff observes that
there are similar vertical structures in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including
overhead power lines along South 28th Street, silos and vent stacks for the plywood
manufacturing facility on the site, a water tower and smoke stacks at Rosboro Lumber, and
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 19
light standards for sports field illumination at Willamalane Sports Center. Staff agrees with the applicant that a 150-foot tall monopine facility is not warranted at the subject site, and could actually be more conspicuous than a standard monopole tower.
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 chosen site is in the Heavy Industrial Zone which is a preferred
zone that allows [Moderate] and High Visibility Towers. The applicant is proposing to
establish a WCF consisting of a 150’ monopole tower with antennas tip height of 153’ and an
equipment shelter within the existing leased area. Great care and expense has been taken by the Applicant, Verizon Wireless, to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and minimize the perceived visibility of this site. Colors and materials are non-
reflective. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with a 6’
height, sight-obscuring fence with green slats to blend into the existing property. All
improvements will be installed within a leased premises. A 5-foot landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound from view. Impact to public facilities and services will be minimal as the location at the southern portion of property is inside a fenced compound and far from any
existing offsite uses. During construction or operation of the site, minimal traffic would be
generated as a result of the facility. Once construction is completed, an equipment technician
would visit the site approximately one time per month for routine maintenance purposes only. No public services (such as sewer, water, etc.) are proposed to be utilized for the facility.”
Finding 20: The applicant is proposing to use dark green vinyl slats for the fence around the
perimeter of the equipment and tower enclosure. The applicant’s submittal (Sheet A3.0)
indicates that final color selection will be dependent upon requirements of the authorizing
jurisdiction. Staff advises that the tower, equipment cabinets, and related appurtenances will need to be constructed with neutral, non-reflective colors to minimize visibility. The proposed
finish materials and colors will need to be identified on the Final Site Plan for the facility.
RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall use neutral, non-reflective colors for the monopole tower, ground-mounted equipment, and related appurtenances. The selected colors and materials shall minimize the visibility of the facilities to the greatest extent
practicable.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, 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: “While not a camouflaged facility according to the Code Definition,
the chosen site is in the Heavy Industrial Zone which is a preferred zone that allows
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 19
[Moderate] and High Visibility Towers. The applicant is proposing to establish a WCF consisting of a 150’ monopole tower with antennas tip height of 153’ and an equipment shelter within the existing leased area. Great care and expense has been taken by the Applicant,
Verizon Wireless, to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and
minimize the perceived visibility of the site. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with a 6’ height, sight-obscuring fence with green slats to blend into the existing property. All improvements will be installed within a leased premises. A 5-foot landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound from view. Impact to public facilities and
services will be minimal as the location at the southern portion of property is inside a fenced
compound and far from any existing offsite uses. During construction or operation of the site, minimal traffic would be generated as a result of the facility. Once construction is completed, an equipment technician would visit the site approximately one time per month for routine maintenance purposes only. No public services (such as sewer, water, etc.) are proposed to be
utilized for the facility.”
Finding 21: The proposed monopole tower is not defined as a camouflage facility. The surrounding properties are developed with industrial processing equipment, silos, smoke stacks, light towers, power poles, water towers, and other vertical features. The proposed
tower is not dissimilar from the existing facilities in the immediate vicinity and is suitable for
placement within a Heavy Industrial site.
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.
Finding 22: The proposed monopole 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.
Finding 23: The proposed monopole 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.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 19
Applicant’s Submittal: “Applicant will comply with this requirement. Photosims of the site are included with this application.”
Finding 24: The applicant’s photo simulations and project narrative indicate that the proposed
wireless transmissions system facility will be as shown on the pictures with the exception of a
final color palette. Staff is recommending Condition #1 for the selection of neutral, non-reflective colors to be used for the tower, ground-mounted equipment, and related appurtenances. The applicant’s photo simulations also will need to be updated to incorporate
any color and material changes to the tower and associated equipment.
RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP216-00021), the applicant shall submit photo simulations of the monopole tower, ground-mounted equipment, and
related appurtenances that accurately depict the colors and materials to be used for
the project. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this standard has been met.
19) Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the
regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Applicant’s Submittal: “Applicant will comply with this requirement.”
Finding 25: The applicant has not provided a noise analysis for the project. The proposed
equipment cabinets are freestanding and equipped with cooling units on the front (east side) that would generate some noise. The applicant is also proposing to install a diesel-fired backup generator that will cycle periodically to test the system and maintain functionality.
The proposed tower location is within an operating plywood mill site, adjacent to a railroad
spur line, and across South 28th Street from the Rosboro Lumber Mill. Staff does not
anticipate that the proposed equipment cabinets and backup generator will produce noises levels that regularly approach or exceed existing ambient noise levels in this industrial area.
Additionally, the proposed project site is well removed from the nearest school buildings and
residential dwellings.
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: “Applicant will comply with this requirement.”
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 19
Finding 26: 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 and other applicable hazards. The safety signs will need to 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.
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: “Impact to public facilities and services will be minimal as the
location at the southern portion of the property is inside a fenced compound and far from any
existing offsite uses. During construction or operation of the site, minimal traffic would be generated as a result of the facility. Once construction is completed, an equipment technician would visit the site approximately one time per month for routine maintenance purposes only. No public services (such as sewer, water, etc.) are proposed to be utilized for the facility.
Applicant will comply with this requirement.”
Finding 27: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is directly accessible via a private industrial driveway off South 28th Street. Additionally, the applicant’s proposed
site plan provides for access and parking that is internal to the site and set back from the public
right-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: “Impact to public facilities and services will be minimal as the location at the southern portion of the property is inside a fenced compound and far from any
existing offsite uses. During construction or operation of the site, minimal traffic would be
generated as a result of the facility. Once construction is completed, an equipment technician
would visit the site approximately one time per month for routine maintenance purposes only. No public services (such as sewer, water, etc.) are proposed to be utilized for the facility. Applicant will comply with this requirement.”
Finding 28: The proposed tower and equipment enclosure is located in a vacant corner of the
property that is south of the existing industrial buildings and process facilities on the site. The
applicant is proposing to use an existing driveway approach from South 28th Street for access to the fenced equipment compound. Vehicles accessing the WTS compound would park on a
gravel pad adjacent to the equipment enclosure and tower, and no existing parking spaces
would be displaced. Therefore, the proposed wireless transmissions system facility does not
affect the existing or potential future parking for the industrial facility operating on the site.
Conclusion: This standard has been met.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 19
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: “Applicant will comply with this requirement.”
Finding 29: The proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located internal to the operating industrial site. There are no existing or pending pedestrian or bicycle facilities along South 28th Street that pass near or 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.
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: “Applicant will comply with this requirement and is not planning to include lighting on the tower unless required by FAA.”
Finding 30: The applicant’s submittal indicates that no beacon or strobe lights are planned or
anticipated for the monopole tower. The proposed work lights for the equipment cabinets are
mounted at about the 8-foot level and are designed to be shielded and fully downcast to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties. Based on the applicant’s
submittal, it is anticipated that the outdoor 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: “Applicant will comply with this requirement as shown on the attached
plans L-1.0.”
Finding 31: The proposed wireless transmissions system tower does not exceed the height
limitations of the base Heavy Industrial zoning district. The applicant is proposing to plant screening vegetation around the perimeter of the fenced compound to provide buffering from
adjacent sites and South 28th Street. Review of the applicant’s proposed landscaping plan is
detailed in the accompanying staff report for the Site Plan Review application (Case TYP216-
00021).
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 19
Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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 tower is 150’ height, with an additional 3’ antenna
tip height needed per RF engineering.”
Finding 32: As stated and depicted in the applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials, the proposed monopole tower is an allowable facility in the Heavy Industrial
zoning district. The proposed development is not within the Historic Overlay District or
the public right-of-way. The top of the tower structure is 150 feet above finished grade
and the applicant is proposing to install a 3-foot lightning rod atop the tower. The lightning rod is not part of the tower structure itself and therefore would not normally be considered the “top” of the WTS facility. As such, the proposed monopole 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.
