The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 03 19 WSCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, March 19, 2014 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James and Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Salladay, and Vohs. Also present were Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Supervising Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall , City Engineer Ken Vogeney, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Management Support Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. ABSENT Commissioner Bean- Excused Commissioner Kirschenmann - Excused 1. Cell Tower Application – New Cingular Wireless PCD, LLC TYP314-00002 & TYP214- 00001 - The tower facility is proposed for the southwest corner of the Courtsports complex at 2728 Pheasant Blvd. The location is zoned Community Commercial. The surrounding properties are zoned for commercial and multi-family development. The tower is located about 140 feet from the nearest residential dwellings, a complex of duplex homes and The Pointe condominium development. Moderate Visibility tower facilities are permitted in the Community Commercial zone. The New Cellular engineers have provided evidence of a substantial service gap in the Gateway area (Attachment 2, .PDF page 80). They have also shown that collocation on other towers in the area would achieve their coverage objectives. The engineering report also tested the viability of constructing a 70-foot tower instead of the proposed 120-foot facility. The shorter tower would not provide the needed coverage. In work session, Commission members expressed concern about the appearance of the faux pine tree. Staff has contacted the New Cellular representative about possible alternative tree designs or other options for camouflaging the facility. Staff has scheduled time in work session on March 19th to brief the Commission on possible alternatives in advance of the hearing. Staff has prepared a staff report and recommendation (Attachment 1) based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 4.3-145 (F) and SDC Section 5.17-125. The findings presented by staff provide a substantive basis for approving the proposed tower installation as conditioned. No public comments have been received in response to the mailed notice to owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed tower at this writing. The applicant’s packet is quite extensive. The following list of key elements is offered as a guide to the application and exhibits. The page numbers are “.pdf” document page numbers. Site Plan, pg. 55; Applicant’s Narrative in response to the approval standards, pg. 64; Exhibit 1—RF Justification showing service gap analysis, pg. 79; and Exhibit 8—Photo Simulations pg. 118. An updated Exhibit 1-RF Justification was recently received from the applicant (Attachment 3) which shows how collocation leaves gaps in service. Mark Metzger Senior Planner reminded the commission about what they spoke about at the last work session. Tonight he would like to talk about what makes a cell tower attractive and what City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes March 19, 2014 Page 2 doesn’t work. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of other cell Mono Poles around the country. One of the slides is a picture of the mono pole that was described in the Site Plan and in the Commissioners packets. One of the decisions that needs to be made tonight is …………… all of the branches where uniform and ……. The tree in the packet the branches spread to about …………. There are other options that will be presented tonight during the public hearing for the commissioners to chose from. At the apex of the tower you need more foliage that comes down the length of the pole. Factors affecting the appearance of monopoles. • Density of branches per foot • Length of the branches • Coverage of the antenna at the apex of the tower • How far down the pole the • • • • Mark then present 5 options of different trees and how they can cover the mono poles. 1. 3 Branches per foot with antenna socks 2. 3 Branches per foot with antenna socks 3. 3 Branches per foot with antenna socks 4. 2 Branches per foot 5. 2.25 Branches per foot Mark reminded the Commission that it would be best if the Commission can decide what it is that they are leaning towards and hopefully make a decision tonight. Commissioner James Commissioner Salladay the thing she didn’t like is how sparse it was, she likes #5 and #3 but would like to see it be taller. Looking for something that looks more natural Commissioner Moe Commissioner Vohs, question mark about the 120”, as far has he is concerned he likes any of the 5 options presented tonight. Commissioner Nelson likes #4 best C0mmissioner James likes a real natural look, so likes like Commissioner Salladay likes #1 and #4, concern he has is that the tree look as natural as possible. Commissioner Salladay asked if they chose #1 how low can the branches go on the pole. City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes March 19, 2014 Page 3 Commissioner Vohs asked if another provider comes in would they be held to the same standard. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Management Support Specialist