Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Hearings Officer Packet - 02/24/2004
HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY -FEBRUARY 23, 2004 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (rDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 REQUEST: The applicant (representing Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency) is seeking conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150-foot monopole and a 10-foot x 20-foot communications shelter to house associated support equipment. The proposed facility is located within a Historic District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic district standards. LOCATION: 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM 25111 BC Tax Lot 2600. ZONE: R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Historic Overlay District (HD). Wireless communication facilities are conditionally permitted in the HD Overlay District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.740, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 1 of 1 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard 13125 SW Ball Blvd. 4Iigard,Oregon 97223 Accounts Payable • ❑ Tearsheet Notice ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Legal Notice TT 10 3 5 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of thy] ga rd-Tualatin T1,mes a newspaper of general circulaltion as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and st te* that the WCCCA Public Iiearing~COP2003-00010,flonopole Tower a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 5,2004 kvR~Ieh Jvl~ Subscribed and sworn to efore me this5th day of February, 2004 0 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS Not Pfor Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 344589 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2005 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday February 23, 2004 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171, or by e-mail to morgan@ci.tigard.or.us. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-0001ONARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 > WCCCA (Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency) MONOPOLE TOWER < REQUEST: The applicant is seeking conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150-foot monopole and a 10-foot x 20-foot communications shelter to house associated support equipment. The proposed facility is located within a Historic District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic district standards. LOCATION: 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM 2S 111 BC, Tax Lot 2600. ZONE: R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. (HD), Historic Overlay District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community levelopment Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 1 o oin • 111i1NHY MAC CUP2003-00010 VAR2003.00094 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER f L__.__..___ _ ,~Al 000K_ T I k '~j tI . v LE-RA Gr2aIB TT 10357 - Publish February 5, 2004. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE CITY OF TIGARD Community Development S6apingA Better Community NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY FEBRUARY 23, 2004 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 FILE TITLE: WCCCA (Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency) MONOPOLE TOWER OWNER: Tigard Water District Attn: Ed Wegner 8777 SW Burnham Tigard, OR 97224 APPLICANT: Greenstreet Architects Attn: Randy Tomic PO Box 82125 Portland, OR 97282 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter to house associated support equipment. The proposed facility is located within a Historic. District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic district standards LOCATION: 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM 2S111BC, Tax Lot 2600. ZONE: R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. (HD), Historic Overlay District APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. 0 0. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MORGAN TRACY AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL TO morgan@ci.tigard.or.us. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2004 PAGE 1 OF I FILE NAME: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Na e, A dress, Zip Code and hone No. I /~~go ~LcJ o / Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Z' Code and Phone No. 6tA `J Q. v Q-~ 1 $'I 0 %z;kJ 1 bz4 5&- OYT-- Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~'i s w G ° ~ i"" Name Address Zi Code and Phone No 1 N Ad Zi C d , , p . ame, ress, p o e and Phone No. eo ,~Jvg elloo sod - 1 / a; ~ V/ 2 Name Addr Zi C d d Ph N 4 A d , ess, p o e an one o. Name, d s, Zip Code and Phone No. ( i Ttk Ae.f+e Wr lcueIr '~-b SN I Sint coo Name, Address-, Zip- Code-and -Phone-No- . 1 _ TP-r a r-4 or- a 7 z. z q . Name Address, Zip Co a and Phone No. 3 I, / D-e i'u ~Y ' Z Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. -T'Name, dwiss',-Zi-pCode and Phone go. 1 L~~ G 1'VkaZC F $a~ ti41,~$5 SW (aLI ilcA04 CiA conq Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application for a conditional use permit and a) F I N A L O R D E R variance for an emergency communications facility, including) CUP2003-00010 a 140-foot tall tower and an accessory structure in the R-3.5 ) VAR2003-00094 zone at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane in the City of Tigard, OR) (WCCCA) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency ("WCCA"), requests approval of a Type III conditional use permit for a 140-foot tall monopole tower and antenna array and a related 10-foot x 20-foot equipment building and associated development.I The proposed tower and accessory building and equipment will be situated in a roughly 2,000- square foot leased area in the south end of a five-acre parcel at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; also known as tax lot 2600, WCTM 2S11113C (the "site"). The Tigard Water District owns the site. The site now contains two water reservoirs and associated structures in the northwest part of the site. The John Tigard House, a historic structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in the northeast corner of the site. There is a dense grove of trees south of the John Tigard House. There are several large concrete bins used for storage of gravel, sand and similar materials at the south end of the area that is developed for use by the water agency. The proposed tower and accessory building will be south of the bins. The applicant proposes to enclose the leased area with a sight-obscuring fence, built of chain-link material with wooden slats and to plant arborvitae shrubs on the east, west and south sides of the fence. The applicant proposes to retain existing vegetation around the fence, including several large Douglas firs. The applicant proposes to paint the portion of the tower below the tree line a green color to further blend in with its surroundings. The applicant will place gravel over the remainder of the fenced enclosure. 2. The site is subject to the historic district overlay zone. The applicant requests a variance to the design standards for structures in the historic district, TMC 18.740.040.D. 3. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held a public hearing regarding the applications. City staff recommended that the hearings officer deny the applications. The applicant testified in support of the application. Seven persons testified orally against the application. Other persons testified in writing. The hearings officer held open the public record for three weeks to allow the parties to offer additional written testimony and evidence. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed tower complies with the variance criteria in CDC 18.370.010.C(2) and the historic overlay district standards of CDC 18.740.040.D; and I Originally the applicant proposed a 150-foot tall tower. After the public hearing the applicant proposed to reduce the tower to 140 feet and, if obstructing trees can be removed, to as little as 130 feet. 0 • b. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed tower location with the conditional use standards in CDC 18.330.030; and c. Whether other public or private wireless communication providers should be prohibited from co-locating on the proposed tower. 4. In this final order, the hearings officer approves the conditional use permit and variance based on the findings and conclusions provided and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on February 23, 2004. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed that he visited the site and invited witnesses to question and rebut his observations. He also disclosed that he has prior experience related to wireless telecommunication facility siting and regulations, and invited questions about that experience. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated February 17, 2004 (the "Staff Report"). a. He opined that the applicant failed to bear the burden of proof that the proposed tower will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the historic overlay district. The historic designation applies to the entire land area of the site, based on the words in the comprehensive plan. The proposed monopole tower will not conserve the historic character of the site. The existing water tanks were placed on the site prior to the adoption of the historic overlay district. The applicant failed to provide sufficient substantial evidence demonstrating that the tower must be as tall as proposed and that it must be located on this site. Therefore he recommended that the hearings officer deny the applications. b. He opined that the applicant could use a "stealth" design to camouflage the tower as an historic-theme structure or a fir tree in order to enhance its compatibility with the historic house on the site. c. He noted that the power lines along the site's frontage already are underground. Therefore he recommended that the hearings officer delete recommended condition of approval 3 if the hearings officer approves the application. d. He testified that nothing in the TMC precludes the city from prohibiting other service providers from co-locating on the proposed tower. However he opined that a condition prohibiting co-location on this facility would be contrary to city policy. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000/0/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 2 9 0 e. He opined that Murdock Street is unlikely to be extended through the site in the foreseeable future. Extension of Murdock Street through the site at this time is consistent with the city's policy to provide connectivity. However the city has no plans to extend the street at this time and it is not listed on the city's capital improvement plan ("CIP"). There is no developable land in the area that warrants the street extension. 3. John Hartsock represented the applicant, WCCCA. a. He testified that the proposed facility is a key component of the applicant's plan to upgrade the emergency (911) communications system in Washington County. Computer models generated by Motorola, the applicant's consultant, demonstrate that this site is the best location for the facility, based on the location of existing and proposed towers and the communication needs of the agency. b. He testified that the proposed tower height is necessary to allow the antennas to receive/broadcast over the tops of surrounding trees. Although the proposed tower is currently 19 feet or more above the surrounding trees, the trees will continue to grow over the 15 to 20 year useful life of the tower. The trees may grow up and block transmissions from a shorter tower. The applicant will not remove any living trees on the site to accommodate the tower. The applicant will only remove dead or dying trees on the site that the City Forester identified for removal. c. He opined that the FAA is unlikely to require lighting on the tower, because it is less than 200 feet high, and it is not located in proximity to aircraft flight path. d. He opined that the tower will not have a significant impact on the historic character of the site. The Tigard Water Bureau uses the site as a maintenance yard. The John Tigard House was moved to the site in 1979 from its original location near Pacific Highway. The State Historic Preservation Office concluded that the proposed facility will not impact the historic character of the site. He opined that the "stealth" tower designs proposed by the city to blend in with the historic character of the site will have a greater adverse visual impact on surrounding properties than the proposed monopole tower. e. He argued that it is not feasible to co-locate the facility on existing wireless communication towers in the area, because the existing towers are not tall enough to serve the applicant's needs. The proposed public safety communication antenna require higher elevations than the nearby cell towers to obtain the necessary coverage. f. He testified that construction of the proposed tower will cause impacts for a short period of time. The applicant can complete construction of the proposed monopole tower in two to three weeks. g. He requested that the hearings officer hold the record open in order to submit additional evidence into the record. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 3 t 4. Robert and Betty Banford and their attorney Christine Cook testified against the applications. The Banfords own the home on 104`" Avenue closest to the tower site. a. Mr. Banford testified that the Water District has added a number of new uses to the site in recent years that impact surrounding residents. Therefore the city should consider the cumulative impacts of the existing, proposed and potential future uses of the site in reviewing this application. He noted that there is an existing generator on the site. Therefore the city must consider the cumulative noise impact of the second generator the applicant proposed install. He expressed concern that prior heavy equipment activities on the site killed or injured some of the existing trees. Removal of the damaged trees will eliminate the existing visual buffer on the site and increase the visual impact of the facility. He questioned whether the applicant can reduce the height of the tower once the dead and dying trees are removed. He argued that the proposed tower will reduce their property value by at least $10,000, based on their real estate broker's estimate. The perception of adverse health impacts from RF energy generated by the tower will influence potential buyers. b. Ms. Banford introduced photographs of the site and surrounding area. She noted that there are a number of large trees within the Murdock Street right of way south of the site. The city will remove those trees, and the visual buffer they provide, when it extends Murdock Street. c. Ms. Cook testified that the Banfords are not opposed to emergency communications towers in general. However this application does not comply with the applicable approval criteria. She argued that the city should consider the existing and future uses and conditions on the site. She argued that the applicant cannot rely on the existing vegetation on the site as a permanent visual buffer, because the vegetation is constantly changing. The applicant proposed to remove a number of dead and dying trees on the site. i. She argued that the applicant does not comply with TMC 18.370.010.C. Any hardship is self-imposed by the applicant, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary. The fact that the city already owns this site is not relevant to the applicable variance approval criteria. Neighboring residents suggested a number of alternative sites for the facility. ii. She argued that the proposed facility will be detrimental to other properties in the area in violation of TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(a). The testimony from the Banfords' real estate broker demonstrates that the facility will have an adverse impact on the value of surrounding properties. iii. She argued that additional antennas on the tower will increase the adverse impacts of the facility. In addition, other service providers may need to top the surrounding trees in order to obtain adequate service, further increasing the visual impacts of the tower. Therefore the city should prohibit other public and private communications providers from co-locating on the tower. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000/0/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 4 9 0 iv. She argued that the proposed 15-foot tall arborvitae trees will do little or nothing to screen views of the tower. The applicant should be required to plant taller trees to provide an immediate buffer if the city approves the application. 5. Susan Devers introduced a copy of her written testimony. 6. Genevieve Ford, president of the Calway Hill homeowners association, introduced a petition in opposition to the proposed tower. She argued that the tower is too close to surrounding homes on Canterbury Lane. Noise from construction on the site and operation of the existing and proposed generators will have a significant adverse impact. The trees on the site will not provide an adequate visual buffer. The applicant proposed to remove several dead and dying trees, and the city will remove additional trees when it extends Murdock Street through the site. She opined that the tower is likely to have an adverse impact on the value of surrounding properties. 7. Janette Wilder objected to the appearance of the tower and its impact on property values. She argued that the tower is not a proper use in a residential area. She questioned why the applicant did not co-locate the facility on an existing tower in the area. 8. Eric Margeson expressed concerns with the loss of the existing buffer on the site. 9. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open for one week for all parties to introduce new evidence and argument. The hearings officer held open the record for a second week for all parties to respond to the new evidence and argument. The hearings officer held the record open for a third week to allow the applicant to submit a closing argument without new evidence. The record in this matter closed at 5 PM on Monday, March 15, 2004. Two memoranda from Mr. Tracy list the exhibits received at the hearing and during the open record period. The hearings officer incorporates that list into the record. a. In its closing argument, the applicant submitted a letter from Jeffrey Johnson, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Fire Chief. The hearings officer finds that Chief Johnson's letter contains new evidence to which the public did not have an opportunity to respond. Therefore this letter must be excluded from the record in this case. The hearings officer has not considered that letter. This is consistent with TMC 18.390.050.D(4(b) and ORS 197.763(6)(e), which prohibit an applicant from submitting new evidence in a final argument. See Ms. Cook's March 18, 2004 objection to that evidence. C. DISCUSSION 1. The overall issue in this case is whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof by providing sufficient substantial evidence showing that the proposed wireless telecommunication facility at this location does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard CDC for a conditional use permit and variance.2 2 CDC 18.330.030 provides as follows: Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000/0/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 5 2. The Staff Report identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of city staff in that report. That is, substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a CUP, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the development consistent with the requirements of the TMC. Therefore hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except to the extent they are inconsistent with the findings and discussion in this final order. a. The city must base its decision on "substantial evidence," which is evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of a serious matter. If, based on such evidence, a proposed use can comply with applicable approval standards subject to conditions of approval, the city must approve the use subject to those conditions.3 3. The hearings officer finds that the application, as amended and subject to conditions provided herein, does or can comply with the approval criteria for a variance to the historic district development standards, based on the following. a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of Title 18 or to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(a). i. The height of the tower will be the minimum height necessary to serve its intended purpose and not more than 140 feet. The applicant will remove trees on the site that the City Forester determined are dead or dying and therefore pose a hazard. Tall trees on private property owned by the Knutsons southwest of the site, which obstruct microwave signals The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. 