Finding 33: The applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials indicate that the wireless
carrier (Verizon Wireless) is proposing the monopole 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 34: The proposed development is not a multi-family residential facility. Therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
Attachment 1, Page 17 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 35: 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 36: 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, and with the recommended
conditions contained herein, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion D.1 of SDC 5.9-120. Staff recommends conditional support for the request because the proposal meets the stated criteria for
Discretionary Use approval. Additionally, approval of the Discretionary Use would facilitate conditional
approval of the accompanying Site Plan Review application for a wireless telecommunications system
submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00021).
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 recommends two conditions of approval as summarized here:
RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall use neutral, non-reflective colors for the monopole tower, ground-mounted equipment, and related appurtenances. The selected colors and materials shall minimize the visibility of the facilities to the greatest extent practicable.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP216-00021), the applicant shall submit photo simulations of the monopole tower, ground-mounted equipment, and related appurtenances that accurately depict the colors and materials to be used for the project.
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 TYP215-00021).
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 19
Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may choose to apply additional 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 TYP215-00021) 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 150-foot high monopole wireless transmissions system facility on a developed industrial site Case Number: TYP216-00021
Project Location: 419 South 28th Street
(Map 17-02-31-00, TL 3400)
Zoning: Heavy Industrial (HI)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: HI (Metro Plan)
Overlay Districts: Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District (DWP) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: 2/19/2016
Application Submitted Date: 4/21/2016
Planning Commission Meeting Date: 6/7/2016
Appeal Deadline Date: 6/22/2016 Associated Applications: PRE16-00001 (Development Issues Meeting); PRE16-00009 (Pre-Submittal); TYP316-
00002 (Discretionary Use)
APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant: Kelly Lea
Verizon Wireless LLC 5430 NE 122nd Avenue
Portland OR 97230
Applicant’s Representative: Robin Smith
Centerline Solutions 6623 NE 78th Court, #B-1
Portland OR 97218
Property Owner: David Eckstine
Pacific States Plywood 419 South 28th Street
Springfield OR 97477
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 S 32nd Street S 28th Street
Proposed Tower Location
Main Street
Willamalane Regional Sports Center
Rosboro Lumber Mill
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 14
Site Information: The subject development site is a developed industrial property on the east side of South 28th Street just south of Main Street. The industrial property operates as Pacific States Plywood and contains existing
plywood manufacturing facilities, ancillary buildings, parking lot, material storage yards, and industrial driveway
approaches onto South 28th Street. The northern half of the property contains the operating plywood facility, and the proposed cellular tower is located in a vacant corner at the south edge of the site. The proposed wireless
telecommunications system facility is a 150-foot tall monopole tower.
In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E and SDC Table 4.3-1, wireless telecommunications system facilities consisting
of standard monopoles or lattice towers are classified as high visibility facilities. High visibility facilities are
allowable in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district subject to Discretionary Use approval. The applicant submitted a concurrent Discretionary Use Request for a 150-foot tall monopole wireless telecommunications system facility
under separate cover (Case TYP316-00002). The Springfield Planning Commission will be conducting a public
hearing to adjudicate the Discretionary Use request at a regular meeting on June 7, 2016. A Discretionary Use permit is required for the submitted site plan to be approved for the subject property.
The site is zoned and designated HI in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. Other properties in the vicinity of the project area are zoned HI (including properties that border the
subject site); Community Commercial (northwest and northeast of the site); and Public Land and Open Space (east of the site).
The site is within the mapped 10-20 Year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the 16th & Q Street drinking water wellhead and, therefore, is subject to the 10-20 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 April 21, 2016. Therefore, this application is being reviewed by the Planning Commission on the 47th day of the 120 days mandated by the State.
Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145.H.4.a, on May 2, 2016, the accompanying Discretionary Use application (Case TYP316-00002) 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 June 7, 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 May 10, 2016, the City’s Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (13 Sheets – Centerline Solutions, Sheets T1.0, SV-1 to SV-5, A1.0 to A5.0, and L-1.0 to L-2.0) 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 April 26, 2016. No telephone calls or written comments were received. 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 and designated Heavy Industrial in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro 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, High Visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in the Heavy Industrial District subject to Discretionary Use and Site Plan
Review procedures. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
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 150-foot tall monopole wireless
transmissions system facility within a fenced enclosure, along with ground-mounted equipment cabinets,
transformers, and screening landscaping on a developed industrial 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 May
10, 2016. City staff’s review comments have been incorporated in findings and recommended conditions contained herein.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
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: In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, wherever possible utility lines are to be placed underground. The
applicant has not depicted the alignments of underground electricity and telecommunication lines to serve the cellular tower. It is assumed that the nearest connection points are inside the property or outside the southwest edge of the property along South 28th Street. To accommodate the underground utility lines, utility easements
may be necessary.
Finding 9: SUB Electric typically requires 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 depict the connection points and the alignment of underground electrical and telecommunication lines to serve the development site.
2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for utility easements as may be required by SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, any required utility easements shall be executed and recorded at Lane County Deeds & Records and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the
City. 4. 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.
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, and the
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14
applicant is not requesting a connection to the public sanitary sewer system. 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: The applicant is not proposing to construct an appreciable amount of impervious surface with this application. Impervious surfaces would be limited to the pad-mounted equipment cabinets, pad-mounted
transformer, and tower structure on a pervious gravel pad. The limited amount of impervious surface and
provision for perimeter landscaping does not warrant the construction of stormwater management facilities.
Finding 17: The applicant has not shown the soil types as referenced on the Soil Survey report of Lane County.
Additionally, the applicant has not indicated the proposed amount of cut and fill on the submitted plan sheets. The final plan set will require this soil information.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
5. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note on the soil types found on the site as referenced in the Soil Survey report of Lane County.
6. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note on the amount of cut and fill expected for the site.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Stormwater Management (Quality)
Finding 18: 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 19: 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 20: 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.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
Finding 21: 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 22: 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 23: 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 24: 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 25: As stated above, the applicant is not proposing an appreciable amount of new impervious surface on the site. Therefore, no stormwater treatment measures will be required as part of this development proposal.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
Finding 26: The subject site is within the southern corner of an existing, developed industrial parcel that has
frontage on South 28th Street along the west boundary. Along the site frontage, South 28th Street is developed
as an industrial street with paving, centerline striping 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 27: 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 traffic generated by the existing wood products manufacturing facilities and other industrial sites along South 28th Street.
Finding 28: 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 29: 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)
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14
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 3.2-400 Heavy Industrial
Zoning District
Heavy Industrial Schedule of Uses (3.2-410)
Heavy Industrial District Development Standards (3.2-420)
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 30: 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. The applicant’s proposed road cross-section will support a 75,000 lb. live load. However, the requirement for
fire access is support of an 80,000 lb. imposed load.
Finding 31: Access to the project area is afforded from South 28th Street. The nearest responding fire station
(Station #3) is located at 1225 28th 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 diesel-fired backup generator which requires a hazardous materials permit from the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department. At the time of building permit submittal, the
applicant will need to apply for a hazardous materials permit for flammable or combustible materials.
Finding 34: Use of a diesel generator for a cellular tower that supports emergency 911 service also may qualify
the applicant for an exemption to Drinking Water Protection permitting requirements. However, the applicant is still required to abide by water quality protection measures for secondary containment of fuels and other hazardous materials. The Drinking Water Protection provisions are discussed in Section C.3 of this report.
Finding 35: The fuel tank associated with the diesel-fired backup generator will need to provide secondary
containment and construction methods meeting or exceeding the requirements of SFC Chapters 50 and 57 and
UL 142. The applicant will need to submit plans and specifications for the diesel generator and diesel fuel tank to the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department for review and approval. The battery storage also will need to meet
secondary containment requirements of SFC Chapters 50 and 57.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a fire access road that is capable of supporting an 80,000 lb. imposed load.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14
8. Prior to Final Site Inspection and commencement of operations, the applicant shall submit plans and specifications for the diesel-fired backup generator and diesel fuel tank for review and approval by Eugene-Springfield Fire Department.
