Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 06 02 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopine Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/2/2015 Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: MODERATE VISIBILITY CELLULAR TOWER APPLICATION—SMARTLINK PCS ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS LLC, CASES TYP315-00003 AND TYP215-00012 ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct an initial work session, then conduct a public hearing and approve, approve with amendments, or deny a proposal by Verizon Wireless to construct a 90-foot tall monopine cellular tower at 4614 Jasper Road. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications for a new wireless telecommunication tower facility off South 42nd Street. The proposed cellular tower is designed as an imitation pine tree and is classified as a “Moderate Visibility” wireless telecommunication facility requiring Planning Commission approval. Section 4.3-145.F of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) provides Discretionary Use standards for approving the cellular tower placement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report and Recommendation for Discretionary Use 2. Staff Report and Recommended Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review 3. Verizon Wireless Application and Exhibits 4. Written Comments from Robert & Diane Ronning DISCUSSION: The tower facility is proposed for a vacant commercial property on the west side of South 42nd Street just north of the intersection with Jasper Road. The location is zoned Community Commercial (CC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. The surrounding properties are zoned for commercial, institutional, single-family residential, and multi-family residential development. Moderate Visibility tower facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial district subject to Discretionary Use approval. The proposed cellular tower is just south of the Relief Nursery facility at 850 South 42nd Street, and east of Mt. Vernon Elementary School. There are existing residential dwellings to the south and southwest of the subject site along Horace Street and Jasper Road. The nearest dwelling on residentially-zoned property is about 375 feet from the proposed cellular tower. Verizon Wireless has provided evidence of a substantial capacity gap in the mid-Springfield area (Attachment 3), particularly with modern data streaming demands. Additionally, the cellular facility currently providing coverage for this area of Springfield is located at the International Paper plant. The antenna array is planned to be removed to accommodate changes at the International Paper site and is not being replaced. Therefore, the proposed cellular tower facility would constitute both a relocation of an existing facility to maintain coverage and an improvement to the service capacity in the area. Staff has prepared a staff report and recommendation based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 4.3-145.F and SDC Section 5.9-120 (Attachment 1). The findings presented by staff provide a substantive basis for conditionally approving a moderate visibility wireless telecommunication facility at the subject property. Staff has also prepared a staff report with recommended conditions of approval for the Site Plan Review application, which is based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 5.17-125 (Attachment 2). One written comment was received in response to the mailed notice of the Public Hearing for Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications, and is included herein as Attachment 4. Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use Request (Verizon Wireless) Hearing Date: June 2, 2015 Case Number: TYP315-00003 Applicant: Lauren Russell, SmartLink LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless Site: 4614 Jasper Road (Map 18-02-05-23, Tax Lot 100) Request The application was submitted on May 1, 2015 and the public hearing on the matter of the Discretionary Use request is scheduled for June 2, 2015. The City conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request on May 19, 2015. Site Information/Background The property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located at 4614 Jasper Road, which is a mostly vacant commercial parcel containing a concrete shell building (Photos 1-3). The physical location of the proposed cellular tower is just west of South 42nd Street near the north boundary of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a 90-foot high monopine cellular tower with equipment shelter and fenced enclosure about 54 feet from the north boundary of the subject property. Monopine cellular towers are classified as “moderate visibility” wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facilities in accordance with Section 4.3-145.E of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities (ie. cellular towers that are camouflaged as imitation trees) are allowable in the Community Commercial (CC) District subject to Discretionary Use approval in accordance with SDC Section 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1. Photo 1 – Site Air Photo SITE Jasper Road S 42nd Street Filbert Lane Horace Street Mt. Vernon Elementary School Relief Nursery Attachment 1, Page 1 of 20 Photo 2 – Magnified Aerial View Photo 3 – Site View Looking East SITE Horace Street S 42nd Street Jasper Road Location of Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Tower and Compound Mt. Vernon Elementary School Relief Nursery Attachment 1, Page 2 of 20 The property is zoned and designated Community Commercial (CC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram (Figure 1). The facility has frontage on South 42nd Street along the east boundary, and access to the site will be derived from an existing curb cut and driveway approach onto South 42nd Street. The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway approach and gravel driveway surrounding the vacant commercial building as the primary means of access to the site. The applicant is proposing to extend the gravel driveway around the north side of the vacant commercial building to a fenced and gated compound and equipment shelter serving the cellular tower. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Review application under separate cover (Case TYP215- 00012) for the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility and compound. Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract Zoning Map Legend Community Commercial (CC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Notification and Written Comments Notification of the June 2, 2015 public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on May 12, 2015. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on May 26, 2015. Public notification was also sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on May 12, 2015 for the companion Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00012). One written comment was received from Robert and Diane Ronning, 4050 Jasper Road, Springfield 97478: S 42nd Street Jasper Road Horace Street SITE Filbert Lane Mt. Vernon Elementary School Relief Nursery Proposed Tower Location Attachment 1, Page 3 of 20 “We own property on Horace St. and are very much opposed to any development on it as we are living on a fixed income and any more assessment to it would make it very difficult for us, as we are both in our late 70’s. So we are both opposed to this development. We beg you to vote against this.” Staff Response: The proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located on a mostly vacant commercial property to the northwest of the residential dwellings on Horace Street. Installation of the proposed cellular tower should have no financial impact to adjacent property owners. The residential properties on Horace Street are not annexed to the City of Springfield, so changes to Lane County levies or taxation rates could have potential impacts to their property tax assessments. It is the opinion of staff that such changes would be entirely separate from and not influenced by the current development proposal. 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: Attachment 1, Page 4 of 20 1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions. D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3- 145. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Finding: Wireless telecommunications systems facilities are exempt from Criteria A-C in accordance with Section 5.9-120.D.1 of the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, only Criterion D is listed herein. Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval Criterion: Discretionary Use criteria of approval: D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. Procedural Finding: The approval criteria for wireless telecommunications system facilities are listed in SDC 4.3-145.F – General Standards. The proposed monopine tower (ie. imitation tree) is classified as a “moderate visibility” facility in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E. The applicable standards for wireless telecommunications systems facilities are as follows: 1) Design for co-location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate the maximum number of additional users technically practicable. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Tower Load Elevation’ on Sheet A-2 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would be designed to structurally accommodate two additional users.” Attachment 1, Page 5 of 20 Finding 1: The applicant has designed the wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facility to accommodate additional users, thereby allowing for co-location at the subject site. The applicant’s submittal (Sheet A-2) shows the location of two additional antenna arrays that could be mounted below the Verizon Wireless antenna array. Tower loading for the currently proposed and potential future antenna arrays will be reviewed through the building permitting process for the facility. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 2) Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Applications shall demonstrate that the proposed WTS facility is necessary to close a significant gap in service coverage or capacity for the carrier and is the least intrusive means to close the significant gap. Applicant’s Submittal: “As described in the attached letter from the radio frequency engineer (Exhibit B – RF Justification Letter), the proposed WTS facility is needed to close a significant gap in both service coverage and capacity. Currently, Verizon Wireless has one site with a single sector pointed toward the area of concern and the data usage demands exceed the existing capacity. This existing site, EUG Springfield, will soon be decommissioned, which will create a coverage gap on top of the capacity gap. As described in the attached letter from the radio frequency engineer (Exhibit B – RF Justification Letter), the search area assigned by the radio frequency engineer to the real estate consultant was determined by the current coverage provided by the to-be-decommissioned EUG Springfield site, the terrain, and the population density distribution. This need excluded all existing towers due to their distance from the coverage need and thus a new tower is necessary. The attached inventory of existing towers map (Exhibit C – Inventory of Towers) shows all existing towers within five miles of the proposed WTS facility, none of which fall within the assigned search area. The nearest existing tower at 4680 Main Street is 0.85 miles north of the proposed WTS facility, which is too far north from the assigned search area to adequately meet the coverage objective. The next nearest tower at 693 36th Street is 1.27 miles northwest of the proposed WTS facility [and] is already a Verizon site – EUG Aster. The only other existing tower that is fewer than 2 miles from the proposed WTS facility is the tower at 3950 Kathryn Avenue, which is 1.64 miles northwest and very close to Verizon’s EUG Aster site. This tower would provide very similar coverage to the EUG Aster site and would also not adequately meet the coverage objective. There are no existing buildings within the search area that could be used for co-location opportunities. The majority of the search area is zoned Low Density Residential and there are also 2 properties zoned Community Commercial and 3 properties zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Existing buildings on the non-residential properties are one- and two-story buildings, which is too short to meet the engineer’s minimum antenna centerline height of 75 feet.” 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 a coverage and capacity gap that can be addressed by the proposed monopine tower. Conclusion: This standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 6 of 20 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: “As described in the attached letter from the radio frequency engineer (Exhibit B – RF Justification letter), the decommissioning of the EUG-Springfield site will create a gap from a lack of coverage in an area that is already experiencing a gap from a lack of capacity.” Finding 3: The applicant’s submittal indicates that there is an existing capacity gap in the area to be served by the proposed monopine tower. Additionally, with the anticipated decommissioning of an existing facility at the International Paper plant north of the subject property, there will be a coverage gap as well. The proposed facility addresses both the coverage and capacity gap according to the applicant’s submittal and supporting information. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 4) Identify the Least Intrusive Alternative for Providing Coverage. The application shall demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, including, but not limited to, less sensitive sites, alternative design systems, alternative tower designs, the use of repeaters, or multiple facilities. Subsection F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district. Applicant’s Submittal: “As described in the attached letter from the radio frequency engineer (Exhibit B – RF Justification Letter), the search area assigned by the radio frequency engineer to the real estate consultant was determined by the current coverage provided by the to-be- decommissioned EUG Springfield site, the terrain, and the population density distribution. This need excluded all existing towers due to their distance from the coverage need and thus a new tower is necessary. The attached inventory of existing towers map (Exhibit C – Inventory of Towers) shows all existing towers within five miles of the proposed WTS facility, none of which fall within the assigned search area. The nearest existing tower at 4680 Main Street is 0.85 miles north of the proposed WTS facility, which is too far north from the assigned search area to adequately meet the coverage objective. The next nearest tower at 693 36th Street is 1.27 miles northwest of the proposed WTS facility [and] is already a Verizon site – EUG Aster. The only other existing tower that is fewer than 2 miles from the proposed WTS facility is the tower at 3950 Kathryn Avenue, which is 1.64 miles northwest and very close to Verizon’s EUG Aster site. This tower would provide very similar coverage to the EUG Aster site and would also not adequately meet the coverage objective. There are no existing buildings within the search area that could be used for co-location opportunities. The majority of the search area is zoned Low Density Residential and there are also 2 properties zoned Community Commercial and 3 properties zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Existing buildings on the non-residential properties are one- and two-story buildings, which is too short to meet the engineer’s minimum antenna centerline height of 75 feet. Because the to-be-decommissioned site’s antennas had a centerline of 160 feet, the replacement site would either need to match that height or be as tall as permissible. Instead of proposing a new 160-foot tall tower, Verizon proposes to make use of multiple less intrusive facilities. The replacement plan includes the proposed WTS facility and EUG Aster, a co-location on the existing tower located Attachment 1, Page 7 of 20 at 693 36th Street (permit #811-SPR2014-02174). By using multiple facilities, the proposed WTS facility antennas would have a centerline of 90 feet, which would provide an acceptable replacement signal strength, allowing the current customers to maintain service.” Finding 4: The applicant’s submittal and supporting information demonstrates that the proposed monopine tower, in conjunction with modifications other existing Verizon Wireless facilities in the vicinity, is the minimum-sized facility necessary to address the coverage and capacity gap in this area of Springfield. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 5) Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection E. defines various types of WTS facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low visibility and stealth facilities. Table 4.3-1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each of Springfield’s zoning districts. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine, which is a moderate visibility facility. Moderate visibility facilities are allowed in the subject property’s Community Commercial zoning district.” Finding 5: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, wireless transmissions system facilities that are camouflaged, such as imitation trees, are considered “moderate visibility”. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial district. Finding 6: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H, moderate visibility wireless transmissions system facilities require Type III Planning Commission review. The applicant has submitted concurrent Discretionary Use (Case TYP315-00003) and Site Plan Review (Case TYP215- 00012) applications for Planning Commission review. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 6) Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility facility is allowed on any 1 lot/parcel. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would be a moderate visibility facility. There are no existing WTS facilities on the subject property.” Finding 7: The applicant is not proposing a high visibility wireless transmissions facility or more than one facility on the subject property. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 7) Separation Between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than 2,000 feet from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made under Subsections F.2, 3 and 4 by the Approval Authority. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the attached inventory of existing towers map (Exhibit C – Inventory of Existing Towers), the nearest existing tower is 0.85 miles, or 4,488 feet, away from the proposed WTS facility.” Attachment 1, Page 8 of 20 Finding 8: The applicant’s submittal confirms that the nearest wireless telecommunications system tower operated by Verizon Wireless or any other carrier is more than 2,000 feet from the subject site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 8) WTS Facilities Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Property. In order to ensure public safety, all towers located on or adjacent to any residential zoning district shall be set back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the facility, including any antennas or other appurtenances. The setback shall be measured from that part of the WTS tower that is closest to the neighboring residentially zoned property. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Site Plan’ on Sheet A-0 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would be set back more than 267 feet from the residential property to the west and more than 322 feet from the residential property to the east, which is greater than the 90-foot antenna tip height.” Finding 9: The subject property is zoned Community Commercial, and therefore the proposed facility is not on or immediately adjacent to a residential zoning district. The nearest residentially-zoned properties are about 435 feet north (vacant property immediately south of 804 South 42nd Street, which is zoned Low Density Residential); 267 feet west (Mt. Vernon Elementary School, which is zoned Medium Density Residential); 320 feet southwest (4094 Jasper Road, which is zoned Medium Density Residential); 520 feet south (4145 Jasper Road, which is zoned Low Density Residential); and 320 feet east (East Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Church at 885 South 42nd Street, which is zoned Low Density Residential). The applicant’s submittal demonstrates that the tower will be sufficiently set back from residential property lines in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.8. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 9) Historic Buildings and Structures. No WTS facility shall be allowed on any building or structure, or in any district, that is listed on any Federal, State or local historic register unless a finding is made by the Approval Authority that the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the building, structure, or district. No change in architecture and no high or moderate visibility WTS facilities are permitted on any building or any site within a historic district. Proposed WTS facilities in the Historic Overlay District area also subject to the applicable provisions of Section 3.3-900. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be located on a historic building or structure.” Finding 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: Attachment 1, Page 9 of 20 a. No WTS facility shall be located in a front, rear or side yard building setback in any base zone and no portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines; Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Site Plan’ on Sheet A-0 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would be located more than 53 feet from the nearest property line, which is greater than the required 10-foot interior setback.” Finding 11: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum interior side yard or rear yard building setback when abutting residential districts is 10 feet. The subject property abuts residential zoning along the west boundary. Finding 12: The proposed monopine tower is not located within a required building setback area and the antenna does not project into a setback area or across a property line. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30 feet from a property line abutting a street; Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Site Plan’ on Sheet A-0 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would be located 111 feet from the nearest property line abutting a street.” Finding 13: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum front yard or street side yard building setback is 10 feet. The subject property abuts South 42nd Street along the east boundary, and the property abuts an undeveloped segment of Horace Street along the south boundary. The proposed monopine tower is about 111 feet from the edge of the undeveloped Horace Street right-of-way and about 240 feet from the edge of the South 42nd Street right-of-way, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all property lines. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not include any guy wires.” Finding 14: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and does not require guy wire support. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. 11) Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in this Code. However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall require Discreationary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the approval criteria specified in Subsection I. Attachment 1, Page 10 of 20 Applicant’s Submittal: “There is no maximum building height in the Community Commercial zoning district except within fifty feet of a Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential zoning district to the east, west, or south, where the maximum height is no greater than that permitted within the residential zoning district. Because the proposed WTS facility is located more than 50 feet from the adjacent properties zoned Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to the east and west, respectively, there is no height limit.” Finding 15: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum building height in the Community Commercial district, except for a zone extending 50 feet inward from the edge of the properties that are zoned Medium Density Residential along the west boundary of the site. The proposed monopine tower is located about 267 feet from the west boundary of the property and is therefore outside the 50-foot height limitation zone along the west boundary of the site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 12) Accessory Building Size. All accessory buildings and structures built to contain equipment accessory to a WTS facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height unless a greater height is necessary and required by a condition of approval to maximize architectural integration. Each accessory building or structure located on any residential or public land and open space zoned property is limited to 200 square feet, unless approved through the Discretionary Use process. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Shelter Details’ on Sheet A-6 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility’s accessory equipment shelter would be 10’-6” in height. Because the subject property is zoned Community Commercial, the accessory equipment structure is not limited in square footage.” Finding 16: As stated in the applicant’s submittal, the proposed equipment shelter building will have a flat roof and be approximately 10.5 feet in height. The proposed building is about 310 square feet and will 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 is an existing, vacant, 4,000 ft2 commercial building on the property that is considered the primary structure on the site. Therefore, an accessory structure is allowable on the property. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 13) Visual Impact. All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and camouflage. All facilities shall also be designed to be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials, and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to accomplish the coverage objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be sited in a manner to cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring properties, and distant properties. Attachment 1, Page 11 of 20 Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and camouflage. Placement: As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Site Plan’ on Sheet A-0 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would be located on a large parcel more than 240 feet from S. 42nd [Street], more than 110 feet from the Horace Street right-of-way, more than 267 feet from the school property to the west, and more than 50 feet from the commercial property to the north. As illustrated in attached photo simulation looking west (Exhibit D – Visual Impact Study), the proposed WTS facility would be located near existing trees of various sizes, which would help the facility blend in with the context of the site. Screening and landscaping: The proposed WTS facility would be surrounded by a 6-foot tall chain link fence with barbed wire and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer. As illustrated on Sheet A-1.1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the landscaping surrounding the proposed WTS facility would comply with the landscaping, screening, and fence standards. The proposed screening and landscaping would minimize the visual impact of the equipment area and tower base. Camouflage: The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine. As illustrated in the ‘Proposed East Elevation’ on Sheet A-2 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, low-profile antennas colored green to blend with the branches, and a pole colored to match the trunks of the surrounding trees. The attached photo simulations (Exhibit D – Visual Impact Study) also illustrate the proposed monopine design. Compared to an unstealthed monopole, the proposed facility would better blend with the context of the site and thus minimizes the visual impact.” Finding 18: The applicant is proposing to install a landscaping buffer around the fenced enclosure containing the monopine tower and equipment shelter. According to the applicant’s site plan, the landscaping plants will be drought tolerant and will not require irrigation after establishment. Seven (7) Leyland cypress trees are proposed to be planted around the perimeter of the fenced enclosure, including a tree at each of the four corners and one at the midpoint of the north, west and south fencelines. Leyland cypress trees are noted for their ability to withstand poor site conditions, rapid establishment and growth, and dense growth form. The trees can reach a height of 50 feet or more in optimal conditions. The applicant is also proposing to plant shrubs in the intervening areas between the cypress trees. The proposed species (Blue Blossom and Oregon Grape) typically reach a height of five to six feet and are broadleaf evergreen species. The applicant’s proposed site plan would provide for a year-round vegetative screening of the wireless transmissions system equipment shelter and enclosure. Finding 19: The applicant has submitted renderings of the proposed monopine tower, which is proposed as a 2 branch per foot imitation pine tree (Figure 2). Staff observes that the proposed design is not consistent with the growth form of other natural evergreen trees in the neighborhood, or even in the greater region. There are existing fir trees on the boundary of the site, and these have a more dense growth form and higher density of branches than the proposed monopine facility. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed design would be more appropriate for central Oregon where pine trees are the predominant evergreen species. Attachment 1, Page 12 of 20 Instead, staff recommends a 3 branch per foot design that resembles a Sequoia or California Redwood tree – trees that are not native to the area but are commonly planted as landscaping trees and become neighborhood landmarks due to their size and distinctive growth form (Figure 3). Figure 2 – Proposed Tower Design Figure 3 – Recommended Tower Design 2 Branches per Foot 3 Branches per Foot Source: Larson’s Camouflage Product Sheets RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. The monopine wireless transmissions system facility shall be a three (3) branch per foot facility as depicted in the manufacturer’s product sheets provided by Larson’s Camouflage. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, 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: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed East Elevation’ on Sheet A-2 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, low-profile antennas colored green to blend with the branches, and a pole colored to match the trunks of the surrounding Attachment 1, Page 13 of 20 trees. As illustrated in the ‘Shelter Details’ on Sheet A-6 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the shelter would have an exposed brown aggregate finish. Additionally, the proposed fence and landscaping would further minimize the visibility of the facility.” Finding 20: The applicant is proposing to use an imitation pine tree that is designed and intended to be as close to a real tree as feasible. As stated and conditioned above, staff is recommending a higher standard of branching density to make the monopine tower more comparable with representative evergreen trees in the area. The applicant has provided product sheets from the monopine tower manufacturer indicating that the tower pole is designed to be natural looking with an epoxy finish that resembles tree bark (Figures 4 & 5). Figures 4 & 5 – Examples of Manufacturer’s Monopine Tower “Tree Bark” Designs Source: Larson’s Camouflage Product Sheets Finding 21: The applicant is proposing to use an earth-toned exposed aggregate finish for the equipment shelter, which will be non-reflective and should be unobtrusive behind the planned vegetative screening. The proposed finish materials for the equipment enclosure and tower pole will minimize visibility of the wireless transmissions system facilities. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 15) Camouflaged Facilities. All camouflaged WTS facilities shall be designed to visually and operationally blend into the surrounding area in a manner consistent with existing development on adjacent properties. The facility shall also be appropriate for the specific site. In other words, it shall not “stand out” from its surrounding environment. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility would be a monopine. As illustrated in the ‘Proposed East Elevation’ on Sheet A-2 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed tower would be designed to look as much like a tree as possible, with branches, low-profile antennas colored green to blend with the branches, and a pole colored to match the trunks of the surrounding trees. As illustrated in the attached photo simulation looking west (Exhibit D – Visual Impact Study, the proposed WTS facility would be located near existing trees of various sizes, which would help the facility blend in with the context of the site.” Attachment 1, Page 14 of 20 Finding 22: The proposed monopine tower should be well camouflaged and blend into the surrounding area, especially as further commercial development occurs on the subject property. At present, most of the property is vacant and open with the exception of a long- vacant commercial building and a residential dwelling that faces Jasper Road. Any type of development on the property will be visible from residential properties on the perimeter, and therefore the camouflage design and provision for screening is particularly important. As previously stated and conditioned in this report, the monopine tower design needs to be consistent with the growth form of evergreen trees in the region. Conclusion: As conditioned in this report, this standard has been met. 16) Façade-Mounted Antenna. Façade-mounted antennas shall be architecturally integrated into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible, antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Façade-mounted antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be mounted to an existing structure.” Finding 23: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and is not mounted on a building façade. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 17) Roof-Mounted Antenna. Roof-mounted antennas shall be constructed at the minimum height possible to serve the operator’s service area and shall be set back as far from the building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be mounted to an existing structure.” Finding 24: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative, the proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and is not mounted on a rooftop. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 18) Compliance with Photo Simulations. As a condition of approval and prior to final staff inspection of the WTS facility, the applicant shall submit evidence, e.g. photos, sufficient to prove that the facility is in substantial conformance with photo simulations provided with the initial application. Non-conformance shall require any necessary modification to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant. Applicant’s Submittal: “The Applicant will comply with this standard.” Finding 25: The applicant’s photo simulations and project narrative indicate that the proposed wireless transmissions system facility will be exactly as shown on the manufacturer’s product sheets. As stated and conditioned previously, staff is recommending a higher branching density of 3 branches per foot to better approximate the growth form of large evergreen trees in the neighborhood and region. Provided the higher branching density design is used, the monopine facility should largely resemble the tower design shown above in Figure 3. Attachment 1, Page 15 of 20 19) Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Applicant’s Submittal: “As described in the attached noise report (Exhibit E – Noise Report), the equipment supporting the proposed WTS facility would comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035.” Finding 26: The proposed equipment shelter is equipped with cooling units that are designed and intended to operate continuously and as-needed to regulate temperatures for the electronic equipment housed within the shelter. Additionally, a backup diesel generator is to be installed within the shelter, and the generator will be operated on a weekly basis to test the system and maintain functionality. Finding 27: In accordance with OAR 340-035-0035, the introduction of new noise sources on commercial sites cannot raise ambient noise levels by more than 10 decibels (dBA) as measured an appropriate distance from the noise source – in this case the nearest property line to the north. The applicant’s Noise Report indicates that background noise levels on the site are measured at about 48 dBA, which is primarily attributed to passing traffic. According to the submitted Noise Report, the applicant’s proposed wireless transmissions system facility will not result in sound levels that are elevated more than 10 decibels above ambient noise levels at the north property line. Measures to address noise include running the cooling units individually instead of in tandem, and providing a muffler for the backup generator. Noise reduction is also a factor of the distance from the source to the receiving body. Because the nearest residential dwelling is more than 340 feet from the proposed noise source, there should be no adverse noise impacts to residential properties. 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: “As illustrated on Sheet A-8 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility would contain only the required warning and safety signage.” Finding 28: According to the applicant’s site plan, the equipment shelter and fence will be equipped with three federally- and state-required warning and safety signs pertaining to radio frequency fields and the presence of corrosive liquids. The safety signs will meet the limitations of SDC 4.3-145.F.20 in all other respects, including but not limited to total surface area and placement of the signs. Conclusion: This standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 16 of 20 21) Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the public or private right-of-way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that obstructs traffic. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable. The proposed WTS facility would not be located in the public or private right-of-way.” Finding 29: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is well-removed from the public rights-of-way for South 42nd Street and Horace Street. Additionally, the applicant’s proposed site plan provides for access and parking that is set back from the adjacent public rights-of-way. As proposed, the site design will not cause traffic to be obstructed. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 22) Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the installation of any WTS facility. Applicant’s Submittal: “Because there are currently no required on-site parking spaces on the subject property, there would be no net loss in required on-site parking spaces as a result of the installation of the proposed WTS facility.” Finding 30: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is located west of (behind) an existing, vacant commercial building that faces South 42nd Street. The existing building is served by a driveway approach and gravel driveway that is not currently developed to City standards. The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway approach for access to the equipment shelter, but will be providing a separate access driveway and parking area that is separated from the vacant building. Therefore, the proposed wireless transmissions system facility does not affect the existing or potential future parking for the commercial building on the site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 23) Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair pedestrian use of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private land. Applicant’s Submittal: “As illustrated in the ‘Proposed Compound Plan’ on Sheet A-1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the proposed WTS facility’s equipment would all be located within the fenced lease area and would not impair the use of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, or bikeways.” Finding 31: The proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located internal to the mostly vacant commercial site. There are no existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities that pass through the area occupied by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on pedestrian or bicycle movements. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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 Attachment 1, Page 17 of 20 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: “As described in the attached letter from the Oregon Department of Aviation (Exhibit F – FAA/ODA Determinations), no marking or lighting are necessary for aviation safety. As illustrated in the ‘Shelter Details’ on Sheet A-6 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the light fixture on the proposed WTS facility’s equipment shelter would have a sharp cutoff in order to comply with the outdoor lighting standards.” Finding 32: The applicant’s submittal indicates that no beacon or strobe lights are required or planned for the monopine tower. The proposed equipment shelter light is mounted at an 8-foot level and is designed to be shielded and fully downcast to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties. 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: “As illustrated on Sheet A-1.1 of the attached drawings (Exhibit A – Site Plan and Elevations), the landscaping surrounding the proposed facility would comply with the landscaping, screening, and fence standards.” Finding 33: The proposed wireless transmissions system tower does not exceed the height limitations of the base Community Commercial zoning district. Although not specifically required, the applicant is proposing to plant shrubs that will be about 5 feet apart and that should form a screening hedge upon maturity. Review of the applicant’s proposed landscaping plan is detailed in the accompanying staff report and recommended conditions for the Site Plan Review application (Case TYP215-00012). 