3 ORS 197.522 provides as follows: A local government shall approve an application for a permit, authorization or other approval necessary for the subdivision or partitioning of, or construction on, any land that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations or shall impose reasonable conditions on the application to make the proposed activity consistent with the plan and applicable regulations. A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval. (emphasis added) Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 6 • • between the site and a WCCCA tower site to the northwest. The Knutsons have offered to negotiate with the applicant to top or remove the trees in order to reduce the needed height of the tower to as little as 130 feet. Exhibit P. The applicant agreed to enter into such negotiations if the trees in question obstruct the microwave signal after relatively minor adjustments in tower location as the applicant proposed to reduce obstructions and maximize the buffering effect of vegetation remaining between the tower and the Banford home to the south. See p. 2 of Exhibit U. ii. The applicant also agreed to camouflage the top 20 feet of the tower, that portion which extends above surrounding trees, by designing it to look like an evergreen tree or other "stealth" design. The hearings officer finds that such a stealth design is warranted to minimize visual impacts of the tower on the historic resource. The cost of such design does not preclude requiring it, because it is necessary to comply with the relevant approval criteria. The hearings officer finds that the lower portions of the tower and the ground-mounted equipment will not be visible from the John Tigard House, because the existing and proposed trees and shrubs on the site will screen these facilities. iii. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed facility will not be materially detrimental to the cultural resources (the John Tigard House) and properties in the historic district, because it will be screened from view and unobtrusive to the maximum extent feasible from properties subject to the historic overlay zone. iv. The hearings officer finds that alleged adverse impacts of the variance to surrounding properties outside of the historic overlay zone are not relevant to this criterion, because those properties are not located in the historic overlay district. The applicant is seeking a variance only to the historic district approval criteria, which are intended to protect properties subject to the historic designation. Telecommunications towers are allowed as a conditional use, without a variance, elsewhere in the R-3.5 zone. b. The hearings officer finds that there are special circumstances peculiar to the site over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(b). i. The hearings officer finds, based on the applicant's coverage maps, that this site provides the best location for the proposed facility due to its topography and location in relation to the areas where additional radio coverage is required and the location of other existing and planned antenna facilities. The applicant has no control over these circumstances. Alternative locations analyzed by the applicant do not provide the required coverage in the surrounding area. See Attachment A of Exhibit A. Neighboring residents are correct that the alternative sites provide greater coverage in certain areas; i.e., the Bull Mountain site provides greater coverage in the western areas of the county. However the western area of the county already is covered by other existing and proposed facilities. There is no need for additional coverage in that area. The alternative sites do not provide adequate coverage in the immediate vicinity of this site. The topography of the site creates a "shadow" area with limited radio coverage. Compare the coverage maps for the proposed Canterbury site, p. 8 of Attachment A of Exhibit A, with the Bull Mountain, Sexton, and other sites analyzed at pp. 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23. Although the Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 7 • • "shadow" area is relatively small in comparison to the overall coverage, it could have a significant impact on emergency service providers operating in that area. Similarly the hearings officer is persuaded that sites on hills to the east are not practicable alternatives; that is what the system is moving away from based on their experience that it does not work well. There are no existing structures on which the applicant can place the needed antennas. c. Wireless communications facilities are permitted as a conditional use in the R- 3.5 zone. See Table 18.510.1. The hearings officer finds that the proposed use is permitted under Title 18. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed variance complies with TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(c). d. The hearings officer finds that the proposed variance complies with TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(d), because the variance will not increase the impacts of the facility on physical and natural features more than would occur without the variance. As noted above, wireless communications facilities are permitted in the R-3.5 zone. The applicant will design and screen the facility to mitigate its impact on the surrounding historic district. e. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's hardship is not self-imposed, and the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship, based on the modified design. TMC 18.370.010.C(2)(e) i. The hearings officer finds that the hardship is not self-imposed, because the facility must be located on this site in the historic district in order to provide the necessary radio coverage in the surrounding area and with other facilities in the county. The applicant has no control over the physics of radio communications. There are no alternative sites that are located outside of the historic overlay district, that provide the required coverage in the local area and that are large enough to allow construction of the tower in compliance with setback requirements. To the extent the neighbors offered testimony to the contrary, the hearings officer finds that testimony is not supported by substantial evidence and/or is not as persuasive as that provided by the applicant. ii. The hearings officer finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. The applicant's supplemental evidence, Exhibit A, demonstrates that the tower must extend above the surrounding trees in order to "communicate" with other towers in the WCCCA system. However the tower need not be more than 140 feet tall if situated near the east end of the concrete bins on the site, thereby avoiding the signal barrier created by the tall trees southwest of the site. The applicant may be able to reduce the tower to as low as 130 feet by removing or topping the tall trees located off-site. The applicant agreed to negotiate with the owners of properties on which such trees are situated and to lower the tower height based on the result of those negotiations. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to make a diligent, good faith effort to conduct such negotiations and, if the negotiations are successful, to lower the tower to the maximum extent feasible. Condition of approval 4 should be modified to that effect. 4. The hearings officer finds that the application, as amended, complies with the approval criteria for a conditional use permit, based on the following. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000101VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 8 • • a. The hearings officer finds that the site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use. TMC 18.330.030.A(1). i. Neighboring residents and city staff question the setback measurements shown on the applicant's site plan. However the hearings officer finds that it is feasible to relocate the facility on the site and/or reduce the tower height as necessary to accommodate the proposed facility in compliance with the setback standards of TMC 18.798.060.B(3). The applicant should be required to provide a survey of demonstrating the actual distance between the base of the proposed tower and the property line to the south. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect as recommended by city staff. ii. The hearings officer finds that the possibility that the city might widen the Murdock Road right of way by taking five feet from the site, reducing the setback between the tower and the south boundary of the site, is not substantial evidence that such widening will occur; it is speculative. The city has not taken any action or adopted a standard to widen Murdock Road. Setbacks are measured from the existing property lines. b. The hearings officer finds that the impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. TMC 18.330.030.A(2). i. It was alleged that the proposed tower would have significant adverse visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. (A) The hearings officer acknowledges the tower will be visually incongruous because of its relatively great height compared to other structures in the vicinity. However the record does not include substantial evidence that the height or appearance of the tower will have such a significant adverse visual impact that it renders the remainder of the subject property or surrounding properties unsuited for existing or permitted uses or that it will significantly alter the visual character of the area. That is, although the tower's height will make it visible from vantage points in the surrounding area, that is all it does. It is visible. It does not affect the potential use of surrounding property. Although some people may not want to see the tower, views of the tower do not have a significant impact of use of surrounding properties. Also the site and surrounding area includes a number of trees that the tower will mimic, and the tower is separated by significant distances from existing development and public rights of way. The tower and antennas have a relatively narrow cross section, minimizing their visual impact by design. They will be constructed of materials and/or painted and designed so that they do not create a significant source of visual blight or glare. The applicant agreed to design the top of the tower to mimic the trees in the area or to use other stealth designs, further reducing the visual impact of the tower. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 9 • 0 (B) All things being equal, the significance of views of the tower will vary inversely with distance from the tower site. That is, the farther away the viewer, the less significant the tower, because it occupies a smaller portion of a person's view. But the hearings officer finds such a greater visual impact to nearby and uphill neighbors, without more, is not a fatal flaw for the site based on the TMC. The applicant reduced visual impacts of the tower by siting it in a grove of existing mature trees and away from existing residences to the extent feasible. Visual impacts can be further mitigated by requiring substantial landscaping between the tower structure and abutting properties and roads and by use of a stealth design. Although visual effects cannot be avoided completely, the hearings officer is not persuaded that the visual impacts are so significant that the application violates the Code. (C) The tower and antennas will appear as relatively narrow cylindrical objects against a background of trees or sky for most viewers. Although visible, the tower and antennas are passive objects in a large viewing shed. Their existence does not adversely affect any identified significant natural or cultural resources based on the record. Also the proposed tower is one of many towers in the region generally. There is no evidence that any of the towers in other areas changed the character of those areas. On the contrary, those areas remain largely unchanged in character except for the towers in their midst. So the appearance of a tower in this location is no more likely to induce a change in character here than towers did elsewhere. (D) The applicant proposed to provide additional landscaping to screen the lower portion of the tower from off-site views, particularly views from the nearest homes to the south. In addition, the applicant agreed to paint the tower to minimize its visual impact, i.e., so it blends in with the scenic background or sky. The goal of the landscape plan should be to visually obscure the base of the tower from view from off-site to the extent it does not conflict with the safe function of the tower. (E) Neighbors argued that the trees and other vegetation on and near the site will not provide a visual buffer if they are removed in the future for construction of Murdock Street. However the hearings officer finds that such concerns, while reasonable, are speculative. The applicant did not propose to extend Murdock Street with this application, and it is not required to do so by any condition of approval. There is no evidence that any potential development in the area will require extension of this street, and the city has not adopted a plan to do so. In addition, the extension of Murdock Street will remove only trees within the right of way. Other trees on the site, which provide a background for the tower when viewed from the south, will remain on the site. The applicant proposed to retain the majority of the existing trees on the site. The applicant will remove only those trees that the City Forester identified as dead, dying or hazardous. The applicant is required to implement measures to protect the remaining trees from impacts during construction. See condition 9. The applicant is required to plant additional trees and shrubs on the site to further buffer the facility. This landscaping will grow up over time and eventually replace vegetation lost to other causes. Although the amount of buffer may change over time, adequate vegetation will remain to mitigate views of the tower from surrounding properties. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000101VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 10 • • ii. Antennas on the proposed tower will generate electric and magnetic fields ("EMI's"). However those fields are at such a low energy level that there is no basis for finding that even long-term exposure can affect human health. If the proposed use does not cause the general public to be exposed to EMFs that exceed the maximum permissible exposure level permitted under regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC"), which the hearings officer finds it will not, the site is large enough to contain potential effects of such exposure. Off-site emissions will not be hazardous. (A) The level of EMFs emitted by the proposed facility will be several orders of magnitude lower than the maximum permissible exposure standard promulgated by the FCC.4 The US Environmental Protection Agency has declined to adopt a federal guidance standard or any standard regarding safe levels of exposure to EMFs.5 iii. It was alleged that the proposed tower will have adverse impacts on property value. (A) The applicant submitted a study prepared by a professional real estate appraiser, which concluded that cell towers in the county did not have an adverse impact on the value of surrounding homes. See Attachment C of Exhibit A. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's study is substantial evidence of the impact of the proposed tower on property value, not withstanding that it addressed cell towers rather than a microwave tower and the age of the homes studied differed from the neighborhood in this case. The similarities between the towers and sites are much greater than their differences for this purpose. Although the opponents disputed the credibility, methodology and conclusions of the analysis, they did not offer substantial evidence that the methodology was flawed or that the conclusions were wrong. (B) A number of property owners in the area offered their personal opinions that the proposed tower will have an adverse impact on the value of their properties. They based their opinions on conversations with real estate agents, appraisers and in some cases, their own experience as real estate agents. The property owners' opinions are substantial evidence. "[A]n owner of property is competent to give an opinion regarding its fair market value and diminution in value." Lunda v. Mathews, 46 Or App 701, 710, 613 P2d 63 (1980). However "the trier of fact [is] free to accord it whatever weight it deserve[s]." Id. (C) Given this conflicting testimony, the hearings officer is not persuaded that the proposed facility will have a significant impact on the value of abutting 4 See 47 USC 1.1310 for FCC standards for EMF exposure. Also see, IEEE STANDARD FOR SAFETY LEVELS WITH RESPECT TO HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RADIO FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS, 3 KHZ To 300 GHZ (IEEE C95.1- 1991) on which the FCC standards are based. 5 A letter from the EPA's regional administrator to Senator Phil Gramm (exhibit 12) states that "there is insufficient information available at present to enable the Environmental Protection Agency to advise you on any electrosensitive effects which may be associated with exposure to radiation from digital cellular base stations... Cellular telephone base stations emit radiation levels which fall below the guidelines recently promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission." Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 11 • • properties. The market study submitted by the applicant, based on examinations of actual property values near existing wireless communications towers, is more persuasive than neighbors' unsupported personal opinions. There is no evidence that neighboring residents are professional appraisers, or that they are otherwise experts in determining the value of property. The only potential relationship between the proposed use and surrounding residential properties is a visual one. People in the area generally will be able to see the elevated portions of the tower from numerous vantage points. From those vantage points, it will be visible because of its relatively greater height and manmade character. But, given the screening effect of the existing trees, the narrow width of the tower, the stealth design of at least the top of the tower, the finish and color of the tower, and the presence of a wooded background for the tower, the tower is not reasonably likely to have a significant impact of property value simply because it can be seen from off-site. Some people might not like to see a tower, and some people would not buy a property situated near a tower. But that does not sustain an assertion that the tower will reduce property values, particularly given the proliferation of such towers throughout the country. (D) Therefore the hearings officer finds that the site is not too small to accommodate potential property value effects. The hearings officer is persuaded that such effects will not occur after considering all of the substantial evidence in the whole record. iv. Concerns were expressed that operation of the emergency generator and other equipment on the site will cause noise that could impact abutting properties. The hearings officer finds, based on the information submitted by the applicant, that it is feasible to comply with the city's noise standard of 60 dBA. The applicant is required to provide a noise study demonstrating that the final design actually complies with this criteria. See condition 8. The applicant can install additional mufflers or noise baffles, enclose the generator or take other measures to ensure compliance with the noise standards. After the hearing the applicant also proposed to resituate the building to orient the noise from the generator so that the concrete storage bins and remainder of the Water District property will mitigate noise. The existing generator used by the Water District is not relevant, because it is not proposed as part of this application. v. Lighting on the tower could be obtrusive and a source of significant glare in the night sky. The Oregon State Department of Aviation ("OSDA") testified that aircraft warning lights are not required on the proposed tower. See Exhibit B. Therefore condition of approval 5 should be modified to prohibit lighting on the tower. vi. The hearings officer acknowledges the residents of the neighborhood oppose the tower. However popular support or opposition, per se, is not relevant to any applicable approval criterion. Basing a decision on popular opinion denies due process of law and is arbitrary. The hearings officer decision must be based on the relevant standards in the Code when the application was filed. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 12 • • vii. It was alleged that the proposed facility will be an attractive nuisance, because persons may attempt to climb the tower or commit other acts of a foolish or reckless nature. The hearings officer acknowledges that any unoccupied structure presents an opportunity for vandalism and other anti-social and criminal behavior. However there is no evidence that the proposed structure presents a greater risk of such behavior than any other structure. That is, the mere existence of the facility on this site does not promote any particular behavior. The applicant will fence the structure to restrict access to the extent feasible. There are no climbing pegs on the lower portion of the tower. The examiner acknowledges children or adults could still gain access to the facility and climb the tower. But that possibility alone is not enough to prohibit the facility if it is otherwise consistent with the law. Speculation is not substantial evidence. c. The hearings officer finds, based on the findings in the Staff Report, that all required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. Therefore the application complies with TMC 18.330.030.A(3). d. Several persons argued that the facility should not be located in a residential zone. However wireless communications facilities are permitted as a conditional use in the R-3.5 zone. TMC 18.TMC. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed use complies with the applicable requirements of the zoning district and the application complies with TMC 18.330.030.A(4). e. Wireless facilities are not listed in TMC 18.330.050. Therefore TMC 18.330.030.A(5) is inapplicable. f. The hearings officer finds, based on the findings in the Staff Report, that the proposal is or can be consistent with the supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of the code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. TMC 18.330.030.A(6). Conditions of approval are recommended to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. 5. The hearings officer finds it is in the public interest to prohibit co-location on this tower to minimize visual impacts of the tower. It is unlikely another wireless communications user will want to collocate its antenna(s) on the applicant's tower in this case, because surrounding trees below the top of the tower obstruct line-of-sight signals. Also the more antennas on the tower, the greater their visual impact on the historic district. Also such additional users would negate or conflict with the stealth design for the top of the tower. Although the city has a general policy encouraging co-location, that policy is subject to site- specific considerations. In this case, those considerations warrant a variation from the policy. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. 6. Construction on this site will temporarily cause increased noise, dust, traffic and other impacts on adjacent properties. However the Code does not contain standards regulating construction activities. This is only one of the many consequences of living in an urban area. The examiner finds that, while such impacts may occur, they are not significant enough to require specific limitations on construction other than those imposed by state law and the City Code. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 13 0 7. Several persons argued that the City should develop a comprehensive plan for uses and activities on the site and review the cumulative impacts of those activities prior to approving this application. Other persons argued that the city should address the potential future extension and widening of Murdock Street as part of the conditional use review. These are reasonable arguments, and, in a perfect world, such comprehensive decision-making would occur. However the hearings officer does not have authority to require the city to undertake such measures as part of the conditional use or variance reviews, because they are not relevant to applicable standards. The hearings officer's authority is limited to a review of the application before him. Neighbors can request that the City Council develop such a plan and address Murdock Street, or participate in capital improvements planning to address their concerns, because such matters are largely legislative in nature. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit and variance do or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Tigard Development Code for such applications, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 03-0010 and VAR 03-0094 (WCCCA Monopole), subject to the following conditions of approval: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: E Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall identify the access point to the facility. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall prepare a site plan that illustrates the current width of this alley and shows improvements, as necessary, to bring the paved width to 16 feet in order to comply with TDC18.810.030.A. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall prepare construction plans that show a paved driveway to the facility using the best management practices for construction of the paved area around trees, as prepared by a certified arborist. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure that the vision clearance area as described in 18.795 is met through removal of shrubbery, or other obstructions as necessary at the intersection of the driveway and street. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000101VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 14 • 0 3. The applicant shall submit a written statement from a licensed professional engineer with expertise in radio frequency engineering that the tower is the minimum height necessary to provide the intended radio coverage and communicate with other towers in the system, considering, inter alia, the ultimate location for the tower on the site (near the east end of the concrete bins), the trees the applicant has removed or will remove from the site, and the trees the applicant will remove or top from other private property (if any). The applicant shall make a diligent, good faith effort to obtain permission from owners of property in the vicinity to remove or top trees on their properties that do or may obstruct signals to and from the tower, and shall provide evidence of such efforts and their results to the planning director before approval of the building permit. If owners of such properties authorize the applicant to remove trees that obstruct signals subject to reasonable terms and conditions, the applicant shall do so and shall reduce the height of the tower to the extent practicable as a result. 4. Lighting is prohibited on the proposed tower. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the ap licant to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030(13) 4). 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise- creating device used by the protect does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(13)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC Section 7.40.140. The project's accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to protect the existing trees and vegetative screening on site: A. All removal of hazard and dead trees shall be undertaken in the least impacting manner possible, as established by a certified arborist. This may include restricting heavy machinery to presently paved areas, and leaving tree stumps intact. B. Establish a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees greater than 12-inch in diameter south of the proposed facility. This easement shall set forth the permitted and prohibited activities as determined by a certified arborist, and shall be recorded with Washington County. The boundaries of the easement shall be clearly marked on site. C. Create a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees within the easement area, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborist. D. Develop a landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible under story that will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. A minimum of four 15-foot-tall evergreens shall be included in this plan, and positioned where they will have the greatest screening effect from the properties to the south. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a survey prepared by a surveyor licensed in the State of Oregon that indicates the precise distance between the face of the proposed tower and the property line to the south. The survey shall also indicate the location and width of the Murdock Street right of way, in relation to the proposed tower. In no case shall the distance between the tower and property lines be less than the height of the proposed tower. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-00010/VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 15 i • 10. The applicant shall use a "stealth" design as proposed in Exhibit A, by designing at least the upper portion of the tower that extends above surrounding trees to appear as an evergreen tree or similar stealth design approved by the planning manager. 11. The proposed accessory building shall be situated as proposed at page 3 of Exhibit A so that the air-conditioning units are located at the north end of the building. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING SITE WORK: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 12. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 13. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall certify that the best management practices as provided by the certified arbonst for construction of the paved drive were followed in the construction of the access drive. Failure to follow these measures constitutes a violation of the conditions of approval and depending on the severity of damage incurred on the existing trees, a possible violation of the tree ordinance as well. Penalties as prescribed in the development code will be applicable. 14. Prior to final inspection, the landscaping shall be installed according to the previously required revised landscape pplan and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. 15. Prior to final inspection, the access way and parking space shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)(5). 16. Prior to final inspection the tower shall be painted a dark brown color below the tree line (510 foot elevation), similar to the color of the tree bark on the fir trees, instead of the proposed green color. The remainder of the tower shall be consistent with the stealth design required by condition 10, unless the FAA requires alternate marking. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE THE f11XTTTXTTTT1%Jf' !1727 Tf• A 7'Tf11%J nV 9rUi A DDT TPA NT- <.Vl\ 111\ V11\ V VLL1VAl iVl\. Vl' A X&J d Ai l JJi\.. I 1 Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 17. It is the continuing obligation of the applicant to ensure that the generator shall only be tested between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm and only during a weekday. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000101VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 16 • • 18. It is the continuing, obligation of the applicant to ensure that no signage is displayed on the facility apart m emergency contact information. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780 and the above noted restriction on signage. 19. The proposed tower shall be used only for antennas owned and operated by the property owner or WCCCA or their successor in interest. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. DATED this 1 st day of April 2004. I~Plj - Larry Epstein, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order CUP2003-000101VAR2003-00094 (WCCCA) Page 17 0 . 0 "TAB A" Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. • CHRISTINE M. COOK ATTORNEY AT LAW Fax (503) 228-4529 The Ambassador 1207 S.W. Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone (503) 248-0204 VIA FACSIMILE TO 503-684-7297 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL TO: March 18, 2004 Larry Epstein, Esq. City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer c/o Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 Re: Request to Reject New Evidence; Application by Greenstreet Architecture on Behalf of Washington County Consolidated Communications- Agency (WCCCA) for a Monopole-Tower; ; ....CUP .No. 2003-0.0010; VAR No. 2003-094 Dear Mr. Epstein: This letter is submitted on behalf of Robert and Betty Banford in opposition to the WCCCA application for a wireless communications tower. The Banfords hereby request the opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted by the applicant as part of its final argument allowed pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(e). This letter is the Banfords' response and their request that you rule that the new evidence in the applicants' submittal was not validly included therein, is rejected, and is not therefore part of the local record of your decision in this matter. ORS 197.763 governs the conduct of quasi-judicial land use hearings and decisions, including the hearing and decision on this application. That statute provides, in part, as follows: "(6)(e) Unless waived by the applicant, the local government shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application. The applicant's final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but shall not include any new evidence.' 'This provision is identical to Tigard Code Section 18.390.050.D.4.b. ORS 197.763(6)(e) as referred to in this letter also means section 18.390.050.D.4.b. ORS 197.763(6)(a) and (6)( c) in this letter also mean the analogous provisions at section 18.390.050.D.2, DA, and D.5. I.. lk 0 • Larry Epstein, Esq. March 18, 2004 Page 2 "(9) For purposes of this section: "(a) `Argument' means assertions and analysis regarding the satisfaction of violation of legal standards or policy believed relevant by the proponent to a decision. `Argument' does not include facts. "(b) `Evidence' means facts, documents, data or other information offered to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the decision. ,2 At the public hearing held February 23, 2004, the applicant's representative requested that the record be left open pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(a) and (6)( c). You granted that request, specifying that all parties were allowed until 5:00 p.m. March 1, 2004, to submit new evidence and argument, and until 5:00 p.m. March 8, 2004, to submit responses to the new evidence. In addition, you ruled that the applicant would then have 7 (seven) days, as provided by statute, or until 5:00 p.m. March 15, 2004 to submit its "last word." That last word, according to ORS 197.763(6)(e), 197.763(9), and the Tigard Code, is limited to "argument," which does not include "facts," and may not include new evidence. Those provisions mean, in a practical sense, that evidence, including facts, that are already present in the record may be referred to in the applicant's last argument, but that the applicant may not present any new evidence or facts in that submittal. The Hearings Officer should reject any new evidence contained in the WCCCA submittal of March 15, 2004. Attached to the letter from John Hartsock, submitted March 15 on behalf of the applicant, is a letter dated March 15, 2004 from Jeffrey D. Johnson, Fire Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, to Mr. David Austin, Director, WCCCA (Johnson letter). The Johnson letter contains assertions of fact and information that have not previously appeared in the City of Tigard's written record on this matter. Specifically, the following portions of the Johnson letter set forth new evidence, which is not allowed in the record at this state in the proceedings: 1. Some portions of page 1, paragraph 3, sentences 1 and 3 contain statements of fact that have not been previously made in the record; 2. The entirety of page 1, paragraph 4 is new to the record; 3. Page 2, paragraph 3 names alternative sites studied that had not been previously named in the record. 