Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 10 20 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopine Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/20/2015 Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: MODERATE VISIBILITY CELLULAR TOWER SITE PLAN APPLICATION— SMARTLINK PCS ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS LLC, CASE TYP215-00012 ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct an initial work session, then conduct a public hearing and approve, approve with amendments, or deny a proposal by Verizon Wireless to adjust the location of a 90-foot tall monopine cellular tower previously approved by the City Council. ISSUE STATEMENT: The City Council granted Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review approval for a new wireless telecommunication tower facility near South 42nd Street and Jasper Road at the regular meeting on July 20, 2015. As a result of negotiations with an adjacent property owner, the applicant is now proposing to adjust the location of the cellular tower. Section 4.3-145.F of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) provides standards for approving the cellular tower placement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report and Recommended Conditions of Approval for Modified Site Plan 2. Verizon Wireless Application and Exhibits 3. Final Order 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 City Council granted the Discretionary Use approval for the facility at the regular meeting on July 20, 2015 (Case TYP315-00003). The applicant has demonstrated that there is a substantial capacity gap in the mid- Springfield area, 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 and is scheduled for decommissioning upon expiration of Verizon’s site lease in 2016. 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. The applicant is proposing to adjust the location of the cellular tower approximately 200 feet west of its original location approved by the City Council in July, 2015, to a point about 105 feet east of the boundary with Mt. Vernon Elementary School (Attachment 2). The proposed relocation brings the cellular tower facility closer to existing residential dwellings to the south and southwest of the subject site along Horace Street and Jasper Road. However, the nearest dwelling on residentially-zoned property is located on the south side of Horace Street approximately 260 feet from the tower’s adjusted location. Staff has prepared a staff report with recommended conditions of approval for the proposed modified site plan based on the criteria found in SDC Sections 4.3-145.F and 5.17-125 (Attachment 1). Type II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, staff report & RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Project Name: Verizon Wireless Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Modify the location of a 90-foot high monopine wireless transmissions system facility approved for 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 Date of Approval: (*See Page 2 for dates of initial review, approval, and appeal) Appeal Deadline Date: November 5, 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 Approved Tower Location Attachment 1, 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 in the northwest corner 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), and the Springfield City Council granted the Discretionary Use approval at the regular meeting on July 20, 2015. Issuance of the Discretionary Use approval was a necessary pre-requisite for the modified 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 sequence of review and approval for the subject application is as follows: The subject application was submitted on May 1, 2015 and initially reviewed by the Springfield Planning Commission at a public hearing meeting on June 2, 2015. At the regular meeting on June 15, 2015, the City Council elevated the applicant’s Discretionary Use request (Case TYP315-00003) and the subject Site Plan Review application (Case TYP215-00012) to a Type IV land use decision by the City Council. The City Council initially reviewed the Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications at a public hearing meeting on July 6, 2015. The public hearing record was held open for an additional two weeks and the City Council approved the Discretionary Use on July 20, 2015. Concurrent with approval of the Discretionary Use, the City Council approved the applicant’s Tentative Site Plan on July 20, 2015. A Notice of Intent to Appeal the City Council’s decision was filed with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on August 10, 2015. The applicant, Verizon Wireless, submitted a Motion to Intervene on August 25, 2015. Subsequent to the filing of the LUBA appeal and Motion to Intervene, the parties to the appeal – including the Relief Nursery (appellant), City of Springfield (respondent), and Attachment 1, Page 2 of 14 Page 3 of 14 Verizon Wireless (intervenor) – discussed the potential for a solution to the appeal issue. To facilitate a negotiated solution to the appeal, the City filed a Notice to Withdraw the Decision for Reconsideration on September 15, 2015. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the modified site plan at the regular meeting on September 21, 2015. Finally, on September 28, 2015 the applicant modified and re-submitted the site plan for Planning Commission consideration. 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 October 6, 2015, City staff reviewed the modified site plans (16 Sheets – SmartLink LLC and Acom Consulting Inc. Sheets T1-T2, A0-A8.1 and RF-1; and McKay Consulting LLC unnumbered topographic survey sheet) and other supporting information. City staff’s review comments have been reduced to findings and recommended conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125. 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 site plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative site plan 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 of the modified site plan was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on September 29, 2015. No written comments were received prior to the public hearing meeting. 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. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 14 Page 4 of 14 Finding 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the site improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. Finding 4: Staff reviewed the modified site plans on October 6, 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. The applicant has addressed this request through a construction note on Sheet A-1 of the modified plan set. Recommended Condition 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. Conclusion: The existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities Sanitary Sewer Finding 9: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 10: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is designed and intended as a non-occupied utility enclosure. There is no water service or floor drains planned for the development site. Therefore, sanitary sewer service is not required. Attachment 1, Page 4 of 14 Page 5 of 14 Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 11: SDC 4.3-110.B requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Development & Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. Finding 12: SDC 4.3-110.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. Finding 13: SDC 4.3-110.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 14: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 15: The proposed development will not create an appreciable amount of impervious surface requiring constructed stormwater management facilities. Rooftop drainage will be discharged to the gravel compound and either infiltrate or flow overland to the perimeter landscaping buffer. Overflow drainage from the proposed development site, if any, will not affect the public stormwater management system or adjacent properties. Therefore, no stormwater management facilities are required for the subject development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quality) Finding 16: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 17: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City’s MS4 plan to address six “Minimum Control Measures”. Minimum Control Measure 5, “Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment”, applies to the proposed development. Finding 18: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding 19: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 20: As required in SDC 4.3-110.E, “a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Development & Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual”. Finding 21: Section 3.02 of the City’s EDSPM states the Development & Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 14 Page 6 of 14 Finding 22: Section 3.03.3.B of the City’s EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding 23: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility (monopine tower), gravel compound, and utility enclosure will create less than 500 ft2 of new non-rooftop impervious area. Therefore, no stormwater quality treatment is required or recommended as a part of the proposed site development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 24: The subject site is on the north half of a commercial parcel that is bisected by a segment of undeveloped Horace Street right-of-way. The north half of the site has approximately 140 feet of frontage on South 42nd Street along the east boundary. Along the site frontage, South 42nd Street is a fully improved minor arterial street with striped vehicle and bicycle lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting. The applicant is not proposing to improve the frontage beyond the existing condition, and no public street improvements are required for the proposed development. Finding 25: It is expected that the existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding 26: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: 1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140) Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities (4.3-145) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-300 Community Commercial Zoning District Community Commercial Schedule of Uses (3.2-310) Community Commercial District Development Standards (3.2-315) Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100) On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Specific Development Standards for Accessory Structures (4.7-105) 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Attachment 1, Page 6 of 14 Page 7 of 14 C.1 Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access Finding 27: All fire apparatus access routes are to be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2014 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1. Access to the project area is afforded from South 42nd Street. The nearest responding fire station (Station #14) is located at 4765 Main Street. Water Supply Finding 28: The proposed equipment enclosure will be classified as a Type U (utility) building occupancy. In accordance with SFC 503.1.1, Exception 3, fire access and water supply requirements are not applicable unless there are more than two U-class occupancies on the property. The applicant is proposing to construct only one U-class building for the facility. Finding 29: The applicant is proposing a diesel-powered backup generator which requires the Final Site Plan to incorporate any fire protection measures that are 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 may require Drinking Water Protection Overlay District permitting for the facility design and operation, 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: 2. The Final Site Plan shall provide for any Eugene-Springfield Fire Department requirements as may be necessary to accommodate 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 easements are required for the proposed development. Finding 32: As stated and conditioned previously in this report, a utility easement will be required to accommodate the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the site. Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of corresponding access and utility easements. The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 Wireless Transmissions System Facilities (4.3-145) Finding 33: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, imitation trees such as the proposed monopine tower are classified as a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications facility. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Community Commercial district subject to Discretionary Use approval. Finding 34: Specific details of the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility, including recommended modifications to the applicant’s proposed monopine tower design, were reviewed and approved through the applicant’s Discretionary Use request submitted under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003) and incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use was approved by the City Council on July 20, 2015. Finding 35: The Discretionary Use approval for the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility specified a three branch per foot design that would resemble a California Redwood or Sequoia tree. The applicant’s modified site plan (Sheet A-2) acknowledges the requirement for a three branch per foot design. Conclusion: 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 36: 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 approval. Finding 37: As previously stated herein, the applicant submitted a Discretionary Use request for the subject development under separate cover (Case TYP315-00003), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use request was approved by the Springfield City Council on July 20, 2015. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Community Commercial Standards (3.2-315) Finding 38: 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 39: 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 40: 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. The proposed development contains an undeveloped segment of public street (Horace Street) which will be considered the street side yard for the purpose of this review. At such time as Horace Street is developed to urban standards, the setback from the edge of right-of-way would be considered the front yard setback and the setback from South 42nd Street would become the street side yard setback. Finding 41: The proposed development has a 360-foot setback from the east (front yard) property line; a 140- foot setback from the south (street side yard) property line; a 107-foot setback from the west (rear yard) property line; and a 21-foot setback from the north (interior side yard) property line. The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 Finding 42: 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 43: The proposed monopine tower is 90 feet high and is located more than 105 feet from the nearest residential property line, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-315. Finding 44: 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 45: 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 46: 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 47: 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 48: 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 49: 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 50: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within a commercial district is the height of the principal building on the site or 25 feet, whichever is less. According to the applicant’s site plan, the utility enclosure is 10.5 feet high at the roofline. The applicant is proposing to mount a security light at the 8-foot level on the south exterior wall of the utility enclosure. The light is proposed to be a downcast, pedestrian-scale light with sharp cutoff to prevent glare and light trespass onto neighboring properties. The size and positioning of the proposed building light should not have any adverse effect on neighboring residential properties. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Attachment 1, Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Finding 51: 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, adjacent commercial sites, or nearby educational facilities. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Specific Development Standards for Accessory Structures (4.7-105) Finding 52: 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 53: 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 54: 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 of) an existing, vacant commercial shell building that faces South 42nd Street. Although vacant, the existing commercial building is considered the primary structure on the site. Therefore, this standard has been met. Finding 55: 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 56: 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 57: 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 58: 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 modified site plan indicates that a diesel-fired backup generator will be installed to serve the wireless telecommunications system facility. The diesel fuel system requires a review by the Fire Department and SUB Drinking Water Source Protection and may trigger the requirement for a Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Permit. Finding 59: 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 or issuance of an exemption will be contingent upon Planning Commission approval of the subject Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. Attachment 1, Page 10 of 14 Page 11 of 14 Finding 60: 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 61: 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 62: 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. Finding 63: The applicant has added a Wellhead Protection Signage sheet to the modified site plan (Sheet A-8.1) which meets the requirement stated above. Recommended Condition of Approval: 3. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 61 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the modified Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. 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 64: 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 Attachment 1, Page 11 of 14 Page 12 of 14 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 65: 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 66: 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 67: 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 (Sheet A-0), the driveway apron will be paved about 18 feet from the edge of the curb line on South 42nd Street, but the paving does not extend 18 feet into the site itself. About eight feet of paving into the property will be required in order to meet this standard. Recommended Condition of Approval: 4. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a paved driveway apron that extends at least 18 feet into the site as measured from the western edge of the South 42nd Street right-of-way. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding 68: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are no natural features on this site that warrant protection. Finding 69: The applicant is not proposing to remove any qualifying trees from the property to facilitate site development. In accordance with SDC 5.19-110.A, a tree felling permit is required for removal of more than 5 trees greater than 5-inches in diameter in any 12-month period. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable. Finding 70: Stormwater runoff from the subject site flows to the Willamette River system. This river is listed with the State of Oregon as a “water quality limited” stream for numerous chemical and physical constituents, including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of stormwater quality. The proposed site development will not create an appreciable amount of new impervious surface requiring constructed stormwater management facilities for runoff quantity or quality control. Finding 71: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater protection must be observed during construction on the site. The applicant shall maintain the private stormwater facility on the site to ensure the continued protection of surface water and groundwater resources. Attachment 1, Page 12 of 14 Page 13 of 14 Conclusion: The proposed development provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115. CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17-125. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions contained herein and as summarized below. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Site Plan shall 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 any Eugene-Springfield Fire Department requirements as may be necessary to accommodate 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. 3. The site construction plans shall include notes detailing drinking water protection practices to be used on the site, as detailed in Finding 61 of the Staff Report and Planning Commission Decision on the modified Site Plan Review application, Case TYP215-00012. 4. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a paved driveway apron that extends at least 18 feet into the site as measured from the western edge of the South 42nd Street right-of-way. 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 January 18, 2016). The Final Site Plan application form and fee information is available on the City’s website here: http://www.springfield- or.gov/DPW/Permits.htm#LandUsePermits. In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 – 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed and approved. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. NOTICE & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, Notice of the Planning Commission decision on this matter shall be mailed by staff to all parties to the decision within five (5) days. A Development Agreement is also 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. Attachment 1, Page 13 of 14 Page 14 of 14 APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is associated with the Type III Discretionary Use Request initiated by Case TYP315-00003 (approved by the Springfield City Council on July 20, 2015), 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 5.1-135.F and 5.3-115.B which provide 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 November 5, 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 1, Page 14 of 14 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 2 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 3 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 4 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 5 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 6 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 7 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 8 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 9 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 10 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 11 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 12 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 13 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 14 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 15 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 16 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 17 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 18 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 19 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 20 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 21 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 22 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 23 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 24 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 25 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 26 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 27 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 28 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 29 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 30 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 31 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 32 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 33 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 34 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 35 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 36 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 37 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 38 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 39 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 40 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 41 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 42 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 43 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 44 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 45 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 46 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 47 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 48 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 49 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 50 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 51 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 52 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 53 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 54 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 55 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 56 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 57 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 58 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 59 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 60 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 61 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 62 of 64 Attachment 2, Page 63 of 64 EUGCLEARWATER4164 JASPER RDSPRINGFIELD, OR 97478DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS AND ADVISE CONSULTANTS OF ANY ERRORS OROMISSIONS. NO VARIATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO WORKSHOWN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTENAPPROVAL. ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS DRAWING ARESUPERSEDED BY THE LATEST REVISION. ALL DRAWINGS ANDSPECIFICATIONS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ACOMCORPORATION.Revision No:Sheet No:Project Manager:Designer:Professional of Record:Drafter:Project Number:Date:08/21/15RMRMRJAM3Drawing Title:Project Info:A&E Team:Client:No.DateRevisionA0B05/26/15GENERATOR REVISIONC O N S U L T I N G I N C . REGIST EREDPROFESSIONALREGIST E REDPROFESSIONALENGINEERENGI NEER18355PEOREGONMARCH19,19 96MARCH19,19 96RAYMONDH.JACOB SONRAYMONDH.JACOB SON06/30/1710/20/1490% PZD REVISION12/11/14100% FZD FINAL SETImplementation Team:1304/27/15ZONING SUBMITTALSIGNED: 08/21/1508/21/15COMPOUND REVISIONAcomPROPOSEDSITE PLANA-010"30'30'15'22"x34" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"11"x17" SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"S. 42ND STREET NTAX LOT18020523 100ZONING:COMMUNITYCOMMERCIALHORACE STREETEXISTINGBUILDINGTOREMAINEXISTINGGRAVELDRIVE TOREMAINTAX LOT18020523 101ZONING:COMMUNITYCOMMERCIALTAX LOT18020522 1400ZONING:COMMUNITYCOMMERCIALTAX LOT18020523ZONING: MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIALTAX LOT18020523 206ZONING: MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIAL(E) PROPERTY LINE (194.65')(E) PROPERTY LINE (148.90')(E ) PROPERTY L INE (141 .80 ' )(E) PROPERTY LINE (138.06')(E) PROPERTY LINE (139.83')(E) PROPERTY LINE (509.78')PROPOSED VZW UGPOWER & FIBERCONDUITSEXISTINGUTILITYXFMREXISTINGTELCOVAULT53'-9"±TAX LOT18020524 100ZONING:LOW DENSITYRESIDENTIALTAX LOT18020521 100ZONING:LOW DENSITYRESIDENTIALPROPOSED VZW 85'-0"MONOPINE25'-0"±25'-0"±7'-0"±PUBLIC UTILITY ANDSIDEWALK EASEMENTPER DOCUMENT2006-0739837'-0"±PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOCUMENT 99020274HORACE STREETRIGHT-OF-WAYPER DOCUMENT2006-073983EXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING GRASSAREA TO REMAINNOTE:SITE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THEWELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA PERCITY OF SPRINGFIELD WELLHEADPROTECTION AREA MAPWELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA DELINEATION LINE (APPROXIMATE)ZONE OF CONCENTRATION (99-yr TOT)10'10'30'85'85' SET-BACK LINE (1 TO 1 TOWER HEIGHT SETBACK) 30' FRONT SET-BACK LINE10' S IDE SET -BACK L INE 10' SIDE SET-BACK LINEEXISTING PROPERTY SF:85,490 sfPROPOSED SHELTER SF:312 sfPROPOSED TOWER FOUNDATION SF:400 sf (ESTIMATE)PERCENTAGE OF NEWIMPERVIOUS SURFACETO PROPERTY SF:0.83%PROPOSED SITE PLANIMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS40'40'TAX LOT18020523 100140'-5"±1A-1.1NEW ASPHALT ENTRYPER FIRE DEPARTMENTREQUIREMENTS18'-0"PROPOSED SITEACCESS PATHSITE PLAN NOTES:·THE CUT/FILL OF THEPROPOSED WIRELESSINSTALLATION ISNEGLIGIBLE·THERE IS NO PROPOSEDGRADING·FIRE ACCESS AND WATERSUPPLY REQUIREMENTSWILL NOT APPLY AS LONGAS THERE ARE NOT MORETHAN 2 "U" OCCUPANCIESON THIS TAX LOT PER 2014SPRINGFIELD FIRE CODE503.1.1 EXCEPTION 3·FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS:140' NORTH OFPROPOSED SITE ON S.42ND STREET470' SOUTH OFPROPOSED SITE ONJASPER ROAD1A-7REFER TO TOPOGRAPHICALSURVEY SHEET FOR SITEDRAINAGE402'-2"±107'-4"±260'-6"±90' RA D I U S MIN. DI S T A N C E F R O M ADJAC E N T P A R C E L CORN E R P O S T Exhibit A-1Attachment 2, Page 64 of 64 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON SITE PLAN REVIEW + CASE NO. TYP215-00012 + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, + AND ORDER NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant submitted a modified Site Plan Review application for construction of a 90-foot tall monopine tower (a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications facility) with fenced enclosure and equipment shelter at 4164 Jasper Road (Assessor’s Map 18-02-05-23, Tax Lot 100). The site is within the Community Commercial (CC) District and the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Sections 4.3-145.H and 5.17-105.B.2.g list moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities as requiring Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review in the CC District. The Springfield City Council approved a Discretionary Use request for the property on July 20, 2015 thereby enabling a decision on the modified Site Plan by the Planning Commission. 1. On May 1, 2015 the following application for Site Plan Review was accepted: Allow for a 90-foot tall wireless telecommunications system facility (cellular tower) with fenced enclosure and equipment shelter in the Community Commercial District, Case Number TYP215-00012, Lauren Russell, Smartlink LLC, applicant. On September 28, 2015 the applicant submitted a modified Site Plan that repositions the cellular tower approximately 200 feet to the west of the original location. 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code. Public notification and request for comments, pursuant to Section 5.1-130.B of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On October 20, 2015 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application for Site Plan Review with the adjusted tower and compound location. The Development & Public Works Department staff notes including criteria of approval, findings, and recommended conditions of approval, along with the testimony received at the public hearing, have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the requested Site Plan Review application is consistent with the criteria of Section 5.17-125 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact, conclusions, and conditions of approval in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) attached hereto. ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that Case Number TYP215-00012, Site Plan Review application, be approved. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2015. It is effective the date it is mailed to all parties to the decision, which in this case is October 21, 2015. Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2 EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL This approval expires two (2) calendar years after the Notice of Decision issued by the Planning Commission unless extended in accordance with the provisions of SDC Section 5.17-140. APPEAL Pursuant to SDC Sections 5.1-135 and 5.2-155, this Type II decision is final unless appealed to the Springfield City Council in accordance with SDC Section 5.3-120. Only those persons who participated either orally or in writing have standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. An appeal application shall be filed with the Director within 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission’s decision being mailed out (ie. by 5:00 pm on November 5, 2015) to be considered valid. The appeal application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the City Council ($250.00). The filing fee will be refunded to the appellant if one or more of the appeal allegations are upheld by the City Council, or if the decision is amended, remanded or reversed. _______________________________ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2