9. Prior to Final Site Inspection and commencement of operations, the applicant shall obtain hazardous materials permits from Eugene-Springfield Fire Department as may be required to install and
operate a diesel-fired backup generator and diesel fuel tank on the site.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140)
Finding 36: 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 37: As stated and conditioned previously in this report, a utility easement may be required to
accommodate the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the proposed cellular tower.
Finding 38: The applicant is proposing to use an existing driveway entrance to reach the cellular tower
enclosure at the south end of the property. 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 39: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for high
visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities in Springfield. High visibility facilities include traditional monopoles and lattice towers that are not camouflaged or designed as imitation trees. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, high visibility facilities are allowable in the Heavy Industrial district subject to
Discretionary Use approval. Therefore, the proposed development requires approval of a Discretionary Use permit initiated by Case TYP316-00002 and approval of a Tentative Site Plan initiated by the subject
application, Case TYP216-00021.
Finding 40: 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 TYP316-
00002) and incorporated herein by reference.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a high visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP316-00002.
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 3.2-400, Heavy Industrial Zoning District
Heavy Industrial Schedule of Uses (3.2-410) Finding 41: In accordance with SDC 3.2-410, wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in
the HI District subject to the special provisions of SDC 4.3-145. SDC Table 4.3-1 states that high visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities such as a monopole towers are allowable in the HI District
subject to Discretionary Use permitting.
Finding 42: The applicant has submitted a request for Discretionary Use approval for the subject development
under separate cover (Case TYP316-00002), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use
request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing meeting on June 7, 2016.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Heavy Industrial Standards (3.2-420) Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the minimum parcel size for properties in the HI District is
10,000 ft2 with at least 75 feet of public street frontage.
Finding 44: The proposed development site is approximately 661,200 ft2 (15.2 acres) with about 1,590 feet of frontage on South 28th Street. The parcel size and frontage meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the minimum setbacks for structures is 10 feet for front and
street side yards. There is no rear or side yard setback for structures unless required by Building and Fire
Codes.
Finding 46: The proposed development is set back about 64 feet from the west (front yard) property line and
about 50 feet from the southeast (side yard) property line. The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, there is no maximum building height for structures within the HI District provided the development site is more than 50 feet from a residential district property line.
Finding 48: The proposed monopole tower is 150 feet high and is located more than 900 feet from the nearest residential property line, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, there is no maximum lot coverage for structures within the HI
District provided the required building and parking lot setbacks are observed.
Finding 50: The proposed development site occupies a fractional amount of the potential site building
coverage, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
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 51: 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 plywood manufacturing facility that lacks planter strips and a continuous row of street trees along the South 28th Street property
frontage. The applicant is not proposing to install landscaping and street trees along the property frontage, and these improvements are not proportional to the scale of this development. Therefore, landscaping
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14
improvements along the South 28th Street frontage, including installation of street trees, are not required with this application.
Finding 52: 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 150-foot tall monopole tower does not exceed the height limitations of the district.
Finding 53: 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 plans (Sheets L-1.0 & L-2.0) provide for installation of screening vegetation around the perimeter of the site 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 54: The applicant is proposing to install sight-obscuring fencing along the perimeter of the compound
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 55: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within
an industrial 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 about the 8-foot level within the fenced cellular tower compound. The lights are proposed to be a downcast, pedestrian-scale floodlights with
sharp cutoff to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties and South 28th Street. Based on the
applicant’s submittal the size and positioning of the proposed work lights should not have any adverse effect on the public right-of-way or neighboring properties.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100)
Finding 56: 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 on the gravel driveway in front of the fenced tower enclosure. There will be no impacts to the subject property, adjacent industrial properties or public streets.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 57: The site is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area. The development site is zoned and
designated HI in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1, High Visibility wireless telecommunications facilities are
allowable in the HI district subject to Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review procedures.
Finding 58: The subject site is located within the mapped 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the 16th
& Q Street drinking water wellhead. Therefore, the site is subject to provisions of the 10-20 year TOTZ
Drinking Water Protection Overlay District found in SDC 3.3-235.D.