2ORS 197.763(9)(a) and (9)(b) are identical to Tigard Code 18.390.080.A.1.a and Lb. ORS 197.763(9)(a) or (9)(b) in this letter also means reference to the identical provision of the Tigard Municipal Code. Larry Epstein, Esq. March 18, 2004 Page 3 In essence, the entire Johnson letter, rather than presenting argument, is an evidentiary submittal, made to bolster the applicant's position that the record contains adequate evidence of the necessity for the proposed site (which is relevant to whether the hardship that would require a variance at this site is self-imposed by an applicant that is simply fixated on a particular site, when others would adequately serve its purpose). Because significant portions of this letter state facts and evidence not previously in the record, the Banfords request that the Hearings Office reject the entire letter, or at least the paragraphs listed above, as inadmissible to the record at this time. Alternatively, as the letter contains new evidence, it is appropriate to allow the Banfords to respond to it. ORS 197.763(6)( c). The Johnson letter summarizes and states evidentiary facts as hearsay, without attaching appropriate supporting documents and materials. For example, page 1, paragraph 4 summarizes determinations, engineering work and recommendations made by Motorola, WCCCA's system vendor. No materials produced by Motorola are included so that other parties or the Hearings Officer may determine the veracity or significance of the statements about Motorola made by Fire Chief Johnson. This evidence, like the entire letter, are set forth as generalizations that purport to summarize conclusions reached or information provided by others: "[w]e" (page 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1); "agency input, field surveys, and extensive coverage predictions studies" (same); "Motorola ...has determined" (page 1, paragraph 4, sentence 1); "Motorola's continuing engineering work" (same, at sentence 2); "Their recommendation" (same, at sentence 3); Motorola's engineers and the technical staff at WCCCA" (page 2, paragraph 1); "The team" same, at paragraph 3, sentence 1). In some of these instances, the others who have reached the summarized conclusion are not identified. In no case is the primary source of the information relied upon by the Johnson letter included with the letter or cited as a part of the prior record. As discussed above, little of the information has previously been included in the record at all. The Johnson letter also fails to state Chief Johnson's technical qualifications to reach or present any technical conclusions set forth in the letter. Therefore, even if the Hearings Officer admits the Johnson letter into the record as part of the applicant's final argument, the statements in the letter are largely unreliable and without probative value as unsupported hearsay statements and generalizations made by a witness without the requisite expertise in the technical areas addressed in the letter. Consequently, the Hearings Officer should not rely upon the information set forth in the letter as substantial evidence in support of a conclusion regarding compliance with criteria governing this application. Very trul yours, d Christine M. Cook, Attorney for obert and Betty Banford • 0 :r CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping ,4 Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: March 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Additional Testimony and Closing Argument WCCCA Wireless Comm. Facility (CUP2003-0001ONAR2003-00094) At the February 23, 2004 hearing, the applicant agreed to leave the record open an additional seven days (to March 1) to submit additional evidence. Citizens had until March 8th to submit additional written testimony. The applicant then had until March 15th to submit final closing argument. As discussed in the hearing, the applicant agreed to extend the 120 day deadline by two weeks, until June 8, 2004. The following lists the additional application evidence, citizen testimony, and applicant's closing that was received during the above noted time periods. Applicant's Additional Evidence EXHIBIT A - Binder of documentation received March 1, 2004 from John Hartsock, Project Manager (62 pgs and 2 oversize exhibits) Additional Citizen Testimony EXHIBIT B - Comment received February 26, 2004 from Tom Highland, Oregon Department of Aviation EXHIBIT C - Facsimile received February 27, 2004 from Cherie Stanley (2 pgs) EXHIBIT D - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Robert and Betty Banford (2 pgs) EXHIBIT E - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Robert and Betty Banford (9 pgs with attachments) EXHIBIT F - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Todd Zinda 0 0 EXHIBIT G -Letter received March 1, 2004 from Eric and Debra Margeson EXHIBIT H -Letter received March 1, 2004 from John Baker EXHIBIT I - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Julie Smelter EXHIBIT J - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Betty J. and Herman W. Fry (4 pgs) EXHIBIT K -Letter received March 1, 2004 from Gene and Marion Knutson EXHIBIT L - Letter received March 1, 2004 from Susan and Jim Devers EXHIBIT M -Facsimile received March 1, 2004 from Christine M. Cook (2 pgs) EXHIBIT N -Business Card received March 2, 2004 from Paul Clark (Tigard Area Historical And Preservation Association) EXHIBIT 0 -Letter received March 2, 2004 from Julie and Craig Smelter EXHIBIT P - Letter received March 5, 2004 from Gene and Marion Knutson EXHIBIT Q -Letter received March 8, 2004 from John Baker EXHIBIT R -Letter received March 8, 2004 from Eric and Debra Margeson EXHIBIT S - Letter received March 8, 2004 from Robert and Betty Banford (7 pgs) EXHIBIT T - Letter received March 8, 2004 from Christine M. Cook (6 pgs) Applicant's Closing Statement EXHIBIT U - Letter received March 15, 2004 from John Hartsock (7 pgs with attachment) Staff Comments Staff notes that the testimony identifies an apparent conflict in the measurements between the tower location and southern property line. Staff, utilizing the city GIS has estimated that there is approximately 145 feet between the storage bins and the south property line, not 156+ feet as indicated on the applicant's site plan. While the GIS can only provide an estimated distance, there is sufficient question as to the accuracy of the applicant's site plan as it relates to compliance with tower setbacks to require additional proof. Therefore, staff recommends that an additional condition be imposed, should the request be approved as follows: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a survey, prepared by a surveyor licensed in the State of Oregon, that indicates the precise distance between the face of the proposed tower and the property line. The survey shall also indicate the location and width of the Murdock Street right of way, in relation to the proposed tower. In no case, shall the distance between the tower and property line be less than the height of the proposed tower. EXHIBIT A WCCCA-- FIRE • acs-- Supplemental Information to C, 'i Y U;- -i iCii AD WCCCA (9-1 -1) Monopole Tower Application The City of Tigard 10310 SW Canterbury Lane Case Nos C P2003-00010 i VAR2003-00094 Prepared by: J. H. Harizock, l rgec t Management March 9, 2004 • c • WCCCA • POLICE • FIRE • MEDICAL Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency March 1, 2004 Mr. Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer Mr. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Case Nos: CUP2003 -000 10 / VAR2003-00094 10310 SW Canterbury Lane Gentlemen: At the hearing on February 23, 2004 concerning Case Nos: CLJP2003-00010 / VAR2003-00094, WCCCA was provided the opportunity to provide supplemental information concerning our application for locating a public safety communications tower at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane, Tigard. It is important to note that the purpose of this tower is to provide vital communications to the police and fire agencies serving the citizens of Tigard protecting their life and property and thus does create a unique circumstance vs. a private communications carrier needs. The following is in reply to the • request for supplemental information and clarification that were raised at the hearing. This response is divided into four major areas: 1. Demonstration of the necessity of the site. 2. Buffering of the site from adjacent parcels. 3. Compatibility of design to the historic overlay. 4. Economic affect on adjacent parcels. 1. Demonstration of the necessity of the site: As was stated in the original application and. outlined at the hearing the process of site selection is an extensive process looking at many elements. One of those elements is adequate radio propagation or coverage to facilitate the operation of police and fire two way radios. This includes assuring that the radio signal from the tower reaches the officers radio, which is less difficult as the site based radios have higher power. More importantly is the portable radio carried by the officer reaching the system which is more difficult due to the lower power of the portable radio. The original Washington County system installed eight years ago proved inadequate to achieve this goal in the more urban areas of the County such as Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, and Hillsboro. This was due in part to building densities and distance of the sites to the area. To overcome this inadequacy the process as outline on the attached RF Coverage Design • Methodology was employed. Due to the $1millon plus cost of each of these sites the total number of sites is kept to a minimum to be as efficient as possible with taxpayer dollars. P.O. Box 6375 • Beaverton, Oregon 97007-0375 • (503) 690.4911 • Fax (503) 531-0186 "ExceUence In Emergency Communications" WCCCA Monopole Tower • • Page 2 March 1, 2004 • Once a site is selected for optimum radio coverage we must determine how we obtain microwave connectivity to the site. The design of the system requires a high speed microwave connection between sites to tie the various sites to the dispatch center and radio system controller. This interconnection of sites cannot be accomplished over conventional telephone lines. This is much different than cellular sites which do not require this site to site connectivity but connect into the switched telephone network at each site. The overall height of the Canterbury Site tower (150') is due to the microwave path to the south for the connection to the adjacent Parrett Mtn site in Sherwood. We would achieve the same level of radio coverage if the tower was as low as 130'. The receive antenna is located on the top of the tower as it is the most critical to pick up portable radio signals and does need to be above adjacent trees. Attachment "A" - description of the attached supporting material: Pages 1-4: Outline the site selection process Page 5: A graphic representation of the overall system coverage, the different colors represent where the particular sites generally cover. The purple color in the middle of the map represents the Canterbury site which is key to the Tigard and adjoining area coverage. Page 6 & 7: Topographic maps of the area showing the terrain and the site locations tested for this site. • Page 8: Coverage from the selected Canterbury site Page 9: Microwave path from the site to the adjacent site on Parrot Mtn in Sherwood and Burntwood in Beaverton Page 10: An aerial photograph of the site with the microwave paths depicted. The trees located on a property at Delmonte Dr and 104`" Ave are currently at 135' and in line with the signal, thus the recommendation to mount the dish at Canterbury at 145'. Pages 11-14: Microwave path analysis from Canterbury to the adjacent sites. Pages 12 and 14 depict the obstructions that must be cleared. Pages 15 & 16: Coverage from the Bull Mtn site - the Canterbury site creates shadows in the key coverage areas and much of the signal strength is wasted to the west which is covered by other sites. This lost signal reduces the potential signal strength in the target coverage areas. Page 16 is the microwave path information which shows a path from this site but requiring a 150' tower as well. Pages 17 & 18: Coverage from the Sexton Mtn site - No coverage south of the Canterbury site thus not meeting the coverage objectives. Page 18 shows the microwave path blocked by Bull Mtn. Pages 19 - 24: Coverage from existing cellular sites none providing the coverage afforded by the Canterbury site and all with microwave connectivity problems: 0 WCCCA Monopole Tower Page 3 March 1, 2004 You will note that we have not shown coverage maps from sites on the hills to the east of Tigard in Multnomah County. This is due to our current experience of utilizing a site at Council Crest which you will note in the site selection process document is being relocated to the new Cedar Hills location. These sites are too high and in essence the signal "skips" over the area lying along the 217 corridor and then provides coverage to western Washington County which is already covered by other sites. Another important issue is that over two thirds of the energy from sites in this area or coverage is wasted to the east in Multnomah County and does not serve our police and fire agencies. Finally it is our desire to have the sites serving the County within the County. 2. Buffering of the site from adjacent parcels: As noted in our initial proposal there are a number of significant mature fir and other trees between the proposed site and adjacent residential. The consulting arborist did recommend that approximately seven of the existing trees are dead or dying and for safety reasons should be removed. I would not that two of the trees recommended for removal located on the southern edge of the future right of way for Murdock Street are leaning towards the residence at 14790 SW 104`h and I would believe the property owners would appreciate this safety hazard being removed. Even with this removal there are a significant number of trees remaining between the proposed site and adjacent property. The attached aerial photograph (Attachment "B" page 25) shows the site, and depicts major fir trees in excess of 119 feet which will remain as well as the significant tree canopy buffering the site. I have overlaid on the photo the potential Murdock Street, which as stated at the hearing is • currently not on the City's street improvement plan. It should be noted that there is a 100' plus distance from the northern edge of the right of way to the proposed site. In a field review of this area for the potential street there are few large trees affected but in fact most of the vegetation is scrub under story that would be removed. As shown on the photograph the bulk of the existing vegetation would remain. I would suggest that the site plan be modified and that the tower structure be moved east to the end of the concrete bunkers to increase the amount of existing tree buffering. This may also clear the path of the microwave from the trees at Delmonte Dr and 104`h Ave. I would also suggest we lower the overall height of the tower to 140' which would assure the setback requirements are met, minimize the overall impact, while allowing for growth of adjacent trees in the future. Secondly I would suggest turning the building 90 degrees to place the air conditioning units on the north end vs. the west thus buffering any noise to the south and west. (See attached revised site plan) Attachment "B" - description of the attached supporting material: Page 25: Aerial photo of site showing trees and potential Murdock Street extension Page 26: Legend for photographs that follow Page 27 & 28: Photos - #1 Looking north on 104th site behind trees on right / #2 At the foot path about 130' north of the residence at 14790 104`h looking • north to the Tigard House / WCCCA Monopole Tower • • Page 4 March 1, 2004 • #3 At the same path looking south to the residence - Note there is not a view of the Tigard House due to vegetation. / # 4 Murdock at 106`h looking east noting 1 tall tree in the proposed right of way the tree on the left would remain. / #5 The trees at Delmonte Dr and 104`h. Note it appears the tallest of the trees may be dying and thus could be removed. / #6 the proposed site at the end of the concrete bins on the east which is clear of mature trees. Page 29 & 30: Revised site plans to reflect the suggested locations to further buffer the facilities. 3. Compatibility of design to the historic overlay: We understand the concern of the monopole not being in keeping with the historical character of the John Tigard house. As noted in our application it is germane that the John Tigard house was not built at this location but in fact relocated here. We also feel it significant that the State Historic Preservation Office found that "there will be no historic properties adversely affected" by this project. The purpose of this tower is to provide vital communications to the police and fire agencies serving the citizens of Tigard protecting their life and property and thus does create a unique circumstance vs. a private communications carrier needs. • As outlined above we are suggesting lowering the monopole height to 140' and will perform additional engineering on the microwave path to determine if the facility may be any lower. At 140' there would be approximately 20' of the pole above the adjacent trees and thus visible from the John Tigard house. We are willing to accept a condition of approval to "camouflage" this 20' by utilizing a fir tree "stealth" design as outlined in the staff report on the project. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with staff to demonstrate the height in either a graphic representation, use of a balloon, or crane to replicate the height for their review and final determination. The impact of this solution adds approximately $60,000 to the cost of the project and we would appreciate staff and the hearing office consideration of this expenditure of tax dollars. 4. Economic affect on adjacent parcels: Attachment "C" is a report from Craig Zell, MAI, SRA real estate appraiser on the affect of communications towers on real estate values. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of these supplemental facts in your deliberation and your thoughtful process of this critical public safety facility. ly • Project Manger • • • Attachment "A" Site Selection and Radio Propagation • 0 WCCCA Excellence bi Erric.rgerncy Curruriunicatiorts 800 MHz Trunked Radio System Phase II Expansion: Motorola Site Selection Process February 27, 2004 1. RF Coverage Design Methodology: A. Area of Operation, Level of Service, and Subscriber Radio Information: WCCCA defined the geographic perimeters for desired radio operation, the level of service required, and the subscriber radio types and operational usage to enable Motorola to produce a radio system design. The Washington County system boundary i.e. the County line plus two miles, was the general limiting guideline. However, sub-perimeters were described which outlined "Central" and "West End" sub- systems, and differentiated between levels of service for mobile and portable coverage. WCCCA outlined that the system design should focus primarily on enhancement of portable on- the-hip, on-the-street simulcast coverage for the cities of Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton. For public safety radio systems, the level of service is based upon a Motorola "delivered audio quality" rating of three (DAQ3), and a suggested area reliability (CPC Contour reliability) of 95% and a (CPC Area reliability) of 97%. Motorola designs for Area Reliability and conducts CATPs (coverage acceptance test plans) to validate Area Reliability. Subscriber radio types and operational usage information is required to identify transmitter and receiver specifications, antenna types, and how the radios will actually be used or worn in the field. • In the case of WCCCA, mobile coverage maps were based upon MCS series mobile specifications with a standard roof- mount antenna, and upon NITS series portables with a %2 wave dipole antenna (receive on the hip and transmit at head level). B. Topographic Projection: Utilizing the Motorola proprietary HYDRA computer application tool, engineering creates raised topographic projection maps on-screen in conjunction with the customer perimeter information. An initial comparison is made between desirable high points on the topographic maps and the desired perimeter, keeping in mind fading and signal strength loss characteristics for the particular frequency band of operation, in this case 800 MHz. Existing known sites in and around the customer-defined perimeter are reviewed and taken into account. From this information, the first groupings of potential sites are noted. HYDRA default values are interleaved with customer requirements (area of operation, level of service, and subscriber radio information) to generate initial fixed network equipment ratings and subscriber radio field operational characteristics. The coordinates and elevations of initial potential sites are run on HYDRA utilizing the above data; then applicable coverage from each site is examined and cross-correlated. Initial sites are accepted or rejected, with an emphasis on site groupings that achieve the best coverage in high profile areas, while looking for combinations that require the least quantity of sites. The first list of potential site locations is then generated and saved temporarily for the next step. C. Existing Sites and Customer Perimeter Drive-around: Armed with both existing and potential site location data, a "site search" drive-around is conducted throughout the coverage area to visually • determine the accessibility and viability of each known existing site and each new potential site. Lastly, previously undocumented existing RF sites spotted in the area are noted and cataloged using a GPS receiver. WCCCA Site Selection • • Page 2 February 27, 2004 • D. Sites "Washing" Process: The collected field data is used to generate the second iteration of temporary coverage map models, using the HYDRA tool. This process involves the comparisons of multiple site overlays, and how sites and required coverage relate to each other. Antenna patterns are then reviewed and adjusted carefully at each site for optimal coverage (esp. for interaction with adjacent sites). The impact of tower height on coverage is also modeled, but is balanced out against drive-around visuals of local foliage, structures, and land use. The top two or three combined coverage map series are then modeled, with a purposeful preference for utilization of existing RF sites over un-improved new potential sites. Motorola SmartZone trunking systems can utilize simulcast site groups as subsystems, IntelliRepeater (trunked) standalone sites as subsystems, and conventional fill-in repeater sites (usually for sparse outlying areas). Reality checks are inserted into this process to make sure that potential site groupings and standalone site solutions pass another sanity check for cost effectiveness and for undesirable coverage overlap redundancies. E. Sites Recommendation Deliverables: The next step is to get WCCCA's feedback in deciding that the quantity and location of sites modeled provides adequate coverage for their users within the plan of the original system criteria. A simple dossier is generated for each site in each subsystem, and initial infrastructure requirements are blocked in. The following typical RF coverage design engineering factors (from Motorola Coverage Standards) are considered in the site acquisition and coverage determination process: 1. Reliability Predictions: Suggested Public Safety Area Reliability percentages • 2. Delivered Audio Quality: Public Safety recommended ratings 3. Subscriber Receiver Sensitivities and Transmitter Specifications: mobile and portable types, antenna types, operational usage specs. 