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. Attachment 1, Page 18 of 20 Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS facility is not within the Historic Overlay District or the public right-of-way and would not be taller than 150 feet. Therefore, it is not a prohibited facility.” Finding 34: As stated and depicted in the applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials, the proposed monopine tower is an allowable facility in the Community Commercial zoning district. The proposed development is not within the Historic Overlay District or the public right-of-way, and is not taller than 150 feet above finished grade. As such, the proposed monopine tower is not classified as a prohibited wireless transmissions system facility. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 27) Speculation. No application shall be accepted or approved for a speculation WTS tower, ie. from an applicant that simply constructs towers and leases tower space to service carriers, but is not a service carrier, unless the applicant submits a binding written commitment or executed lease from a service carrier to utilize or lease space on the tower. Applicant’s Submittal: “The Applicant represents Verizon Wireless and is not proposing a speculation WTS facility.” Finding 35: The applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials indicate that the wireless carrier (Verizon Wireless) is proposing the monopine tower as a necessary component of their network facilities in Springfield, both in terms of maintaining coverage and improving capacity. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245. Finding 36: The proposed development is not a multi-family residential facility. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. Finding 37: The proposed development does not include a fence requiring Discretionary Use approval. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Finding 38: The proposed development is not a public school. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Attachment 1, Page 19 of 20 Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the application and supporting information submitted by the applicant for the Discretionary Use request. Based on the above-listed criteria, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion D.1 of SDC 5.9-120. Staff recommends support for the request as the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval. Additionally, approval of the Discretionary Use would facilitate approval of the accompanying Site Plan Review application for a wireless telecommunications system submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00012). 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 the following condition of approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. The monopine wireless transmissions system facility shall be a three (3) branch per foot facility as depicted in the manufacturer’s product sheets provided by Larson’s Camouflage. The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility has been reviewed and recommended conditions of approval are also described in the Site Plan Review application for this development submitted under separate cover (Case TYP215-00012). Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may choose to apply conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Discretionary Use criteria. Additional Approvals The subject Discretionary Use request is the necessary first step for the applicant to proceed with development plans for the site. The companion Site Plan Review application (Case TYP215-00012) is intended to address the specific Development Code and detailed site planning requirements for the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility. Attachment 1, Page 20 of 20 Type II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, staff report & RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Project Name: Verizon Wireless Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Construct a 90-foot high monopine wireless transmissions system facility on a mostly undeveloped commercial site Case Number: TYP215-00012 Project Location: 4164 Jasper Road (Map 18-02-05-23, TL 100) Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) Comprehensive Plan Designation: CC (Metro Plan) Overlay Districts: Drinking Water Protection Overlay District (DWP) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: April 17, 2015 Application Submitted Date: May 1, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 2, 2015 Appeal Deadline Date: June 17, 2015 Associated Applications: PRE14-00052 (Development Issues Meeting); PRE15-00019 (Pre-Submittal); TYP315- 00003 (Discretionary Use) APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Lauren Russell SmartLink LLC 621 SW Alder Street Suite 660 Portland, OR 97205 Property Owner: John Erving, Broker Jasper Junction LLC 85831 Parklane Circle Pleasant Hill, OR 97455 Project Engineer: Raymond Jacobson, PE Acom Consulting Inc. 1125 SE Clatsop Street Portland, OR 97202 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 Jasper Road S 42nd Street Filbert Lane Proposed Tower Location Horace Street Attachment 2, Page 1 of 14 Page 2 of 14 Site Information: The subject development site is a mostly vacant commercial property on the west side of South 42nd Street and north of Jasper Road. The commercial property is bisected by an undeveloped segment of Horace Street right-of-way that extends from its current terminus at the west boundary of the site to South 42nd Street. The north half of the property contains a vacant 4,000 ft2 commercial shell building with gravel driveway approach from South 42nd Street. The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility – a 90-foot tall monopine tower – is located on the north half of the property. The south half of the property contains an existing, non-conforming residential dwelling that faces Jasper Road. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E and SDC Table 4.3-1, wireless telecommunications system facilities designed as imitation trees are classified as moderate visibility facilities. Moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial (CC) district subject to Discretionary Use approval. The applicant submitted a Discretionary Use Request for a 90-foot tall monopine wireless telecommunications system facility under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003). The Springfield Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing to adjudicate the Discretionary Use request at a regular meeting on June 2, 2015. A Discretionary Use permit is required for the submitted site plan to be approved for the subject property. The site is zoned and designated CC in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. Other properties in the vicinity of the subject site are zoned Medium Density Residential (west of the site); Low Density Residential (south and east of the site); and Community Commercial (north of the site). The site is within the mapped 20+ Year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the 16th & Q Street drinking water wellhead and, therefore, is subject to the 20+ Year TOTZ provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200. Provisions for water quality protection during site construction and operation have been inserted as conditions of this decision in order to protect local surface waters and groundwater resources. DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. (See Page 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 May 1, 2015. Therefore, this application is being reviewed by the Planning Commission on the 32nd day of the 120 days mandated by the State. 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). Procedural Finding: On May 19, 2015, the City’s Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (15 Sheets – SmartLink LLC and Acom Consulting Inc. Sheets T1-T2, A0-A8 and RF-1; and McKay Consulting LLC unnumbered topographic survey sheet) 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. Attachment 2, Page 2 of 14 Page 3 of 14 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 May 12, 2015. One written comment was received from Robert and Diane Ronning, 4050 Jasper Road, Springfield 97478: “We own property on Horace St. and are very much opposed to any development on it as we are living on a fixed income and any more assessment to it would make it very difficult for us, as we are both in our late 70’s. So we are both opposed to this development. We beg you to vote against this.” Staff Response: As stated in the accompanying report on the Discretionary Use request (Case TYP315-00003), the proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located on a mostly vacant commercial property to the northwest of the residential dwellings on Horace Street. Installation of the proposed cellular tower should have no financial impact to adjacent residential property owners. The residential properties on Horace Street are not annexed to the City of Springfield, so changes to Lane County levies or taxation rates could have potential impacts to their property tax assessments. However, it is the opinion of staff that such changes to property tax assessments would be entirely separate from and not influenced by the current development proposal. 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 Community Commercial 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. 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 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of a 90-foot tall monopine wireless transmissions system facility (ie. camouflage cell tower) with a 312 ft2 equipment shelter, fenced enclosure, and screening landscaping on a mostly vacant commercial parcel. Finding 3: 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. Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14 Page 4 of 14 Finding 4: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscaping plan on May 19, 2015. City staff’s review comments have been incorporated in findings and recommended conditions contained herein. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Water and Electricity Improvements Finding 5: 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 6: The proposed development is a non-combustible wireless telecommunications system tower with a utility enclosure that is not designed or intended for continuous occupation. There is no water service proposed to the site and none is required. Finding 7: The applicant is proposing to install underground electricity and telecommunication lines from a connection point at the northeast corner of the property to the utility enclosure. The applicant has not clarified whether they will require high voltage or secondary voltage service to the proposed equipment enclosure. To accommodate the underground utility lines, a utility easement will be necessary. SUB Electric requests a 7-foot wide utility easement centered on a high voltage line; or 5-foot wide utility easement centered on a secondary voltage line. The easement should extend from the connection point at the edge of the South 42nd Street right- of-way to the termination point at the utility enclosure. Finding 8: SUB Electric requests provision for access to the fenced compound to allow for meter reading or to pull the meter in the event of an emergency. Access to the compound can be provided by way of a SUB-installed lock used in tandem with a Verizon Wireless lock, or a key to the Verizon Wireless lock issued to SUB personnel. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a utility easement satisfactory to SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site. 2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a SUB Electric supplied lock or issuance of a key to SUB Electric personnel for the fenced compound surrounding the utility enclosure. 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 9: 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 10: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is designed and intended as a non-occupied utility enclosure. There is no water service or floor drains planned for the development site. Therefore, sanitary sewer service is not required. Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14 Page 5 of 14 Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 11: 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 12: 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 13: 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 14: 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 15: The proposed development will not create an appreciable amount of impervious surface requiring constructed stormwater management facilities. Rooftop drainage will be discharged to the gravel compound and either infiltrate or flow overland to the perimeter landscaping buffer. Overflow drainage from the proposed development site, if any, will not affect the public stormwater management system or adjacent properties. Therefore, no stormwater management facilities are required for the subject development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quality) Finding 16: 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 17: 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 18: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding 19: 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 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 20: 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 21: 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 of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual. Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14 Page 6 of 14 Finding 22: Section 3.03.3.B 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. Finding 23: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility (monopine tower), gravel compound, and utility enclosure will create less than 500 ft2 of new non-rooftop impervious area. Therefore, no stormwater quality treatment is required or recommended as a part of the proposed site development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 24: The subject site is on the north half of a commercial parcel that is bisected by a segment of undeveloped Horace Street right-of-way. The north half of the site has approximately 140 feet of frontage on South 42nd Street along the east boundary. Along the site frontage, South 42nd Street is a fully improved minor arterial street with striped vehicle and bicycle lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting. The applicant is not proposing to improve the frontage beyond the existing condition, and no public street improvements are required for the proposed development. Finding 25: 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 26: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: 1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140) Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities (4.3-145) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-300 Community Commercial Zoning District Community Commercial Schedule of Uses (3.2-310) Community Commercial District Development Standards (3.2-315) Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100) On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Specific Development Standards for Accessory Structures (4.7-105) 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14 Page 7 of 14 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 27: 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. Access to the project area is afforded from South 42nd Street. The nearest responding fire station (Station #14) is located at 4765 Main Street. Water Supply Finding 28: The proposed equipment enclosure will be classified as a Type U (utility) building occupancy. In accordance with SFC 503.1.1, Exception 3, fire access and water supply requirements will not apply provided there are not more than two U-class occupancies on the property. Finding 29: The site development reviewed by the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department proposed a natural gas powered backup generator. The applicant has since changed the design to a diesel-powered backup generator, but the Fire Department has not reviewed and commented on this change. The applicant’s Final Site Plan will need to provide for Fire Department review, and incorporate any fire protection requirements necessary to address the use and storage of diesel fuel on the site. Additionally, the proposed use of diesel fuel will trigger requirements for Fire Code operational permits and inspections, and Drinking Water Protection Overlay District permitting including but not limited to secondary containment requirements. The Drinking Water Protect Overlay District requirements are discussed in Section C.3 of this report. Recommended Condition of Approval: 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide for any Eugene-Springfield Fire Department requirements as may be necessary to address the change from a natural gas powered to a diesel fuel powered backup generator. Any required changes to the fire protection measures for the site shall be depicted on the Final Site Plan and addressed in the applicant’s response to the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission with this decision. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140) Finding 30: 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 31: The subject property has existing 7-foot wide PUEs along the South 42nd Street frontage of the site and along the north and south edges of the undeveloped Horace Street right-of-way. Therefore, no additional street side rights-of-way are required for the proposed development. Finding 32: As stated and conditioned previously in this report, a utility easement will be required to accommodate the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the site. 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. Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 Wireless Transmissions System Facilities (4.3-145) Finding 33: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities in Springfield. Imitation trees such as the proposed monopine tower are classified as a moderate visibility facility. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial district subject to Discretionary Use approval. Therefore, the proposed development requires approval of a Discretionary Use permit initiated by Case TYP315-00003 and approval of a Tentative Site Plan initiated by the subject application, Case TYP315- 00012. Finding 34: Specific details of the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility, including recommended modifications to the applicant’s proposed monopine tower design, are reviewed and addressed in the staff report for the Discretionary Use permit submitted under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003) and incorporated herein by reference. Recommended Condition of Approval: 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP315-00003. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-300, Community Commercial Zoning District Community Commercial Schedule of Uses (3.2-310) Finding 35: In accordance with SDC 3.2-310, wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in the CC District subject to the special provisions of SDC 4.3-145. SDC Table 4.3-1 states that moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities such as a monopine (ie. imitation tree) are allowable in the CC District subject to Discretionary Use permitting. Finding 36: The applicant has submitted a request for Discretionary Use approval for the subject development under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003) and is incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing meeting on June 2, 2015. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Community Commercial Standards (3.2-315) Finding 37: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum parcel size for properties in the CC District is 6,000 ft2 with at least 50 feet of public street frontage. Finding 38: The proposed development site is approximately 85,250 ft2 (1.96 acres) with about 140 feet of frontage on South 42nd Street and 510 feet of frontage on undeveloped Horace Street. The parcel size and frontages meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Finding 39: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, the minimum setbacks for structures is 10 feet for front, rear and street side yards, and 5 feet for interior side yards. Finding 40: The proposed development has a 210-foot setback from the east (front yard) property line; a 90- foot setback from the south (street side yard) property line; a 260-foot setback from the west (rear yard) property line; and a 21-foot setback from the north (interior side yard) property line. The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Attachment 2, Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 Finding 41: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum building height for structures within the CC District provided the development site is more than 50 feet from a residential district property line. Finding 42: The proposed monopine tower is 90 feet high and is located more than 265 feet from the nearest residential property line, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there is no maximum lot coverage for structures within the CC District provided the required building and parking lot setbacks are observed. Finding 44: The proposed development site occupies a fractional amount of the potential site building coverage, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-215. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100) Finding 45: 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 mostly vacant and there are existing trees along the north and west boundaries of the property. The applicant is not proposing to remove any of the existing trees on the site. Additionally, the proposed development site occupies only a small component of the overall commercial site. It is expected that further and more intensive commercial site development will occur in the future. At such time as the site is developed or redeveloped, provisions for landscaping will need to be incorporated into the site design. Finding 46: 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 90-foot tall monopine tower does not exceed the height limitations of the district. Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.13, the visibility of wireless transmissions system facilities are to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable by camouflage, screening and landscaping. The applicant’s proposed landscaping plan (Sheet A-1.1) provides for installation of drought-tolerant vegetation that will form a screening hedge as it matures. After an additional establishment period, the vegetation is intended to be low-maintenance and non-irrigated. Finding 48: As part of the site landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to plant Leyland cypress trees on the perimeter of the fenced enclosure to provide initial and long-term screening of the facility as the trees grow and mature. Leyland cypress trees are notable for being a hardy, fast-growing tree that forms a dense screen within a relatively short timeframe. The trees can reach a height of 50 feet or taller under optimal conditions. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within a commercial district is the height of the principal building on the site or 25 feet, whichever is less. According to the applicant’s site plan, the utility enclosure is 10.5 feet high at the roofline. The applicant is proposing to mount a security light at the 8-foot level on the south exterior wall of the utility enclosure. The light is proposed to be a downcast, pedestrian-scale light with sharp cutoff to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties. The size and positioning of the proposed building light should not have any adverse effect on neighboring residential properties. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Finding 50: 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 outside the fenced compound. There will be no impacts to public streets or adjacent commercial development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Specific Development Standards for Accessory Structures (4.7-105) Finding 51: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105, provisions for structures that are incidental to principal uses on the site are intended to prevent them from becoming the predominant element on the site. Accessory structure provisions are primarily directed at residential uses, but have application for the subject proposal because there is partial commercial development on the site and more is likely to occur in the future. Additionally, the proposed development site is bounded on three sides by residential zoning districts. Finding 52: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.B.1, accessory structures may be located anywhere on a site if they are not within a required building setback. In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.C.4, accessory structures need to meet required building setbacks specified in SDC 3.2-315. The proposed utility enclosure meets the required building setbacks for the Community Commercial district. Therefore, this standard has been met. Finding 53: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.B.2, accessory structures are to be constructed in conjunction with or after construction of a primary structure. The proposed utility enclosure is behind (west) an existing, vacant commercial shell building that faces South 42nd Street. The existing commercial building is considered the primary structure on the site. Therefore, this standard has been met. Finding 54: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.C.2, accessory structures cannot have more square footage than the primary structure. The existing primary commercial structure is 4,000 ft2 and the proposed utility enclosure is about 312 ft2. Therefore, this standard has been met. Finding 55: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.C.3, accessory structures can be as high as the primary structure provided that solar access provisions are met. The existing building is about 16 feet high and the proposed utility enclosure is 10.5 feet high. Therefore, this standard has been met. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 56: The site is outside of an adopted Refinement Plan area so the provisions of the adopted Metro Plan apply. The development site is already zoned and designated CC in accordance with the Metro Plan diagram, which meets this requirement. Finding 57: The subject site is located within the mapped 20+ year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the 16th & Q Street drinking water wellhead. Therefore, the site is subject to provisions of the 20+ year TOTZ Drinking Water Protection Overlay District found in SDC 3.3-235.D. The applicant’s submitted site plan indicates that a natural gas powered backup generator will be installed to serve the wireless telecommunications system facility. A natural gas fired generator would qualify for a Drinking Water Protection Exemption. However, the applicant has recently changed their proposal to a diesel-fired generator. The change to a diesel fuel system requires a review by the Fire Department and SUB Drinking Water Source Protection and may trigger the requirement for a Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Permit. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining a Drinking Water Protection Permit or Exemption in accordance with City and SUB requirements. Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14 Page 11 of 14 Finding 58: The applicant has submitted a Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Permit application under separate cover (Case TYP115-00025), which is incorporated herein by reference. Staff approval of the Drinking Water Protection permit will be contingent upon Planning Commission approval of the Discretionary Use request submitted under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003) and the subject Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. Finding 59: 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 60: The applicant shall provide the following notes regarding drinking water protection on the site construction plans: “Chemical spills or leaks at this location have the potential to contaminate Springfield’s drinking water supply. Any chemical spills or leaks shall be cleaned up immediately and clean-up materials disposed off- site in accordance with Lane County and DEQ requirements. Chemical handling, storage, and use: Contractors/developers shall be responsible for the safe handling and storage of chemicals, petroleum products, and fertilizers and the prevention of groundwater and storm water runoff contamination. Chemicals used during construction, including paint and cleaning materials/wastes, must not enter the soil or be washed into the storm water system. All chemicals should be stored in adequate secondary containment. Equipment maintenance and fueling: Precautions must be taken to prevent fluid-containing equipment located outside from leaking, including providing a dedicated area for fueling and maintenance of equipment. This area should be prepared and maintained in a way that prevents spills or leaks from migrating to the soil or storm water drainage system. No fill materials containing hazardous materials shall be used on this site.” Finding 61: The applicant will need to install a wellhead protection sign at the diesel fuel generator to remind employees of the importance of cleaning up and reporting fuel spills. Wellhead protection signs are available from SUB Drinking Water Source Protection – please contact Amy Chinitz at 541-744-3745 for further information. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Drinking Water Protection Permit initiated by Case TYP115-00025. 6. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 60 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. 7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign for the diesel fuel generator. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14 Page 12 of 14 D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding 62: 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 63: 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 64: The applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial driveway onto South 42nd Street at the east 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. Finding 65: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.A.1 and Table 4.2-2, driveways onto public streets that are improved with curb and gutter need to be paved at least 18 feet into the site. A paved driveway apron is particularly important on a minor arterial street such as South 42nd Street to prevent tracking of gravel and debris into the vehicle and bicycle travel lanes. According to the applicant’s proposed site plan, the driveway apron will be paved at least 18 feet into the site to meet this standard. 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 66: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are no natural features on this site that warrant protection. Finding 67: 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 68: 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. Attachment 2, Page 12 of 14 Page 13 of 14 Finding 69: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater protection must be observed during construction on the site. The applicant shall maintain the private stormwater facility on the site to ensure the continued protection of surface water and groundwater resources. Conclusion: The proposed development provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115. CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17-125. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions contained herein and as summarized below. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a utility easement satisfactory to SUB Electric for the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the development site. 2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a SUB Electric supplied lock or issuance of a key to SUB Electric personnel for the fenced compound surrounding the utility enclosure. Access to the fenced compound shall be afforded SUB Electric personnel for the purpose of reading the electrical meter or pulling the meter in the event of an emergency. 