Finding 59: The applicant’s submitted site plan indicates that a diesel-fired backup generator will be installed to serve the wireless telecommunications system facility. Ordinarily, the diesel generator and fuel tank would require a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Permit to ensure secondary containment and groundwater
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14
protection can be implemented and maintained on the site. For the subject proposal, the applicant has cited SDC 3.3-230.B.9 which provides DWP exemption for emergency generators located at facilities that provide
essential community services, including telephone systems.
Finding 60: As stated and conditioned previously (Conditions 8 and 9), the Fire Department’s requirement for
secondary containment for the fuel tank and battery array provides satisfactory groundwater protection.
Finding 61: 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 62: The applicant will need to install a standard Springfield wellhead protection sign at the diesel fuel tank and generator. The site operator’s emergency phone number will need to be posted on the wellhead protection sign. Wellhead protection signs are available from SUB Drinking Water Source Protection – please
contact Amy Chinitz at 541-744-3745 for further information.
Finding 63: The applicant will need to install an easily-accessed and well-signed spill kit at the diesel fuel tank
and generator.
Finding 64: The applicant shall provide and adhere to the following notes regarding drinking water protection
on the site construction plans:
“Any chemical spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately and clean-up materials disposed off-site in
accordance with Lane County and DEQ requirements. In every case, care shall be taken to prevent
groundwater contamination.
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.”
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
11. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of an easily-accessible spill kit with instructional signage at or near the diesel generator and fuel tank.
12. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign at a conspicuous location at or near the diesel generator and fuel tank.
13. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 64 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP216-00021.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14
Page 12 of 14
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
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 65: 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 66: 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 67: The applicant is proposing to use an existing industrial driveway onto South 28th Street along the southwest 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 68: 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. There is an existing drainage ditch that runs along the
southern edge of the site, but this feature is not classified as a delineated wetland.
Finding 69: 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 70: 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 71: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater protection must be observed during construction on the site. The applicant shall maintain the spill kits, instructional and wellhead protection
signage, and secondary containment measures on the site to ensure the continued protection of surface water and groundwater resources.
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14
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.
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 depict the connection points and the alignment of underground electrical and telecommunication lines to serve the development site.
2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for utility easements as may be required by SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, any required utility easements shall be executed and recorded at Lane County Deeds & Records and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the City. 4. 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.
5. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note on the soil types found on the site as referenced in the Soil Survey report of Lane County.
6. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note on the amount of cut and fill expected for the site. 7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a fire access road that is capable of supporting an 80,000 lb.
imposed load.
8. Prior to Final Site Inspection and commencement of operations, the applicant shall submit plans and
specifications for the diesel-fired backup generator and diesel fuel tank for review and approval by Eugene-Springfield Fire Department.
9. Prior to Final Site Inspection and commencement of operations, the applicant shall obtain hazardous materials permits from Eugene-Springfield Fire Department as may be required to install and operate a
diesel-fired backup generator and diesel fuel tank on the site.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a high
visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP316-00002. 11. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of an easily-accessible spill kit with instructional signage
at or near the diesel generator and fuel tank. 12. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign at a conspicuous location
at or near the diesel generator and fuel tank. 13. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on
the site, as detailed in Finding 64 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP216-00021.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14
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 September 5, 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.
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 TYP316-00002 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 June 22, 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 105
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 34 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 35 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 36 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 37 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 38 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 39 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 40 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 41 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 42 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 43 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 44 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 45 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 46 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 47 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 48 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 49 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 50 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 51 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 52 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 53 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 54 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 55 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 56 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 57 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 58 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 59 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 60 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 61 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 62 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 63 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 64 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 65 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 66 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 67 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 68 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 69 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 70 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 71 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 72 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 73 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 74 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 75 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 76 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 77 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 78 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 79 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 80 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 81 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 82 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 83 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 84 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 85 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 86 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 87 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 88 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 89 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 90 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 91 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 92 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 93 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 94 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 95 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 96 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 97 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 98 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 99 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 100 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 101 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 102 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 103 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 104 of 105
Attachment 3, Page 105 of 105