4. Fixed Infrastructure Transmission and Reception systems: Receiver antennas and multicoupler networks; Transmission antenna and combiner networks; base station / repeater types. 5. Motorola HYDRA tool basics summary: a. Output display colors & patterns cartography, b. Terrain database, c. Land-use & land cover & development & population databases, building penetration losses, d. RF bawl-based propagation modeling (TIA Okumura/Hata/Davidson models between 30 1.5 GHz and Bullington model to 216 MHz), 6. Site-related Information: e. Analog or digital mode impact, f. TX simulcast phasing & delay spread impact, g. RX voting & impact, h. Tile-based reliability, Faded sensitivities and moving factors, j. Noise & interference factors. a. Site names & coordinates & elevation (database generated or external measured), b. Fixed antenna systems patterns (vertical horizontal with azimuths), c. Tower and antenna heights. • d. Microwave connectivity to adjacent sites. 117- WCCCA Site Selection • • Page 3 February 27, 2004 • 11. WCCCA Site Selection Process: A. Existing Sites: The existing WCCCA 800 MHz trunked radio system consists of a group of four (4) sites, configured to work together as a single integrated simulcast trunked radio system. These existing sites are as follows: 1. Parrett Mt. site: located at the east tip of the Chehalem Mountains overlooking Sherwood to the north and Wilsonville to the south. 2. Council Crest site: located at the eastern apex of the West Hills, overlooking the City of Portland to the north and Tualatin to the south. Gales Peak site: located on a mountain ridge overlooking Haag Lake to the south and Forest Grove to the east. 4. Bald Peak site: located at the center of the Chehalem Mountains overlooking Beaverton and Cornelius to the north and Newberg to the south. B. Proposed Sites: Four (4) new proposed sites are configured to work together with three (3) of the existing simulcast trunked sites to provide more uniform coverage and critical penetration into the growing high traffic areas of central and eastern Washington County. The existing Council Crest site infrastructure will be removed and replaced functionally by the proposed Cedar Hills site. These are the proposed sites as follows: 1. Canterbury site: Located at the apex of a low- lying hill water tank site past the east end of Bull • Mt., with residential areas nearby, overlooking Tigard to the north and Tualatin to the south. This site was selected to provide enhanced coverage in Tualatin and Tigard particularly along the Hwy 217 corridor, Washington Square area and to enhance penetration into growing commercial and residential areas nearby, such as King City, Durham, and Scholls. Existing site/tower re-usage.- This site is already used as an RF site by other local public agencies on VHF and UHF, but antennas are mounted down low on existing buildings and structures. No other RF towers or equivalent structures were discovered in the vicinity. WCCCA sites are few, and are by necessity spread far apart, depending heavily upon tower height (in relation to surrounding foliage, protrusions, and strictures) to achieve needed coverage and microwave connectivity to adjacent sites. A minimum 150' tower at this location is required. Besides Canterbury, numerous other potential radio sites were investigated for the WCCCA Phase Il system to provide required coverage for the Tigard, Tualatin, and King City areas. Such sites included locations along Bull Mountain, Cooper Mountain, and Sexton. Modeling these other sites did not singularly meet WCCCA user coverage requirements. This left Canterbury as the site of choice to meet WCCCA Phase 11 coverage requirements. Cedar Bills site: Co-located with multiple cellular sites in a commercial zone in Cedar Hills at the junction of Highway 26 and Highway 217 with West Haven to the north and Beaverton to the south. This site was selected because of numerous existing coverage depressions in residential areas to the immediate East and southeast of the proposed site, and to improve portable coverage penetration into new mixed commercial and residential zones to Aloha west along Highway 26 and the high traffic northeastern half of Beaverton. Existing siteItower re-usage: This location includes a tight cluster of four existing cellular sites. Geographically speaking, any of the four existing locations will provide virtually identical • coverage. The problem is tower height at existing cellular sites. None of the towers in that cluster exceed 60', and a minimum 140' tower is needed to provide the needed public safety coverage 3 WCCCA Site Selection • • Page 4 February 27, 2004 penetration required. Cellular systems sites are spaced closely, relying heavily upon large quantities of low- lying sites and heavy frequency re-usage to achieve acceptable wide area coverage. WCCCA sites are few, and are by necessity spread far apart, depending heavily upon tower height (in relation to surrounding foliage, protrusions, and structures) to achieve needed coverage. 3. Burntwood site: Located at the wooded apex of a small hill with residential areas nearby, overlooking Aloha to the north and Hazeldale to the west. This site was selected to enhance penetration into mixed commercial and residential zones along Farmington Rd, TV Highway 8 East end, and especially into the high traffic southwestern half of Beaverton and Aloha. Existing site/tower re-usage: There were no other RF towers or equivalent structures discovered in the Burntwood vicinity. WCCCA sites are few, and are by necessity spread far apart, depending heavily upon tower height (in relation to surrounding foliage, protrusions, and structures) to achieve needed coverage. A minimum 140' tower at this location is required. 4. River Road /Witch Hazel site: Located at the Clean Water Services Facility at River Road and Witch Hazel, with Hillsboro to the west and Aloha to the east. This site was selected to fill in TV Highway 8 West end coverage, and especially to enhance penetration into surrounding growing high traffic commercial and residential zones. Existing site/tower re-usage: There are adjacent cellular sites. Geographically speaking, any of the existing locations will provide virtually identical coverage. The problem is tower height at existing cellular sites. None of the towers in that cluster exceed 60', and a minimum 150' tower is • needed to provide the needed public safety coverage penetration required. Cellular systems sites are spaced closely, relying heavily upon large quantities of low- lying sites and heavy frequency re- usage to achieve acceptable wide area coverage. WCCCA sites are few, and are by necessity spread far apart, depending heavily upon tower height (in relation to surrounding foliage, protrusions, and structures) to achieve needed coverage. is 0 • 6N © 2002 DeLorme (www.deiorme.com). Topo USA G. Data copyright of content owner. • © 2002 DeLorme (www.delorme.com). Topo USA Data copyright of content owner. I 1 ml Scale: 1 : 100,000 Map Rotation: 0° Magnetic Declination: 17.9°E d Comstudy 6 - 5 4- 1 3 2 45-25 1 1 2 3- 4- 45-20 5 6 -unnyt L mi 8 • • CANTERBURY. Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - -123.0 - 122-55 -kUR etdale cktown y TWOOD lord ~ r esrr tSEXTON - -bradeyCorner nson -betz ~ar~ GT Gre u elg n W 45 encullen Hills +ermom Hillsi Maplewood *ultno udinga Home tol Hill v L 4Nest Porpand Park Ills Ridge 1e d woo Igagl E''LL#7 RR Mon Bull unWn / A +ANTERBURY idwa lls t ELL04 ry ELL 1 Cook ,Jean River Grove *iazelia y uatau 4ierrmah y 5hadowood aven +ipole aroma YVankers Comer kc Co rs y 5tafiord y Sh twood *orquin 1 Middleton taw hehalem ARRE y, ew advance -kptitghrook ex twill, es ewberg 6 Q 2 U Z 4 V V • is aq .~72-=✓=~~._~ -'F t~ r' (i~G l ~ 1"~; ~ ~-tt-` v5's J C+3_ + t r 7r '~J~`. ` ~'.Y k ~t•+ y 1 ~ t. '"^'Nr% l~ ~ ~%1 r ~1 r%~ l w• 5~, r r'y 1 Est i _ e = s, \ ( ~i" + o _ / t v r s C, ) . 1 71 -'ar:.~``y^~~ tl~^~` ~~~,L`ft` ~,-._.~f `'l~~l~ /t.t' ~ t { '`~~tG4~ ~-=-D+~`~w~ 't{ a~• o --.r, I r 'a t~1'~ttl Il r ~ j I.f ~fc- ~~//G'"',~\`"`x~f ~S" ~ _ ~ r!',( ~ ..~.'•1 ` 141 r t \ a ~ 1 ~ N i 1 y ,t 2~ 1.11 t :1~ ~ ~ Io~fr' r~'A~^ Is~!;~d 1 ''~11.-.~.~..-~...,-. ~:,4,t t~~,t}y •a,_., iC` tix:,;;}itl~ l ~ ~ $ .~i~ ~ ~ , ~ rl ± , ~ ~~r5 T r;~ ~ 1.1 }I ~.ji~-''.`~~i ~y\ - ' t' i : •1~. t~. •:~-•,„ri~/ it ~•i ; ••~t•~ 1' 1{' ~ ~i , 1 ~ to ~ t 4 ~ f,+''.~ • L - \ L~ t~ ° , j f ' • ° 1i } / r ~ 1 t f t J i ~~!,t r ° , 5. <'l"_ Is' ,4t .nom ~ ' f~l,\ + ~ .c ! 1/ t j . , ~ t • f 1 , ~ ~',*t `^i i ;t, f/ a,,. a~..,_.,,f t~~ yf~. ,'t{~;; "~J t ; j } f I"( rj, j /rrc••..1; ~ l''~ti _ i{. 1~.. , 7~ a ~+~...~A~`~~ .`-=1i1•~•;4. 550 ~,+:r 1 ,`'-'t~\;:~„F y~ c~,i f~? j i fl ttt ' 'r 7 G.,.., - ~ r F , ` _ m it%.: f h l~y':~~~~' / : gc- ~~id' :.'C. •i• ' ~'D~„ i t t , _ j p 't:l - f`° .f'' : ~ '~"'y.. ~ `t , ~ _ ,a t ~ tr \~.~o c~ /r' I! t:._,.:,.~~~.,~. r~,.~=_s.`~. Fw_ ,r~cti.. -~l_ (J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ s , ~ ~y ~ ~ 1 r ;`ri f - ^ ).1 -,lr'~c.",,, ~ gip- - • y . t - J%Jri S-, i ~ ~ t I t_•~ ~f 1,...-~~~;`~•'-J - ;emu + \ {/~l ~,r 1~ yffie~~\i~~i.i ~ ' r` , f~'"~t~~''''~'~'1 ~l/ L'•+"~`^I ,1',' : ,r:~~--.,•.; t`^I~~tl ~J`~ ,t, ~ rr! --._:t t ~•t 14~t fj, ,(tf •k\'• sr/°~fi',lq: 't' Q \`\~_..)r ~`\~c ~ ~~;i~+-.. i L, 1, d{ dv~....y-it,. .O "i% t ! ) ~ ,,.r G2`tr.. 1 `.1 7. ~ a~\_. 11 ( - -t`i+t~~F, f ~t`~,\t, :7 7 _ ~'s 1 f _ 1,~ ' 1 t 2 u ~ 2" ~ ~•-'~'...~--"_\.oZ i c r~ 1:.` 1' c~.t.q~ .~'%'c~' 1~Ci '.f!~+\\~; ~,`\`'+~•/.f~tl'~::_ - ^SY~L~ '~i~1t~1>cv 1~' . 1t \ ~l~' b, 'y \.i'~ r ;s, ,~~sf , .N r~ t f ' r , li'r( f%ly, 1 r , t t, N . - `y-~`-`~~~~?r+""_ 5'• 1 ,I~ t .\4 y - ~ t 0 'ty P ~'J ~t ~~i•. A~ • `-t 1 3l ^ ~ 'v~\ f~~. I~,.~~ /r r ~-••t: 1 ~ ' ~ ~ --~c;~~_ i`j(r `r~~ gt_~ , ;...f t~ -/d~ ! y ,~`-/l.'~:,. ~~.5.. t .\.'f rtic •n\Y\:'-'~-"r"`'.y.,•. \.''~.1c\. w / 2)`r\ .i r tl h - ,r/~r,•~~ i'•Vl~i I ~---..i'~~r~ y M , ~ ~ ~~1 ti ~:,1 r ~-v ~j ( i'r / uay:"•;,,'--,~ fr Q i 'r % l r a• r t .1 a r,?/ t y 31' x. I ( S' ~ tit ~r ~ : t - ' _ rl~ h jY~~•~ 'Ij~S !~fE ~ i~~` *"'`~a~'r~ (.(i',.~~-•r'=: tl 1i~ ~:,;,"~y~•< .~jr r ~'S~`'~ r3srN { ~ s ~ i -J\ 1~y~1, ~.~>l;•t+.. j~ ~l 'r~~\y\1.1• •~~t `}1 +;'svk~~--._ ! 1. ~tl~ °_J .1, J~ b `"0~' c.'~~ tr~'~/ S. _',r l:% '{`-1 1 t•{; ~ VE p r„ .f a aP , J 7 :i. 11 ~ <~+r~ir~( f°dz ~c.,~D~;s~~" .{\,=-.:JJ~) ~ti~' 2. ",11` ' t`+ ~ '1 t r.. r; Q, 4E._ m ~ :+,.t,S_~ Sc,;-. ~ ; s-,^r~ t ~ A N 'til-0r~ t , _ s .<.'~~1 rt' 1~,.6"''`'_ :1'~ ~ry.r ,~7,r ;t ~ ~'7• j ~:.r '`h `,.•ti'-~ +;y ~ •...r'- 1 v' ~ ~ rso=p6°4I~~t ~...t ,i .f _j,- - } ~ 1'~ r.1t\~~\.\. ,'~~'r`t'"'~ -v '4~~~•...~ 5/ _~r'{. s~'t\~ _ 1 ~t" ,1~ ~z: .~1,. j"4 + ~~77 k _ - ~ ~ • ~ t ~ y.. •+J :13' r•.r..,, . oi"' (ti ~V ~ 1 d {ir \ ~ `~'jR ~ ~ • ~ 1 l ~ 1 ~vr'i~ l~ _I S i-,~t.~✓1l 'r_~~ i~~~,\ t + `I , '~t ..r f~ • id Ti 7 , ; ! n f~ --•r_ _~'„Y s= 1 ~ 1 t t`~"~ ,~;\~\E~~' 5~.~~'~'J~J~+.y. )~I ~ J~ "~4~ ~y • ~ !r i 1 .a ~0 n ~ :'t- ~ \ s '1it`~ \ `4\.\ \ '"'`-..J 1~v, ~,~)~si~',`::-..~• r~f, ~l ±y~-,^ ~`,i.. ~l'~ ~ - n r;\ \ ~ fi . ~ • ~ ` ~ 1 ` tic _ • ;,xil pJ ~,.~y y,~- a, i~ai,•. ; r:. t ~ /~r' f S 77~ y :n:~ e ~-+C`_ _ ~ J~ / 1 t` al ~ ~.1raa~:_-;.--.-:-~~ -CJs..' .f i 1 ~ ~t II • ~ ~ " 1 ` ° r ~ .t',Lr t ~'y~ :tv' +w' \ ~~,1>1Y4r t` ~ ~'"'\j .s~^> / ~ t , i Np55 ~}•r-4-' a , ~ ~,-J ? • r l_ v ' 1 ~1 '•"~c''•\ ~ `~.`~•~c: 3iIr+"~ ~ _ '\j:;~;,iy • ~J ,r / i j `a `l9"' •.•y'6T. t•,• 1 4`:Il i~~\`~\~`"\~`: 31r,\ "+S:i...J "'t-,s, r){+,` = r~:.~i,\'.\... •.y-.-c t~ /t t, { •51'+t. , - if ~ '~1 It r- / a z-~'~ ~ f-'r"'-.. ''4y i i ~e / 1" ; a/{I n.`,~:. ~jJ~f!'r~J:~~`: 1 •\,.1 `'~x~u' T~ `L ~:'t.}/ w ~ \ '.v ~1 y ~ '~1 y'Ly ii4:~:~4•:r4_ y-`, t°~'ti ~l'+'` '1~;J ~f ;I~ o~ril f 1 y t .~1 ~ t t$ t~:- ` "',kN~ i y ~~\:."jr) t~jC: ~'~r 72 °I&Y .:i 2. ~ ` I f ~ •i 1 nu:•1•' r .-•:;'i• ~ t "r•'(°f'"f&~i~'SI11~} .l`1(,~~~~-''/,..r -v~.r. .I:l•., ~s-,•- i' •~.7. • 3~'~I to t ~C/ ~ IN, { µ y }i s ~I!'' 1{'F: 'y t(.~'" }\t,\~~{`i\\+~ by}:, " , J._ j'1 vt .t 'c 1 ~ 1 t~. _ ~.L-:~ ~ t 1.• .ii _ dy +~\'\\\\a~b~i `y. j /~}.XJ ~!i .'',+1.~•~+'~+~•1 \ }'~~.t •~rr. , ~~r r O:. ~ c~ - •t • ~ l~ y\ y ~ .1 t tf,` a! 1¢~• (y ~ r; ~ • I,l' 1 1. ',0 ` jV 4'•` ~~'\1~ ( y';: ,i.:'' ra~3;:~1> •f 1~x \ y~\_~ f 1!, i ,~c~ 11~ fC ~~1 1'ijj' ' f.L'', ~ T~•" 'i 1 \t+ T~:r-Sr ti `~.'~?y• ..+lif~•J\` r +~y, f..J'~}` •t`~'`•. `'••t^•~,-'~~1j~~7~~~~~`. "i yr ti~ ~tS Q(',;51 fJ.{/} : 'mot"• ..t ay. ':t ` ~ ,qYf..~ = ,rj lir'-` ' '+1.,~• L` * \ Z t +j >~Y ~ < 1 .•,~4••:~ .;,f ~:at `:?y\'T~ti...11 ~r ~,,,i';.• i''~~\,'\4 ~A ~ 1 ( #:4•, •tr• sf 7 1 r m~s._ t ~ ~ ~ ~ 'aNr \ ~ ~ \b. ~ - et~ } ~j ~ '~1 'i' t'`•1'~ • 7., 1e /~J 11 llri,t'~ 1 ;c: q• ~ t` r~. •f;.l~"~ = ;:b--='=`t !~."^•~tv'ti. y~ ~ t~tj, +,~,y, ~•iH/ 1 ~ l ~ •11 .{j :1~ rR 3: IMP 3n il: ~ 1Y a , , ~ ~...•J' + t~-~" '•~1~ t `'1~ ` ~ ~ • ' +a `y`.'~•. . ~ ~ 1 ~ _ ~`~,,--•3'ti . G~... .a •~%~T;~1 pg✓,'N' !p" ti,,-~- ; ,r ~f w .'t l 1' G t'~li'`-....J 4r1 ,t~ti ,o+ 1 lr - ~^y• r 4ad•f ,J ~a ti t. •;y~`ti -'1••'• i~ :1( •'i1'•a rf G; ,1 1 Y ! 4 \ ~ ` + - ~i 1,>!'~/ rJ f t `+`'t ~ •:~;w t fly ` ° ! Z ~ ~ , ~ a,, 4 \~1\,r~N ( r 1 1 S S• 1~ \ i ~ `'S• t•Nt ••v^' .Y• ~ 1. V zzo\ } ~ k~'{tN''"? ~ '~,t~ s V ~ t ; q~,f f J 1 n / 1 , }~yl '~`f aof 1' P~j'~ 7 ~ t7~ i, •a • r+ b+: ~'7~ O ~~~j/'' t n°~~{\{ ° 1,\1; 2a ) rf\ \\'S ` [ - 11) ~-:}~~1+,' •..1.•^~''a~•~~i r..+F' •4~3• d`' --y...,~:'. ~J~ ~ / 1 ~ / + :-•L/~~ a\-' . !V , 1 14` 1."`•~o'YK'N't;+ r t, a•. v+-~.`~{ ' ~ ~ ~,~ti+ ~t}. pit, _A~ ~\1\~~\•• i~~ ~ • I ~ (r~„ ; eJ• ~~'.a1 ~ ' } r ~)~'Qj~ • +t C ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ ' ~ ' 1 . r' t \ ' \ y • 6 a ~ ~ ~ * N ~ • h YIt i r ' ,YL ~ • Q f L.; l' _ 1rl t•.,1'( „s°a.rt~ = 3:~1 ~ 1`wf@~'~a`~.'~'.~•.{g'" '•►'~~•:~;.,y:.• ~ y ~ j' ~~.4 i:y `;•.1• r'.A l•. ear, f ~ `a'-t1~:.• t+~/ar(~ l ; 1+~~~ ~ ...-../1~ ~t'~.~ tT+~.- • '•Y i ~ -1 t •J t } ~ ; •5-.•' I.:A~~ ~ ° j U y,.r ,1 O 4 } - t-+~a,+y 7~} ^0.~=1'~`-~ ~.r.--•'SWa {~i!~ ~ r5:~ f3 F 1 .:~1''C_t_ - ~i '2 ; I. 1 ' ' 4 a. L ``}t::' ¢ " .t ,1 _,,`r. - i!•, . ?/r' r; y "'lll .w „~::•st' t t ~ }"t yo n, .y ~ t~ ~ ~i4•.~~'~.r+h4 r.a~` yr'"~'(~ 1~ {r a''t• . • Microwave Path -f rees at 104th & Deaamon mill r 1 ~ }jam t ,~~~rt 1{'' f _ _ .I '1 ~ b..:~ fir' ~ ~t',~ t ~1 Orylow* nn i F ,yt ~I AF-!~ '"'p 1 ~~y 91,~~, y: Rm r ~ " tt, tar t ry , ' t~ -k -A • ~ fl ~ ILC• 16 Transmission Engineering Design Report Clackamas County Path Profile (Parrett Mtn. to Canterburv Lane): 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 6 700 m 600 500 400 300 200 100 55::Z:: ~ ' 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 20 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Path length (7.39 mi) Parrett Mtn. Latitude 45 19 2214 N Longitude 122 51 51.18 W Azimuth 32.06° Elevation 1002 ft ASL Antenna CL 120.0 ft AGL Frequency (MHz) = 11200.0 K = 1.33, 0.67 %F1 = 100.00, 30.00 TCS Consultants, Inc. Canterbury Lane Latitude 45 24 48.30 N Longitude 122 47 01.02 W Azimuth 212.12° Elevation 385 ft ASL Antenna CL 145.0 ft AGL Clackamas County Mar 07 02 TWG Microwave Networks Inc. Micr IF .cave etworks March 06, 2002 • 0 Transmission En, • Clackamas • Terrain Data Points (Parrett Mtn. to Canterbury Lane): Terrain Data - Parrett Mtn-Canterbury Lane.p14 Parrett Mtn. Canterbury Lane State OR OR Latitude 45 19 22.14 N 45 24 48.30 N Longitude 122 51 51.18 W 122 47 01.02 W True azimuth (0) 032 03 44.75 212 07 11.24 Calculated Distance (mi) 7.385 Profile Distance (mi) 7.390 Datum North A merican 1983 UTM zone 10N 10N Easting (km) 510.642 516.931 Northing (km) 5018.821 5028.900 Elevation (ft) 1002.00 385.00 Distance (mi) Elevation (ft) Ground Structure (ft) 0.000 1002.00 AG 0.010 998.00 AG 110.0 ft Tree 0.030 990.00 AG 0.230 800.00 AG 0.400 700.00 AG 0.640 500.00 AG 0.940 450.00 AG • 1.190 250.00 AG 1.310 310.00 AG 1.530 210.00 AG 1.910 243.00 AG 2.080 220.00 AG 2.430 290.00 AG 2.970 200.00 AG 3.400 130.00 AG 3.900 170.00 AG 4.120 150.00 AG 4.640 120.00 AG 5.100 170.00 AG 5.730 110.00 AG 6.130 160.00 AG 6.350 140.00 AG 6.640 180.00 AG 6.980 250.00 AG 7.210 400.00 AG 7.250 405.00 AG 105.0 ft Tree 7.260 405.00 AG 7.280 405.00 AG 95.0 ft Tree 7.310 400.00 AG 7.330 390.00 AG 7.360 384.00 AG 135.0 ft Tree 7.390 385.00 AG • Mic7 tuave AMetworks March 6, 2002 /a, Transmission Engineering Design Report Clackamas County Path 650 600 550 500 450 6 400 M 350 300 250 200 150 Profile (Burntwood to Canterbury Lane): O 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Path length (5.03 mi) Burntwood Latitude 45 28 21.00 N Longitude 122 50 38.34 W Azimuth 144.25° Elevation 470 ft ASL Antenna CL 115.0 ft AGL Frequency (MHz) = 11200.0 K = 1.33, 0.67 %F1 = 100.00, 30.00 TCS Consultants, Inc. Canterbury Lane Latitude 45 24 48.30 N Longitude 122 47 01.02 W Azimuth 324.30° Elevation 385 ft ASL Antenna C L 115.0 ft AGL Clackamas County Mar 0702 TWG Microwave Networks Inc. Micr ijave etworks March 06, 2002 • 0 C~ 0 Transmission Engineering Design Report Clackamas County • Terrain Data Points (Burntwood to Canterbury Lane): Terrain Data - Burntwood-Canterbury Lane.p14 Bumtwood Canterbury Lane State OR OR Latitude 45 28 21.00 N 45 24 48.30 N Longitude 122 50 38.34 W 122 47 01.02 W True azimuth (0) 144 15 12.53 324 17 47.38 Calculated Distance (mi) 5.026 Profile Distance (mi) 5.030 Datum North American 1983 UTM zone 10N 10N Easting (km) 512.195 516.931 Northing (km) 5035.453 5028.900 Elevation (ft) 470.00 385.00 Distance (mi) Elevation (ft). Ground Structure (ft) 0.000 470.00 AG 0.110 400.00 AG 0.310 300.00 AG 0.550 250.00 AG 0.630 220.00 AG 0.770 230.00 AG 120.0 ft Tree 1.030 300.00 AG • 1.130 380.00 AG 100.0 ft Tree 1.270 460.00 AG 1.290 470.00 AG 55.0 ft Tree 1.340 450.00 AG 1.470 350.00 AG 1.620 300.00 AG 2.100 250.00 AG 2.370 200.00 AG 2.840 170.00 AG 3.290 200.00 AG 3.420 170.00 AG 3.560 200.00 AG 3.640 236.00 AG 85.0 ft Tree 3.680 240.00 AG 3.910 220.00 AG 3.950 250.00 AG 4.110 200.00 AG 4.210 250.00 AG 4.390 200.00 AG 4.470 250.00 AG 4.690 300.00 AG 4.800 350.00 AG 4.880 392.00 AG 90.0 ft Tree 4.930 400.00 AG 55.0 ft Tree 5.000 390.00 AG 5.030 385.00 AG • Micr .cave etworks March 6, 2002 1ZL ComStudy BULL Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 mi -123 -122-55 - t 45 enW]en lelgh Hills ~i J emmrd Hills -:kUR _ TWOOD ttord taplewood *ulbm eldale udinga Home tot Hill g W ~ tlt EXTON trade, Co. binson Ae er ~est Portland Park Greton .4. ilia Ridge Gr lewood race ELL#7 ,ten ( BWI In 45.25 ro + i fi ANTERBURY / s ELL#14 tyant ~ ELL# ook ~ can +Rlver Grove *i Wazella ualatl 9iemnah t'dowood en -Ipote asorna -kankers Comer h Co tlv rwood fafford l Tonquin Middleton 45-20 taw heraiem ARRE ew tpringbrook lex +Advance 6unnycres ewberg 1Wi ovine 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 • • 127 0 BULL Lat: 45-25-05.4 N Lon: 12249-17.3 W AMSL: 618 ft Tower AGL: 121 ft BULL Lat: 45-25-05.4 N Lon: 122-49-17.3 W AMSL: - 618 ft Tower AGL 144 ft 1 2 PARROT Lat: 45-19-21.1 N Lon: 122-51-50.8 W AMSL: 863 R Tower AGL: 121 ft Profile Info Distance: 6.92 mi Bearing: 197.40 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 4 5 Losses Base Loss: 97.9 dB Fade