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide for any Eugene-Springfield Fire Department requirements as may be necessary to address the change from a natural gas powered to a diesel fuel powered backup generator. Any required changes to the fire protection measures for the site shall be depicted on the Final Site Plan and addressed in the applicant’s response to the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission with this decision. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP315-00003. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Drinking Water Protection Permit initiated by Case TYP115-00017. 6. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 60 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. 7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a wellhead protection sign for the diesel fuel generator. 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 August 31, 2015). 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. Attachment 2, Page 13 of 14 Page 14 of 14 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 TYP315-00003 and is therefore considered a Type III decision of the Planning Commission. As such, this decision may be appealed to the Springfield City Council. The appeal may be filed with the Development & Public Works Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted with a fee of $2,420.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the City Council approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on June 17, 2015. 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 162 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 3 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 4 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 5 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 7 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 8 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 9 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 10 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 11 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 12 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 13 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 14 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 15 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 16 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 17 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 18 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 19 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 20 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 21 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 22 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 23 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 24 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 25 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 26 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 27 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 28 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 29 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 30 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 31 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 32 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 33 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 34 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 35 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 36 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 37 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 38 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 39 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 40 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 41 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 42 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 43 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 44 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 45 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 46 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 47 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 48 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 49 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 50 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 51 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 52 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 53 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 54 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 55 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 56 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 57 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 58 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 59 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 60 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 61 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 62 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 63 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 64 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 65 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 66 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 67 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 68 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 69 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 70 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 71 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 72 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 73 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 74 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 75 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 76 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 77 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 78 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 79 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 80 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 81 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 82 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 83 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 84 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 85 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 86 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 87 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 88 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 89 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 90 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 91 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 92 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 93 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 94 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 95 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 96 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 97 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 98 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 99 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 100 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 101 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 102 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 103 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 104 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 105 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 106 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 107 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 108 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 109 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 110 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 111 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 112 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 113 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 114 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 115 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 116 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 117 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 118 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 119 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 120 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 121 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 122 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 123 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 124 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 125 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 126 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 127 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 128 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 129 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 130 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 131 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 132 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 133 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 134 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 135 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 136 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 137 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 138 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 139 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 140 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 141 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 142 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 143 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 144 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 145 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 146 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 147 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 148 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 149 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 150 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 151 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 152 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 153 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 154 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 155 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 156 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 157 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 158 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 159 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 160 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 161 of 162 Attachment 3, Page 162 of 162 Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1