HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 06 16 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopine Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/16/2015 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 15 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:
Conclude a continued public hearing, then conduct deliberations 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. At the public hearing meeting on June 2, 2015, four persons submitted
verbal testimony: two opposed, one neutral, and one in favor of the proposal.
Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission
Discretionary Use Request (Verizon Wireless)
Hearing Date: June 16, 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 staff conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request on May 19, 2015. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Discretionary Use request on June 2, 2015 and the public hearing was continued to the June 16, 2015 meeting.
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 19
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 19
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 19
“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.
At the public hearing meeting on June 2, 2015, four persons provided verbal testimony to the Planning
Commission: two persons in opposition, one person neutral, and one person in favor of the proposal. The key
issues related to the proposed monopine tower included its appearance, screening and buffering from the adjacent Relief Nursery site, noise from the cooling system units, and the use of diesel fuel for the backup generator.
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.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 19
C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through
the:
1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks);
2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable;
3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or
4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval
conditions.
D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code:
1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from
Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145.
2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245
3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall
comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is
exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section
4.7-195.
Finding: Wireless telecommunications systems facilities are exempt from Criteria A-C in accordance with Section 5.9-120.D.1 of the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, only Criterion D is listed herein.
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 19
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.
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.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 19
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 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.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 19
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.”
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
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 19
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: 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.
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 19
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.
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
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 19
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.
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.”
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 19
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. 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
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 19
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 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.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 19
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.”
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
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 19
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.
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.”
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 19
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.
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.
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 19
24) Lighting. WTS facilities shall not include any beacon lights or strobe lights, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable authority. If beacon lights or
strobe lights are required, the Approval Authority shall review any available alternatives and
approve the design with the least visual impact. All other site lighting for security and maintenance purposes shall be shielded and directed downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5-100, unless required by any other applicable law.
Applicant’s Submittal: “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 17 of 19
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.
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
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 19
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 19 of 19
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 16, 2015
Appeal Deadline Date: July 1, 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 opened a public hearing on the Discretionary Use request at the regular meeting on June 2, 2015, and the public hearing was continued to the June 16, 2015
meeting. The Planning Commission is expected to conclude the public hearing and conduct deliberations on the Discretionary Use request at the June 16, 2015 meeting. 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 13 for a summary of the recommended conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with
the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. The subject application was
submitted and deemed complete on May 1, 2015. Therefore, this application is being reviewed by the Planning
Commission on the 46th 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
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 14
been reduced to findings and recommended conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site
Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal
approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit
Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision.
WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on 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
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services.
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.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14
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.
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”.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
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.
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)
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14
3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
C.1 Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access
Finding 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.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14
Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of corresponding access and utility easements. The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Wireless Transmissions System Facilities (4.3-145) Finding 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.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 14
Page 9 of 14
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.
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
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14
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. 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
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14
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.
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.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14
Page 12 of 14
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and
pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable
regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Finding 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 September 14, 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 July 1, 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