Margin:N/A Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 0.0 dB 6 800 600 400 0mi 1 2 f. ! f 3 160' BURNTWOOD Lat: 45-28-21.2 N Lon: 122-50-38.8 W AMSL: 400 ft Tower AGL' 121 ft Pro ,ile n o Distance: 3.91 mi Bearing: 343.72 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 Losses Base Loss: 92.0 d6 Fade Margin:N/A Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 2.7 dB • • r ComStudy SEXTON Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 mi -123-0 -122-55 - ero 5 enadlen leigt ills W ermont Hills -kUR TWOOD ttord Maplewood -bow etdale udinga Home apitol Hill 'les th EXTON + aradtey Comer a J binson - +etz er -hest Portland Park rr99 n,L, G TE G r tlla Ridge lewood igW rece ELL#7 nion Bull urttain - 45-25 rota LL C ANTERBURY Its ELL#14 ryant ELL ;ook *ea n i - kiver Grove +Hazelia Ualatl ~ermuh ~hadowood -ven ~Ip01e ankers Corner n '~iasoma he Co rs rwood -kt ff rd *orpuin +iddleton 45-20 Law hehatem ~ A 4loodvlew y 5pringWook ARRE ex ance 'UMyGfes eWhe rg Wi nville 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0 • Q4 0m SEXTON Lat: 45-27-25.4 N Lon: 122-49-38.9 W AMSL: 401 ft Tower AGL: 98 ft 90( 60C 300 134 0 BURNTWOOD Lat: 45-28-21.2 N Lon: 122-50-38.8 W AMSL: 400 ft Tower AGL: 115 ft Profile Info Distance: 1.34 mi Bearing: 323.01 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 Losses Base Loss: 82.7 dB Fade Margin:N/A Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 0.0 dB mi 1 2 3 a a R Q SEXTON Lat: 45-27-26.2 N Lon: 122-49-41.3 W AMSL: 401 ft Tower AGL: 98 ft PARRETT Lat: 45.19.22.0 N Lon: 122-51-49.6 W AMSL: 801 ft Tower AGL: 121 ft Profile Info Distance: 9.45 mi Bearing, 190.55 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 Losses Base Loss: 105.1 dB Fade Margin:NIA Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 0.0 dB • • 4-7 y sw t4 .LZ S~ KISI_ ComStudy CELLO Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 mi -723 -122-55 - e .4 5 enadlen t leig Hills - t +,..t Hills UR TWOOD k 'haplewood 'tultno azeldale udinga Home apitol Hill *4es -:k no th EXTON rad Comer a dctown binson -betz er vest Portland Park Graton.L, T G ilia Ridge -knolewood iga - rece 'nton 4ELL#7 Bull uMain 4525 n to - idwa ANTERBURY Its ELL#14 ryant ELL S Gook 'River Grove + Hazelia ~L, uatag Wemnah -S. 5hadowood eaven A Cipola ankers Comer kaSOnla ix Co rs )rwc d A 5taftord h rwood *onquin 1 'bIddleton 45-20 taw hehalem ARRE e. + ~ 'Advance 1 Advance nville - 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 • • 170'1 1 1 1 . I 0 mi 1 2 3 4 CELL#7 BURNTWOOD Prorle Info Losses Lat: 45-25-27.7 N Lat: 45-28-21.2 N Distance: 4.83 mi Base Loss: 93.9 dB Lon: AMSL: 122-46-18.6 W 201 ft Lon: 122-50-38.8 W AMSL: 400 ft Bearing: # of points 313.56 deg 200 Fade Margin Diffraction: .N/A 0.0 dB Tower AGL: 98 ft Tower AGL: 115 ft K value: 1.333 Fresnel: 4.5 dB Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 900' 600' 300' 127' 0 mi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Profile Info Losses CELL#7 PARRETT Distance: 8.34 mi Base Loss: 102.9 dB Lat: 45-23-28.6 N Lat: 45-19-22.0 N Bearing: 212.51 deg Fade Margin.N/A Lon: 122-46-17.4 W Lon: 122-51-49.6 W # of points 200 Diffraction: 6.1 dB AMSL: 201 ft AMSL: 801 ft K value: 1.333 Fresnel: 5.2 dB Tower AGL: 98 ft Tower AGL: 121 ft Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 8 • • 0 jIwq5- Pve 0 ComStudy CELLO Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6 5 4 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 mi -,23- -122-55 45 enaAlen eig Hills Hi ~ermont Higs ~UR dord TWOOD '4~taplewood ~t.. eldale b uAinga Home ">ol Hill 'kes -k th EXTON radley Comer -r Gown dnson vi e¢ er ect Portland Park GT l or ilia Ridge lid igrace ELLV Mon Bull untain 45.25 to Z Idwa ~ LIRY wANTE • Its ELL#14 +ELL# t k+aryent ¢ean iver Grove +L W azelia ualag emna h d hd n %pole ~iasoma -bankers Comer 6c Co rs 'ttv rwood )rwc taf(ord onquin tiddleton 5-20 raw • . hehalem -ARRE ..Mew ~L . Spr ngbrook Ue. +AAdvance y 5unnycres ~ Wi nvitle L 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0 • 131'1 0 mi 1 CELLO 9 Lat: 45-24-11.3 N Lon: 122-45-54.7 W AMSL: 201 ft Tower AGL- 98 ft PARRETT Lat: 45-19-22.0 N Lon: 122-51-52.0 W AMSL: 774 ft Tower AGL, 121 ft Profile Info Distance: 7.35 mi Bearing: 220.98 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 5 Losses Base Loss: 100.7 dB Fade Margin.N/A Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 4.5 dB • • 1701- 0 mi CELL #9 BURNTWOOD Lat: 45-24-10.6 N Lat: 45-28-21.4 N Lon: 122-45-53.5 W Lon: 122-50-37.8 W AMSL: 201 ft AMSL: 400 ft Tower AGL: 98 ft Tower AGL: 115 ft 3 Profile Info Distance: 6.15 mi Bearing: 321.53 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 4 Losses Base Loss: 98.1 dB Fade Margin:N/A Diffraction: 0.0 db Fresnel: 5.2 dS 5 6 *,,p sw Pf1C i FtC • 0 I ComStudy CELL#14 Tuesday, February 24, 2004 ~a 6- 5-- 4- 3- 2- 1 - 0- 1 - 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- Mi -123-0 -122-55 - e o rZ, 45 enedlen leig Hills +Ai 4i +,..t Hills - dord UR TWOOD -bWewood *ALdtro eldale ar udinga Home tol Han *es rlo N th EXTO radley Comer town binson Wteiz er ~est PortlarW Park Grato r T dla Ridge lexrood iga race ELL#7 nton Bull umain 45-25 ILL n to idwa +A_NTTERBURY Its ELL#14 ~ ~ ELL# t { d can -kiver Grove ~azelia ualan terrmah -thadowood o eaven ~Ipole y aroma ankers Co. 4 twood )rwc id 5faftord quln *on +.on F1 1~ 45-20 taw hett alem ARRE j ew 1i0odvl -tprargtttook ex -tunnycres L-- : ewberg nville 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0 1271- 0 mi CELL#14 Lai: 45-24-23 3 N Lon: 122-47-41.4 W AMSL: 205 ft Tower AGL: 98 ft 1 2 PARRETT Lai: 45-19-23.7 N Lon: 122-51-49.6 W AMSL: 801 ft Tower AGL: 121 ft 3 4 Profile Info Distance: 6.65 mi Bearing: 210.22 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 5 Losses Base Loss: 99.0 dB Fade Margin:N1A Diffraction: 0.0 dB Fresnel: 0.0 dB 6 0 • 1701- 0 mi CELL#14 Lai: 45-24-23.3 N Lon: 122-47-42.6 W AMSL: 205 ft Tower AGL: 98 ft 1 BURNTWOOD Lai: 45-28-19.4 N Lon: 122-50-38.8 W AMSL: 400 ft Tower AGL: 115 ft 3 Profile Info Distance: 5.11 mi Bearing: 332.37 deg # of points 200 K value: 1.333 Frequency: 150.0000 Clearance: 0.6 4 Losses Base Loss: 94.9 dB Fade Margin.N1A Diffraction: 6.9 dB Fresnel: 5.2 dB 5 • • 0 Attachment "B" Site Design / Buffering 0 • 0 po~~~aa NUT rv,.t n • Lsgsnd qaT pay • 0 • #3 LUVr%" Iy ~J S 1 ti "rte. Tigard House 4a"Ol • t ~~~~~~=off u~tia ~ ~ ~ < r E `cjq~.w ` c:..i y r. 6 7 yam. t, - I #4 Murdock at 106th Looking East 0 0 #6 Site #5 Delmonte Drive at 104th Looking West Q SW CANTERBURY LANE A s e~'r>, • W UTILIly TR£7CH Fm PC.1tE32 tELEPL[OW I E%[SItlVC+ SHED /EwKa7V..Y tl - I II I TAX LOT E,OSTMG WATEII rANK TAX LOT 2700 Top Of Tux = 40v.7s I$ 25111BC02600 l~ awT ~I I x r lop of Wo 309.4' I 1 NQP•1Y51~[-~ ~M~ - I ' 1 ~ ' ,I ~ flies, .,Yw. aEK157Mf 11TEe [&NK U II lot- OF i ° •10.71' EXUIING 6d. CHAIN LINK FENCE _a EIOSiNG SHOP ~~••r" PEAK = 417.r eors+ 4f Rr►rnAa ~ } I Z. I' ,•OIEP. HE 1[Ae tTAn111L GATE TO ,P' r i FLQI aF IWTER ~W pLM rr•, ,I 1F .t 1 117 Pvc i . ,Eb IE.3EG.~T W, PMC a dea~ee.oe ro F,a V. PIM I I stoR.LGE "'H5 I : Pr,ovr~eEn eav rrAlolc ~ < Y a R~ ♦ •e'. r...9 V P/ICILITY E)1rl.1 Eu FT, TOeEN p. "'•M' 1 1 1^" . ri~• I 410 uo Ft. PF+f F e1n • , vii _ pp( IN LILAC 1E)11,E 9 O my .r I GAOV! A? 9WT[#E'•1i COMER OF 917E Cq~►Al/tl FIR Im" I PRL# W TO N' N f)IAPmo SW MURDOCK STREET SITE PLAN . roa-o• • ~9 i OWoF { ~T A OLO gt+s ' ~%~ytiNC7 G j ~¢AT 01;4 ~N 7(S C1 Pu~~ ' oAt rn CIS - 1DGE' t t: ra►s. - 500 to - pROPASE - 1 l° -~L tOP or 20" OR µT.51119 MC 1' ' \ %'r _ y ! i._lr LAN -rum 'e`.`•, ~ i ' •ar7~' ~ - • ' - ^.l - TOP OF MA 48 93.6 V ' OF ~ApLE ~ IN a Nt: 95.9 doom g9tING6~ ..rrrrrr ~ulc FENCE _ _ - - - • • • Attachment "C" Economic Affect on Adjacent Parcels 0 ZELL & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Appraisers and Counselors 1 ' MARKET STUDY Of Potential Impacts Of Cell Tower Siting on Residential Home Values Washington County, Oregon Prepared for: T-Mobile 1500 NE Irving St., Suite 530 Portland, Oregon 97232 December 28, 2002 Prepared by: Craig Zell, MAI, SRA Zell Report No.: 02-250 Zell & Associates Real Estate Appraisers and Counselors December 28, 2002 Mr. Lance Bailey T-Mobile Services 1500 NE Irving St.; Suite 530 Portland, Oregon 97232 Re: Market Study regarding the affects of cell tower siting on residential home values. Dear Lance, At your request and pursuant to our, authorization for professional services dated November 22, 2002, I am reporting the results of a market study performed for the purposes of detennining the affect on value of cell towers in close proximity to • residential homes. In this study I have taken locations of cell towers from your company, from the Washington County Planning office and the Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro to begin the study. After locating cell towers in residential zones, I have researched home sales in and around the neighborhood to determine if there is any affect on the sale prices of homes in close proximity to these towers. As you know, few towers are located in residential zones, but several are available for study. Extra efforts were made to study the background of the homes in question and any other factors that would affect value. I came into this study with a promise to report whatever findings were apparent regardless of their nature. I began with the intuitional bias that there would be at least some affect of a cell tower in one's "back yard." However, this study added greatly to my understanding of the issue and I am reporting the objective information for your. use and the potential use of the public. Research on the impacts of cell towers has been rare in the Portland Metro area, but several studies have been reviewed from other parts of the country as well as a variety of similar studies regarding electric transmission lines and water reservoirs. Since 1975, researchers have created a body of knowledge on the subject of electric transmission lines because of the concern over Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) emitting from these power lines. A review of the literature from Kroll and Priestly] contains a Cynthia A. Kroll and Thomas Priestley, The effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values, a Review and .4nalysis of the Literature, Edison Electric Institute Siting & Environmental Planning Task Force, 701, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D. C. 20004-2696 (1992) 6800 SW 105th Avenue, Suite 110 • Beaverton, OR 97008 • (503) 469-9355 • (503) 469-0106 Fax • thorough list of the relevant information in the field, but fails to bring references to • similarities with cell towers. What the literature did reveal is the similar methodology and techniques that are used to measure the impact of lines on value. These are identical to general appraisal techniques used in comparing market data to a subject property. This is the use of the sales comparison approach wherein sale prices are studied of properties sold along transmission lines, cell towers or other perceived positive and negative influences such as view orientation, open space adjacency, traffic nuisance, etc. These sales are compared to properties (comps) sold elsewhere. A comp. is often defined as a sale that has a similar land use classification (residential, agricultural, commercial), improvements (home, commercial structures, landscaping, etc.), and sale conditions (arm's length, foreclosure, etc.). Several statistical techniques (regression, analysis of variance, comparison of means) have been used to formally compare the value of property with various influence noted above to comps located elsewhere. Generalized findings from these studies are listed below: • Overhead transmission lines can reduce the value of residential and agricultural property. The impact is usually small (0-10%) for single-family homes. The greatest impacts have been measured in intensively managed agricultural property (irrigators, etc.) and in rural, second home developments. • • Other factors such as location, improvements, and lot size are more likely to be major determinants of sale price. • Impacts on sales are most likely to occur on property immediately adjacent to the lines. • In areas where the perceived negative influence is landscaped or developed for recreational use (transmission lines), positive impacts have been measured. • More significant impacts, on a percentage basis, have been noted for smaller properties than for larger properties. • Impacts are more pronounced immediately after construction of a new line and diminish over time. Methodology Cell tower locations were researched within the Washington County area and in residential zones. These locations were further researched for sales of single family homes around these locations, Sales were collected using Washington County Assessors records, MetroScan records (a subscription service owned by First American • Title Insurance Company), Realtors Multiple Listing Service (RMLS) records, and personal interviews with property owners and others involved in the sale of the 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 3 properties. Data collection was limited to sales occurring since 1998 to the present ` • (12/02). These sales were collected along various sites located adjacent to or in close proximity to cell towers or other influences. Sample homes in proximity to cell towers are referred to as Subjects in this report while the comparison properties are referred to as comps. After subject properties were identified adjacent to cell towers or in one case a transmission line corridor, research was conducted to determine if the subjects had been purchased in the last few years. ' When identified, sales of similar homes were compared that were unaffected by cell towers to determine what, if any, affect the cell towers had on the values of the properties or in the rate of appreciation as compared with that of the neighborhood. Comparing various units of measurement such as price per sq. ft. and rates of appreciation indicated the effect of the cell tower. Each of the comparables was field inspected and photographed prior to efforts for full confirmation. When discrepancies occurred in physical data between county records and others records, county data was given greater consideration for the sake of consistency. Each of the cell towers was within visible range and varied in their visual impact. Some of the wireless facilities were located on transmission line towers, light towers or were free standing mono-pole towers with various receptor toppings. Comparables were selected in much the same way as they are in a typical residential home appraisal. Each comparable was carefully chosen to be a close match with its respective subject. The following data was gathered and compared for each pair: Item Compared Quantity/Quality of Item Sale Terms Each sale is cash equivalent Sale Date Market changes since sale date Sale Price Sale price of subject and comps Time on Market Number of days on market versus Appreciation rate Percent increase since last sale Lot Size Size of lots for subject and comps Home size Square footage of subject and comps Age of Residence Effective age of subject and comps Condition Observed condition of subject and Number of Bedrooms Number and size of bedrooms Number of Baths Number of full and half baths Car storage/type Number of garages Other Bonus rooms, quality of kitchen etc. Exterior Improvements Quantity and quality of landscaping Quality of viewshed Distance to influencing structure • 02-250-1vtobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 4 • The first and perhaps the most important of the above attributes is that there was an arms length transaction that was not tainted with seller concessions, foreclosure, forced sale conditions, etc. The second item of comparison between the subjects and the comps is the dates of sale. As the market changes, the date of sale is important to adjust the comps for any increase or decrease in the neighborhood values so as to both study the affects in the neighborhood and to equalize the comps to the subject for a current value as of the date of the subject sale. Care was taken to choose the most recent sale as compared with the subjects, yet also the most comparable homes to compare with the subject. Additionally, the sales were to be functionally equivalent and capable to contributing to a similar style of living. Matching numerous pairs in this manner allowed comparison of the properties found near influencing structures such as cell phone towers, electric transmission lines, etc. The primary data source for the sales and the comparables was the county assessor records through MetroScan, Realtors Multiple Listing Service records, confirmation of each sale through one of the people involved in the sale (listing or selling salesperson), and personal interviews with buyer or seller. Confidentially was offered where it was requested for as much cooperation as possible. A confirmation rate was achieved for 80% of the sales, thorough enough to achieve an adequate result. After filtering the number of sites for research, four sites were chosen for presentation • in this analysis. These are identified as follows: 1. SW Gassner Rd. at 186`" -Cooper Mt., Washington County 2. SW Kemmer Rd. at 182nd -Coopper Mt., Washington County 3. NE Airport Rd. at approx. 48`" -Dawson Station, Hillsboro 4. NW West Union Rd.-Stoller Farms, Washington County While none of these sites are exactly the same as the subject Golden Rd. location, they do point to a surprising pattern of a lack of impact. The following explains the market data research and conclusions. • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 5 ~ i • Subiect Data Set #I-Gassner Rd. Tower The monopole cell tower at Gassner Rd. is located between SW Gassner Rd. and Kemmer Rd. on Cooper Mt. just east of SW 190 Ave. It sets among a grove of trees approximately 350 ft. from the home located at 18905 SW Heightsview Ct. This home sold in February, 2002 for $340,000 and contained 3,177 sq. ft. of living area or a price of $107.02 per sq. ft.. The home was built in 1973 and is sited on an approximate 2/3 acre lot. It contains 4 bedrooms and 3 baths. This home and its sale price were compared with four other competing homes in the Cooper Mt. area that sold during the same time period. These sales are shown in table form with the various units of comparison itemized. Each of the sales ranged in a price per sq. ft. from $96.03 to $115.22 with a variance in size from the greatest at -15.64% and the least at -3.31%. In other words, the subject was the largest of the data set and exhibited the typical inverse relationship between a price per sq. ft. and the size wherein the largest home exhibits the least price per sq. ft. Each comparable was sited on a large lot from .36 acres to 1.77 acres and each home was approximately a similar age and condition. The time on the market represents a typical norm at 3 days to 400 days with the subject at 94 days. The data set shows no measurable decline or diminution in value of the subject home due to the cell tower. • 02-250-Nlobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 6 • • • 02-250-Nlobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates DATA SET A PHOTOGRAPHS -18905 SW Heights-view Ct. r r • • COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS -18905 SW Heightsview Ct. Comp #1 - 16785 SW Spellman Comp #3 - 7515 SW Miller Hill Rd. 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates Comp, #2 - 11233 SW 175th Comp #4 - 9890 SW Grabhorn Rd. O N N vi O 0 O Cr, (D n CD O (D ti C N a 0 SUBJECT AND COMPARABLE SALES CHART • Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 omparable 3 omparable 4 18 905 SW eiht sview Ct. 6785 SW el 1T11 p an Dr. 1233 SW 75th Ave 515 SW ller Hil 1 Rd. 90 SW abhorn R d. Sale Terms Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash E uivale t Sale Date 2/5/02 6/18/02 7/12/02 5/1/02 q n 3/4/02 Tower Constr. Date 6/4/99 6/4/99 6/4/99 6/4/99 6/4/99 Sale Price $ 340,000 $ 329,900 $ 295 000 $ 330 000 $ 300 000 Price/ S .Ft. $ 107.02 $ 113.13 , $ 96.03 , $ 115 22 , $ 111 94 Increase N/A N/A N/A . N/A . N/A Increase Period N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Time on Market 94 Days 3 Days 400 Days 55 Days Unk Lot Size .65 acres 36 acres 1.66 acres 1 77 acres . 1 14 acr Hoene size s .ft. 3,177 2,916 3 072 . 2 864 . es 2 680 A e--Act./Eff. 29AJ20E 35A/25E , 25A/20E , 24A /20E , 24A/20E Condition Average Average Average . Average Avera e Number Bedrooms 4 5 3 4 g 4 Number of Baths 3 3 3 3 5 2 Car storage/ type 3 Car oversized 2 Car Attached 3 Car Attached . 2 Car Attached 2 Attached + B ®ther arn Viewshed Monopole Easterly Woods Woods Territorial is 0 0 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH -18905 SW Hei htsview Ct • • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 10 • Subject Data Set #2-Cooper Mt. Data set #2 is also located on Cooper Mt. in the subdivision of Kemmerview Estates. The cell tower located on the south side of SW Kemmer Rd. is approximately 350 feet from the row of homes abutting Kemmer Rd. The subject in this data set was sold in September, 1999 for $350,000 or $123.07 per sq. ft. and has the tower in prominent view from the rear of the home. Four homes were used as comparisons with a range of prices per sq. ft. from $113.15 to $125.10. Each was located on an approximate 10- 11,000 sq. ft. lot and did not have any view other than the neighborhood or surrounding territorial view. The interesting point in this data set is the increase in value of the comparables versus the subject. The subject had a greater increase (7.69%) from 11/97 to 9/99 than each of the comparables over the past several years. This appears to be in line with the general market and the trends in the neighborhood. The price per sq. ft., $123.07 for the subject versus the comps at $113.15 to 125.10 per sq. ft., was in line or higher than the comparables and exhibited a similar age, quality and appeal. This subject owner, Doug Miller, was personally interviewed to determine the accuracy of the empirical data. Questions were posed as follows: • Did the cell tower influence your decision to purchased the home? • Did the location of the cell tower influence the price you paid for the home? In each case the answer was "NO". While discussion was continued during the interview regarding the relative distance from the home ( in this case 350') at no time was concern addressed that there was any danger from the tower or decrease in value of the home due to it's location. Most of the discussion was concerning the lack of homes being built or allowed on the adjacent parcel that contains the tower due to it's location outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 1 I • DATA SET #2 PHOTOGRAPHS -18120 SW Jeremy St. • 02-250-Mobile, Cell tower study Zell & Associates 12 0 0 COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS 18120 SW Jeremy St. • • Comp #1-17598 SW Albert Ct. Comp 43 -17584 SW Kemmerview Ct. 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates Comp #2 -17636 SW Albert Ct. Comp #4 - 9160 SW 182nd Ave. 13 O N N v. O .1 O N (7 (D s N N R~ a 0 A y SUBJECT AND COMPARABLE SALES CHART Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 18120 SW remy St. 17598 SW bert Ct. 7636 SW bert Ct 7584 SW enunervie w Ct. 9 60 SW 82nd Ave. Sale Terms Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash E uivalent Sale Date 9/1/99 8/29/00 2/8/00 6/14/00 q 10115101 Tower Constr. Date 6/14/96 6/14/96 6/14/96 6/14/96 6/14/96 Sale Price $ 350,000 $ 381,000 $ 370 000 $ 340 000 $ 475 000 Price/ S .Ft. $ 123.07 $ 118.36 , $ 113.15 , $ 115 84 , $ 125 10 % Increase 7.69% 6.28% 2.21% . 2 88% . 6 79% Increase Period 11/97--9/99 9/95--8/00 3/98--2/00 . 4/98--6/00 . 6/97--10/01 Time on Market 141 Days Unk. Unk. Unk Unk Lot Size 11000 sq.ft. 10038 sq.ft. 10355 sq.ft. . 10829 . 10881 Home sizes .ft. 2,844 3,219 3 270 2 935 3 797 A e--Act./Eff. 14A/10E 1 0A/7E , 8A/5E , 5A/5E , 11A/SE Condition Average Average Average Average Very Good Number Bedrooms 3 5 4 4 4 Number of Baths 3 3 3 3 3 Car storage/ type 2 Car Attached 3 Car Attached 3 Car Attached 3 Car Attached 3 Built in Other . Viewshed Monopole neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood • IZ • M 15 Zell & Associates Mobile Celt tower study p2.250-- 0 0 Subject Data Set #3-Dawson Station Townhomes • This is perhaps the most reliable of the data sets due to the prominence of the cell tower located off of Airport Rd. in Hillsboro. The monopole tower is colored red and white with a blinking red light on the top and is located approximately 350' from the home located at 1995 NE 50`h Way. It is in plain view of several of the new town homes that were built during the 2001-02 season. The subject chosen was a 1,762 sq. ft. condominium that sold in January, 2002 for $185,000. Four of the same models were used in comparison with the subject. The first comp is located in the same building, but on the opposite side and has a similar view of the tower. It sold in August, 2002 for $192,020 after a price increase in the Spring. According to Gayleen Weiler, the realtor representing the project, the buyer chose to purchase and install bookcases and other. extras that tended to increase the price. Ms. Weiler was asked if the cell tower impacted the price of these units or their marketing time. She stated that there was no impact on the marketing of these units. " To further compare these units, three other sales were researched and confirmed as shown on the comparable chart. Comps 2-4 have no line of site with the tower due to large trees between them and indicate the same price and price per sq. ft., except in the case of #4 that had an extra bedroom finished in the garage area. Also, in comp #4, there was $7,000 contributed to closing costs. Therefore, it appears from these sales . that there is no diminution of value caused by the location of the cell tower. To further verify the evidence above, an interview was held with one of the buyers, Ms Jaxine (Jackie) Johnson. The question was posed: "Did the cell tower have any influence on your decision to purchase the condominium?" and "Did the cell tower have any influence on the amount you paid for the unit?" In response to each question the answer was "NO." This seemed to confirm the empirical evidence from the sales records. is 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 16 • 0 9 11 L ell Sc Associates lvtobile Cell tower study 02_270' • COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS -1995 NE 50th Way Comp #1 -1953 NE 50th Way Comp #2 - 2109 NE 50th Way • Comp #3 - 2105 NE 50th Way Comp #4 - 2167 NE 50th Way 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 18 0 N v~ O O O' CD n rn O CD G N ID ~ I y a n mro SUBJECT AND COMPARABLE SALES CHART Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 - NE 199 - 0th WY 53 NE 19 - ~Oth Way 2109 NE SOtI Way 2105 NE 4th Way 2167 NE 0th Way S ale Terms Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Sale Date 1/18/02 8/16/02 6/25/02 12/11/01 9/11/02 Tower Constr. Date 2/6/91 2/6/91 2/6/91 2/6/91 2/6/91 Sale Price $ 185,000 $ 192,020 $ 193,000 $ 193,000 $ 210,000 Price/ S .Ft. $ 104.99 $ 108.98 $ 109.53 $ 109.53 $ 103.19 Increase N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Increase Period N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Time on Market 8 Days 6 months 286 Days 0 0 Lot Size N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Home sizes .ft. 1,762 1,762 1,762 1,762 2,035 A e--Act./Eff. OA/OE OA/OE OA/OE OA/OE OA./OE Condition New New New New New Number Bedrooms 3 3 3 3 4 Number of Baths 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Car storage/type 1 Car Built in 1 Car Built in 1 Car Built in 1 Car Built in 1 Built in Sales Concessions Bookcases +$3,000 Closing Cost $7,000 Viewshed Monopole Monopole Woods Woods Woods . • AERIAL, PHOTOGRAPH 1995 NE 50th Way • 9 Zell & Associates 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study 20 Subject Data Set #4-Stoller Farms • Data set #4 is located in the Stoller Farms #2 development on the north side of NW West Union Rd. This data set is a little different than the others in that the cell antennas are located on a power line tower along a power line corridor. The subject property, 4692 NW 166th Ave., is located on the power line corridor and the cell antennas are in line of site. This pole is much larger than a typical monopole and emits electrical magnetic fields (EW's) which have a potential health concern publicized locally and nationally by the media, but refuted by the various power companies. On the opposite side of the power line is the Claremont Golf Course, a factor that may mitigate the effects of the transmission line. The chosen subject property is a current listing by John L. Scott for an asking price of $205,000. The home has 1,705 sq. ft. which calculates to an asking price per sq. ft. of $120.23. The home last sold in October, 1998 for $189,950 and assuming the full price is obtained, reflects an increase of 1.98%. This is smaller, but in line with the comps in the neighborhood that range from a -.8% to 4.12% annually. The period of sales coverage is from about 1998 when the homes were first build and sold to the most current sale in 2002. The one home that sold for less than the prior sale backed to the power lines and was in plain view of the tower at the southerly end and the tower in the middle at the point that the pedestrian path crosses into the subdivision. • The differences in size of each of the comparables were considered and reflects the typical inverse relationship between size and the price per sq.ft. This is shown in h' . +1' . A t 4.1, ht grap is form m e w in o w o e rig . The closest comp in size also indicates a similar price per sq. ft., but has a larger lot. This may indicate a slight difference in price caused by the transmission lines, but can also be due to the comp backing to West Union Rd., a heavily traveled arterial. This would lead to the comp at Oakridge Dr. that is not affected by a perceived negative Price per Sq. Ft. vs Size 2200 raj " sear z c 2100 ' A x 2000 ` w 1900 n ' p 1800 y 1700 -?=Sax?.~'sSz.`, 1600 ::d31a-i~1 i•".:~x ~Lu v~ 1500 $105 silo $115 $120 6125 Price/Sq.Ft. influence and sits in a typically residential setting. This sale indicates a price per sq. ft at $114.12 and increased in value by 3.67% annually over the past two years. This rate of increase appears to be typical of the neighborhood, although above that of the subject. This may indicated a slight decrease in value caused by the transmission lines. While the above case study is in regards to transmission corridors, it is different than cell phone towers. In the case of cell towers there is little, if any, fear of health caused • by radio waves versus the perception of health risks from electrical fields. The slight diminution in value next to transmission lines does not, according to the data, transfer to a decrease in value caused by location of a cell tower. 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 21 DATA SET 44 PHOTOGRAPHS - 4692 NW 166th Ave. Subject View of Powerline Tower • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 22 • • 02-250.--Mobile Cell totiver study Zell & Associates 0 0 23 Comp #1 _ 4752 NW 166"' Ave. Comp #3 - 4679 NW Buckboard Dr. Cornp #2 - 4635 N.W Buckboard Dr. Comp #4 - 16818 NW Oakridge Dr. O N N v. 0 f _o N C) N E N C a a 0 n • • SUBJECT AND COMPARABLE SALES CHART • Subject CoinPrab1 a e 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 4692 NW 66111 Ave. 4752 NW 66th Ave 4635 NW uckboard D r. 679 NW uckboard Dr. 6818 NW Oakrid e Dr g Sale Terms Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Cash Equivalent Sale Date Current Listing 4/17/02 6/11/02 8/23/02 9/24/02 Tower Constr. Date 12/27/00 12/27/00 12/27/00 12/27/00 12/27/00 Sale Price $ 205,000 $ 227,500 $ 226,000 $ 220,000 $ 232,000 Price/ S .Ft. $ 120.23 $ 114.78 $ 107.67 $ 120.48 $ 114.12 Annual % Increase 1.98% -0.80% 2.65% 4.12% 3.67% Increase Period 5/98--6/02 6/99-4/02 5/98--6/02 5/99--8/02 12/00--9/02 Time on Market 30 days 102 13 Days 85 Days 106 Lot Size 5,000 5,000 6,250 7,840 5,227 Home sizes .ft. 1,705 1,982 2,099 1,826 2 033 Age--Act./Eff. 4A/3E 4A/3E 4A/3E t 5A/3E , 4A/3E Condition Average Average Average Average Average Number Bedrooms 3 4 4 4 4 Number of Baths 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Car storage/ e 2 Car Built in 2 Car Built in 2 Car Built in 2 Car Built in 2 Car Built in Other Viewshed Power Line/Pole Power Luie/Pole Traffic Traffic Neighborhood . • • IJ A 4 0 25 'Lell & pssoc+ates Ce11 tower study g2.2~a~,~,(obile 6th Aye. A(C)2 Nom' 1 9 0 • Conclusions The study began with an objective to determine the impact of cell towers on residential values in close proximity to the towers themselves. I originally had a bias that there would be at least some difference in value due to the location of the towers, but ended with the evidence showing a lack of diminution of value. After research into ten or more sites and finally choosing four sites for study, the empirical data showed no affect on the value of homes in close proximity to the towers. The variables in the study are • distance from single family homes to the towers • size of the homes, • condition of the residences, and • other conditions that were undiscovered such as sales concessions that could not be verified and motivations of the sellers and buyers. Actual interviews with buyers and participants in the transaction revealed no impact with the decision to purchase or the price paid for the property and a conclusion is rendered that, within the limits of the study, no diminution of value is present due to the • line of site location of a cell tower. This may be tempered by the distance from the tower to a residence as all of the evidence points to towers being at a distance of approximately 150' to 350' from a cell tower location. There have been inferences that the location of a cell tower limits the market or the market participants and therefore the value of the property is diminished. I would submit that this variable was not a factor in any of the four case studies and that other physical characteristics interact in the market to limit the number of potential buyers. This limitation can be due to the fact that some buyers would never purchase a home next to a church, or a school, or a busy street, or a certain style of home. Some buyers are limited to single level homes or multi-level homes, or a home of a certain color and the limitation is almost endless with location being paramount. Therefore, the argument that simply the location of a cell tower limits the market for buyers cannot be sustained, as there are too many other variables that would interact into a purchase decision. • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 26 • I hope the above analysis assists you in the planning process through the City of • Beaverton. If there are any questions you or the planners may have regarding this report, please feel free to call me. Thank you for allowing me to be of service and assist you in with your real estate valuation and consulting needs. Respectfully submitted ZELL & ASSOCIATES Craig Zell, I, SRA President • 02-250-Mobile Cell tower study Zell & Associates 27 _0 • CERTIFICATE OF MARKET STUDY I certify the following to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The undersigned has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and the comparables used in the analyses. 3. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and is my personal, unbiased, professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. 4. I have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the subject of this report. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved, and my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. 5. No one other than the undersigned provided professional assistance in the research of data and in preparation of this report. Data used in the analysis may have been obtained from other professionals; however, if so, the data has been independently investigated, analyzed, and verified by the undersigned. Information furnished by others is believed reliable and correct, but no responsibility can be assumed for its accuracy. 6. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. The employment of the appraiser was not conditioned upon the appraisal producing a specific value or a value within a given range; the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation nor specific valuation or any subsequent event. I further certify that I have the knowledge and experience to complete the assignment competently. 8. As of the date of this report, Craig Zell, MAI, SRA has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Zell, RA Oregon Certi ation Number: C000108 Expiration Date: May 31, 2004 / 14 D to 0 f. iJa Z yZG REQUEST FOR COMMEN S DAME: lanuarv30, 2004 To: Tom Highland, Oregon Department of AviaHen FROM: NU of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner (x2428) Phone: (503) 639-4171/ Fax: (5031684-)29] EXHIBIT B gn.=TtG~ CM OF 4RD Community 0CV&pment ShapingA Better Community CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010NARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 ➢ WCCCA [Washington comacaamlidated eommumeavonstgenco MONOPOLE TOWER Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' mono ole and a 10'x20' communications shelter to house associated support equipment. The proposed facilip is located within a Historic District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic dtiistrict standards LOCATION: 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM 25111 BC, Tax Lot 2600. ZONE: R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. (HD), Historic Overlay District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the ro sal in the near future.. If you wish to comment on this application, You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. you are unable to res and b the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments an confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible,. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. ~ ritten comments provided below: ~ w~ Parr . Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting `a kA -/-/ZAM A-u(A-lta-,c X &z4w3 MN- Feb 27 04 11:03a A-1 February 27, 2004 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97224 Subject: WCCCA Monopole Tower Dear Hearing Officer: • EXHIBIT C I am writing in response to the hearing held on February 23°d, regarding installing the monopole in my Lang Hill neighborhood. At the hearing I heard any objections made must have EVIDENCE, not just an opinion. I contacted an appraiser I work with quite a bit asking him if he could provide me with some EVIDENCE to submit to the City regarding the following: 1. In the event the monopole is approved on the property the Water District owns, and with the treed area south of the property (the end of Murdock), if there would be a negative impact on the value of my home? He stated he felt the effect on the value of my home would probably be minimal with the property as it stands today which includes the treed area at the end of my street (Murdock). The only way he could give me specifics or evidence would be if he could compare my home with a similar home in a neighborhood that currently has a monopole. Basically alike for like property. 2. If the monopole was installed and Murdock Street was put through, the large trees/forested area would be removed and the monopole would be much more visible. Would the impact be a bigger factor in effecting the value of my home and homes in the neighborhood? My appraiser told me he could provide the EVIDENCE you are asking for, but it would take hours of research to find a similar home (in my case a townhome) near an existing monopole (which I understand is in Milwaukie) in order for him to make a determination of what effect this monopole will have on the value of my home - in other words it would be very costly to get you this evidence, while at the same time I think the probability of him locating a monopole in a residential neighborhood, and a townhome home would be extremely small. I.E., a like for like property. You may be aware an appraisal is very subjective, and one appraiser's determination may not be the same as another appraiser. The same issue would come into play in the event I had a realtor research the effect the monopole would have on the neighborhood. Logic should tell you if there was a 150' structure as visible as day in your neighborhood or in a neighborhood you were looking to purchase a home in, it would have a negative impact on the homes in the neighborhood and be a factor in ones decision regarding moving into the neighborhood. The City of Tigard needs to address the issue of the monopole and opening up Murdock Street as a joint issue. I am sure you are aware this is a high-density area, with multiple apartments, condos, single family Feb 27 04 11:03a • p.2 residences, a church, etc. Both issues are connected and as a homeowner, one does effect the other. IF the monopole is approved the City of Tigard must determine the long term plan of this site. This would protect the neighborhood from having to revisit this issue with the City in the future. Removing this forested area as it stands today, substantially increases the visibility of the monopole from homes in the neighborhood and will have a greater impact on the value of homes in the neighborhood. Just this morning as I am getting ready for work I can hear the trucks working in the Water District area. Some of the trees that are currently along the fence where Calway Hills property line meets the Water District property line are dying. Currently they provide somewhat of a screen to the homeowners, that have the Water District in their back yard, but eventually they will have to be removed leaving any structures on the Water District property in plain view from their back yards and windows of their homes! It is unfortunate the City cannot make a determination on these issues jointly. These issues are linked and must be addressed and resolved so the concerned citizens can have a clear picture of the full impact of the proposed monopole. Sincerely, Cherie Stanley 10573 SW Murdock Tigard, OR 97224 Cc: info@takebacktigard.org 0 • EXHIBIT D Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 l A 1 ~1, Jii, l ~JV~f0 We are Robert and Betty Banford and we reside at 14790 SW 104a'. During previous conversations with Morgan Tracy of the City of Tigard on February 4, 2004, and again on February 25, 2004, we raised the question as to the accuracy of the dimensions contained in the Greenstreet application's Site Plan. We had repeatedly measured the Water District complex, both inside and outside the fenced area, and disagree with the measurements portrayed as satisfying the set back criteria. Morgan informed us that the tower must be set back far enough so that, if it falls, it must land within their property and not on the South side of the proposed SW Murdock road. A discussion ensured about how far the proposed tower site was from the dedicated road right of way. On February 25, Morgan did a rough measurement from an aerial view of the property that the City has on their computer, and it came out significantly less than the required distance. We told Morgan that Gus Duenas of the Engineering Department had told us in CIP meetings during the 11999 battle' over the road that he was going to increase the road right of way from 45 feet (Per the tax map, 20 feet being provided by the Water District property and 25 feet being provided by the Del Monte subdivision) to 50 feet by taking the extra five feet from the Water District property. This would reduce the set back even further. There is no way that the 152 foot monopole tower would be "set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower". This criterion is NOT satisfied. We have reviewed our measurement data and have come to the following conclusions: 0 The 5.65 acres noted in the applicant's application, we believe, includes the road right of way which is not part of the Water District property. 0 The distance from the back of the concrete bins to the fence is 48 feet. Both the applicants and our measurements match that distance. Per the applicant, the southern face of the tower is 7 feet from the concrete bins. That places the southern tower face as being 41 feet from the present fence. 14790 SW 104a' Tigard, OR 97224 February 27, 2004 0 We have repeatedly measured the distance from the fence to the north side of the present Murdock road right of way as • • approximately 97.5 feet. Increasing the right of way to 50 feet makes that distance approximately 92.5 feet. 0 That makes the distance from the southern tower face to the north side of the present right of way approximately 138.5 feet (41 + 97.5). If you increase the right of way by 5 feet the distance is reduced to approximately 133.5 feet. 0 In their Site Plan the applicant's measurement to the property line is stated as 156 feet 10 :h inches. Everything points to the fact that what they are calling the north side of Murdock is really the south side of the Water District allocation for the street or approximately the middle of the proposed road. Therefore, without an official survey, the applicant's measurement on their Site Plan is in question and should not be taken as true. It would be impossible to satisfy the set back criteria and accommodate a 152 foot tower at its present proposed location. We certainly feel that there is sufficient evidence to question the accuracy of the measurements contained in the applicant's Site Plan. Further investigation in this matter is appropriate. Respectfully, Robert and Betty Banford (503) 639-0433 0 0 EXHIBIT E Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 14790 SW 104`t' Tigard, OR 97224 February 27, 2004 ID We are Robert and Betty Banford and we reside at 14790 SW 104`h. We purchased a lot in the Del Monte Subdivision in 1968 for $4,700. This site was selected by us as it was surrounded by heavily wooded areas with a multitude of tall fir trees to the North and an orchard to the West. The setting was ideal in a brand new subdivision, therefore we felt secure the area would retain its value. The Water District area was not a concern to us as the storage tanks in place were not very tall and there was more than adequate buffering with their landscaping. As our property was in Washington County, we checked their records and found no evidence that the neighborhood would be anything more than residential. This subdivision was appealing in every way but especially by the fact that it was such a ideal setting to raise a family. We had our daylight basement house built by a private contractor for approximately $35,000, minus landscaping, and moved into the house in 1969. Inevitably, developers found the open land and established owner occupied duplex condominiums to the West. Over the years, further developments toward the Pacific Highway included multiple family housing. Our immediate surroundings retained its livability due in part to the forested area on the Water District property which is now in jeopardy from proposed development. Our property value has increased substantially over the last 34 years. The current 2003-2004 property tax assesses our RMV value at $263,880. Our research tells us the real selling price of our house would be around $300,000 plus in today's market. This value is based on our knowledge of comparable houses recently sold within our own neighborhood as well as input from a real estate broker. The selling prices of those houses on SW 103'd range from $279,000 to $386,000. Please see the attached supporting data. We believe that the WCCCA development will adversely affect property values on SW 104th by the fact that any potential buyer will first have the visual impact of a 152 foot tower as they drive down the street to our property. The monopole tower will be a detriment to the appeal of our neighborhood which would limit the number of prospective buyers. As we have previously stated, many potential buyers consider a communications tower to be a health hazard as well, again limiting the number of prospective buyers. Once in place the monopole tower and support complex will also be clearly visible from our front, North side and back yards. Our outdoor activities will be impacted and will no longer be as enjoyable as they have been in the past. From inside the house we will be able to view the tower from our master bedroom window as well as from our dining room window. The pleasure we have derived from our location will be greatly diminished. We have also spoken with certified real estate appraisers who have advised us that the value of our property would be diminished from this proposed development. Based upon professional input and our own conclusions, we feel that a diminished value of a minimum of $10,000 would be a realistic figure. -~t J -,,A- and, ~ ~ Robert and Betty Sanford (503) 639-0433 0kn-tv, o Z. Wright-Christie 2645 SW 153rd Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Business (503) 644-2560 Fax (503) 626-2915 Bob & Betty Bamford March 1, 2004 Tigard, Oregon Re: Sale of your home After visiting your home, and reviewing the condition of the home and the property, I believe that it will sell in the $300,000 range. Should the county decide to install their communication's tower, you must disclose this information to potential buyers. Some buyers will turn away from your property because of the radio frequency and view of the tower. My estimate is that you may receive approximately $ 10,000 less on the sale of your home. As you know, I lived in the Tigard area from 1971 to 1985. 1 am a Principal Broker for Century2l Wright-Christie, a major residential Real Estate firm. I am responsible for approximately 60 agents. I am not an appraiser and therefore cannot set a value on your property. I am relaying to you what I think the market value would be based on the information I have been given and the condition of the property. Sinc rely, Jack Auerbach Principal Broker Century2l Wright-Christie Enclosed: Resume RMLS printout Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated GO- * ~ vl?~_711 ) Wright-Christie & Assoc., Inc. • JACK W. AUERBACH Broker Member, Oregon CCIM, Chapter - Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute. Member, National and Oregon Boards of Realtors. Member, VIP Network. Investment Specialist, Completed all courses for Designation. REAL ESTATE Charter Member Greater Portland/Vancouver Commercial Association of Realtors. Consultant, Resolution Trust Company. FACILITATOR Commercial and investment transactions, including 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange. CONSULTING Management and Financial Consultant to various organizations and individuals: Major Health Care Providers Medical University Manufacturers and Wholesalers Retailers Real Estate Investors BANKING Vice President and Manager of Private Banking Senior Loan Officer Regional Manager EDUCATION Pacific Coast Banking School M.B.A, University of Hawaii B.S., University of Colorado Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated 2645 SW 153rd Drive Beaverton, OR 97006 Office (503) 644-2560 Fax (503) 626-2915 • 20795 NW Cornell Rd, #200 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Office (503) 533-4994 Fax (503) 533-5145 Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated get • , u Presented By i Donald Lain CENTURY 21 Wright Christie Page 1 of 2 Agent Full RESIDENTIAL Status: SLD 2127/2004 10:09:14 AM ML#- 241472 Area: 151 List Price: $284,900 Addr:14980 SW 103 AVE. Unit#: Lot Size: Waterfront: River/Lake: Upper SOFT Main SOFT: Lower SOFT Total SOFT: Living: Kitchen: Dining: Family: UTILITY XStIDir: Private: Public: City: Tigard Zip: 97224 Condo Loc: - Map Coord: 655/D/6 Zoning:R1 List Type: ER LR: County: Washington Tax ID: R0503967 Elem: TEMPLETON Middle: TWALITY High: TIGARD PropType: RESID Nhood: #Image: 8 Legal: DELMONTE SUBDIVISION, LOT 9, ACRES.34 Internet: VOW: GENERAL INFORMATION 10K-14,999SF # Acres: Lot Dimensions: View: OTHER Lot Desc: TREES Seller Disc: DSCLOSUR Other Disc: RESIDENCE INFORMATION #Bedrooms: 4 Year Built: 1964/ 1396 #Levels: 2 Home Warranty: Senior 55+ YIN: 1396 Style: DAYRNCH #Garage: 2 / DETACHD #Fireplaces: 2/ WOOD 2792 Roof: Exterior: CEDAR Bsmt/Fnd: FINISHD APPROXIMATE ROOM SIZES AND DESCRIPTIONS M / 20 X 19 / HARDWOD Mstr Bd: M / 14 X 8 / VAULTED Baths - Full.Part M / 13 X 12 / ISLAND 2nd Bd: M / 13 X 11 / Upper Lvl: 0.0 M / 14 X 13 / FIREPL 3rd Bd: M / 12X 11 / Main Lvl: 1.1 L / 15 X 15 / FIREPL 4th Bd: L / 14 X 12 IF WI-CLOS Lower Lvl: 1.0 DEN/OFF / / Total Bth: 2.1 REMARKS HIGHWAY 99 TO CANTERBURY LN. RIGHT ON 103RD. 2800 SO FT, 4 BEDROOM 2.1 BATH IN TIGARD.GORGEOUS VIEW OF MT.HOOD AND 800 SQ FT OF DECK.LOTS OF STORAGE WITH FULLY FENCED IN BACK YARD. CEDAR SIDING AND JACUZZI.2 CAR DETACHED GARAGE, REFR I G ERATOR AND BABY GRAND PIANO NEGOTIABLE.10 YEAR OLD ROOF.CALL MIKE 481-2027 OR BOB 422-7100 THIS IS AN IMMACULATE 4 BEDROOM 2.1 BATH HOME IN GREAT TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD.FEATURES INCLUDE BEAUTIFUL VIEW IF MT. HOOD, 2800 SQ FT, VAULTED CEILINGS, BONUS/OFFICE.CALL MIKE 4812027 OR BOB 422-7100! FEATURES AND UTILITIES Kitchen: DISHWAS, DISPOSL, GASAPPL, WAT-PUR Interior: AIRCLEN, CEILFAN, GAR-OPN Exterior: DECK, FENCED, BI-HTUB Accessibility: PARKING . Cool: CENTAIR Hot Water: GAS Heat: FOR-AIR Water: PUBLIC Sewer: PUBLIC Insul: CODE Property Tax/Yr: 2693.63 Spcl Asmt Balance: Terms: CASH, CONV HOA Dues: / HOA Incl: FINANCIAL Tax Deferral: 3rd Party: BROKER 1 AGENT DATA BRCD: PRNW56 Office: PRUDENTIAL NW PROPER LPID: MOLZR Agent: ROB MOLZAHN CoLPID: CoBRCD: CoAgent: Agent E-mail: ShowHrs: Tran: LBHrs/Loc/Cmb: Show: CALL1ST, RMLSLBX Phone: 503-692-0250 Phone: 503-790-7482 7/16/2001 List: 4/16/2001 Exp: Occ: Owner: SHERIDAN Tenant: CO-LIST MIKE FESSLER COMPARABLE INFORMATION Pend: 6/4/2001 DOM: 49 Terms: CASH O/Price: $289,900 Sold Price: $279,000 Sold: 7/12/2001 SPID: MOLZR S/Agt: ROB MOLZAHN S/Off: PRNW56 © Copyright 2004 RMLS rmPortland - MLS INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHER CONDITIONS. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. http://www.rmisweb.com/reports.asp?PropType=1&ReportID=FULL&CMA=O Cae~) 2/27/2004 0 OWNER Fuel: GAS BAC: 2.7 SAC: 0 Fax: 503-692-5409 Cel I/Pgr: CoPh: Photo: TAKE Poss: Phone: 503-684-8358 Phone: 503-481-2027 Agent Full n ,11 \&z5- vCAS TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: 0D, -ate -0"A < See ice, 00) Presented By: Donald Lain Agent Full CENTURY 21 Wright Christie RESIDENTIAL Status: SLID 2/6/2004 1:06:31 PM ML#: 273325 Area: 151 List Price: $280,000 Addr:14835 SW 103RD AVE Unit#: City: Tigard Zip: 97224 Condo Loc: i Map Coord: 655/D/6 Zoning: List Type: ER LR: County:Washington Tax ID: R0503903 Elem: TEMPLETON Middle: High: TIGARD PropType: Nhood: DELMONTE #Image: Legal: DELMONTE SUBDIV, LOT 3, ACRES.34 1 Internet:Y VOW: GENERAL INFORMATION OWNER Lot Size: 10-19.99AC # Acres: 0.34 Lot Dimensions: 14,800 APX SF Waterfront: View: Lot Desc: LEVEL, SECLDED River/Lake: Seller Disc: DSCLOSUR Other Disc: RESIDENCE INFORMATION Upper SOFT: #Bedrooms: 3 Year Built: 1967/ APPROX Main SOFT: 1608 #Levels: 2 Home Warranty: Senior 55+ YIN: Lower SOFT: 1083 Style: DAYRNCH #Garage: 2 / ATTACHD #Fireplaces: 3/ WOOD Total SOFT: 2691 Roof: SHAKE Exterior: CEDAR, LAP BsmVFnd: DAYLITE, FINISHD APPROXIMATE ROOM SIZES AND DESCRIPTIONS Living: M / 17 X 14 / BAYWIND Mstr Bd: M / 14 X 13 / BATH Baths - Full.Part Kitchen: M / 19 X 21 / COUNTRY 2nd Bd: M / 12 X 10 / Upper Lvl: 0.0 Dining: M / 10 X 9 / FORMAL 3rd Bd: M / 12X 11 / Main Lvl: 2.0 Family: L / 21 X 13 / FIREPL 4th Bd: / / Lower Lvl: 1.0 BONUS / / WI-CLOS UTILITY Total Bth: 3.0 REMARKS XSt/Dir: HALL BLVD TO W ON MCDONALD,S ON 103RD TO PROP Private: ENTER THE FRONT DOOR & IMMEDIATELY BECOME IMMERSED INTO THE STABILITY & SERENITY PROJECTED IN THIS CLASSIC.NESTLED ON OVER 1/3 AC PRIVATE SETT- IN AN UPSCALE NEIGHBORHOOD W/PEGGED WOOD FLRS IN THE LG SPLENDID COUNT- RY KITCH,MAIN FLR UTIL RM W/SINK,1 GAS/2 WOOD FRPLCS,24X15 DECK,PLAYHSE. Public: PLENTY OF CHARACTER & FINER TOUCHES PLUS A PRIVATE 1/3+AC SETTING W/ MATURE LNDSCPG.WIRED FOR HOT TUB,LG BONUS RM (WICLOS),FAM RM W/3RD FPLC. UPDATED BATHS/COUNTRY KITCH W/PEGGED WD FLRS,LG DECK.MARIAN 503-789-3000 FEATURES AND UTILITIES Kitchen: BI-RANG, DISHWAS, DISPOSL Interior: GASFPLS, HARDWOD, SMOKDET, TILE-FL, WW-CARP Exterior: DECK, DOG-RUN, FENCED, STMWIND, TL-SHED Accessibility: Cool: CENTAIR Hot Water: ELECT Heat: FOR-AIR Water: PUBLIC Sewer: SEPTIC Insul: BLOWNIN, CEILING, COD FINANCIAL Property Tax/Yr: 2774 Spcl Asmt Balance: Tax Deferral: Terms: CASH, CONV 3rd Party: HOA Dues: 0 / HOA Incl: BROKER / AGENT DATA BRCD: HOMS01 Office: HOME SELLING PARTNER LPID: WESTMARI Agent: MARIAN WEST CoLPID: CoBRCD: CoAgent: Agent E-mail: ShowHrs: Tran: LBHrs/Loc/Cmb: Show: APTONLY, RMLSLBX Fuel: GAS E BAC: 2.7 SAC: 0 Phone: 503-408-8846 Phone: 503-789-3000 4/16/2002 List: 10/11/2001 Exp: Occ: Owner: COXEN,TAMMY/TREVOR Tenant: WEEKDAYS CALL O/CELL COMPARABLE INFORMATION Pend: 2/28/2002 DOM: 140 Terms: CONV O/Price: $280,000 Sold Price: $280,000 Sold: 4/15/2002 SPID: TERRYMCG SIAgt: TERRY MCGILL S/Off: EQTY30 © Copyright 2004 RMLS rmPortland - MLS INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHER CONDITIONS. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. Fax: Cel I/Pgr: CoPh: Photo: Poss: Phone: Phone: TWALITY RESID 8 503-408-1206 SUBMIT NEGO 503-624-7189 503-757-0235 Agent Full 0 Lot Size: Waterfront: River/Lake: Upper SQFT Main SQFT: Lower SQFT Total SQFT: Living: Kitchen: Dining: Family: UTILITY XSt/Dir: Private: Public: Page 2 of 2 Presented By: Donald Lain Agent Full CENTURY 21 Wright Christie RESIDENTIAL Status: SLD 212712004 10:09:15 AM ML#: 3010651 Area: 151 List Price: $399,900 Addr:14860 SW 103Rd Avenue Unit#: City: Tigard Zip: 97224 Condo Loc: Map Coord: 655/D/6 Zoning: List Type: ER LR: County:Washington Tax ID: R0503930 Elem: Templeton Middle: Tualatin High: Tigard PropType: RESID Nhood:View #linage: 8 Legal: DELMONTE SUBDIVISION, LOT 6, ACRES.34 Internet:Y VOW: GENERAL INFORMATION 15K-19,999SF # Acres: 0.34 Lot Dimensions: 14,810 Sq Ft View: OTHER Lot Desc: LEVEL Seller Disc: DSCLAIMR Other Disc: RESIDENCE INFORMATION 0 #Bedrooms: 4 Year Built: 1969/ 1620 #Levels: 2 Home Warranty: Senior 55+ YIN: 1620 Style: TRAD #Garage: 2 / ATTACHD #Fireplaces: 2/ WOOD 3240 Roof: COMP Exterior: CEDAR Bsmt/Fnd: DAYLITE, FINISHD APPROXIMATE ROOM SIZES AND DESCRIPTIONS M / 13 X 18 / FIREPL Mstr Bd: M / 13 X 14 / Baths - Full.Part M IF 13 X 19 / ISLAND 2nd Bd: M / 11 X 13 / Upper Lvl: 0.0 M 111 X 17 / LR&DR 3rd Bd: M / 11 X 11 / Main Lvl: 2.0 L / 14 X 27 / FIREPL 4th Bd: L / 14 X 15 / Lower Lvl: 1.0 L / 12 X 14 / DEN/OFF L If 14 X 15 / Total Bth: 3.0 REMARKS Hwy 99, L SW Royalty Pkwy, R Kable, L Nave Rd, R Lady Marion, L 103rd Mt Hood Views, Superb Street Appeal, House Updated ThruOut w/Open Floorplan & Spacious Rooms. All New Vinyl Windows, RiverRock Fireplace, Cove Front Porch, Profes LandScape Frnt&Back w/Sprinklers & Custom Lighting. RV Parking. Private 1/3Acre Fully Landscaped. FAX Offers to 800-879-5697. Mt Hood Views, Superb Street Appeal, House Updated ThruOut w/Open Floorplan & Spacious Rooms. All New Vinyl Windows, RiverRock Fireplace, Cove Front Porch, Profes LandScape Frnt&Back w/Sprinklers & Custom Lighting. FEATURES AND UTILITIES Kitchen: COOK-IS, DISHWAS, DISPOSL Interior: CEILFAN, GAR-OPN, GASFPLS, SEC-SYS, SMOKDET, TILE-FL, WW-CARP Exterior: DECK, FENCED, GARDEN, GASHKUP, PORCH, RV-PARK, SPRNKLR Accessibility: Cool: CENTAIR Water: PUBLIC Property Tax/Yr: 2822.36 Terms: CASH, CONV HOA Dues: / HOA Incl: Hot Water: Sewer: SEPTIC Spcl Asmt Balance: Heat: FOR-AIR Insul: CODE FINANCIAL Tax Deferral 3rd Party: BROKER 1 AGENT DATA BRCD: PRNW07 Office: Prudential NW Proper LPID: HOAGPEGGAgent: Peggy Hoag CoLPID: CoBRCD: CoAgent: Agent E-mail: ShowHrs: Tran: LBHrs/Loc/Cmb: Clear Show: CALL1ST, RMLSLBX Phone: 503-292-9393 Phone: 503-222-2659 6/23/2003 List: 2/17/2003 Exp: Owner: Ty and Holly Dix Tenant: Holly C:503-701-6313 COMPARABLE INFORMATION - Pend: 5/14/2003 DOM: 86 Terms: CONV O/Price: $429,900 Sold Price: $386,200 Sold: 6/20/2003 SPID: HOAGPEGGS/Agt: Peggy Hoag S/Off: PRNW07 @ Copyright 2004 RMLS rmPortland - MLS INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHER CONDITIONS. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. Fuel: GAS Occ: OWNER BAC: 2.7 SAC: 0 Fax: 503-292-7708 Cell/Pgr: CoPh: Photo: SUBMIT Poss: NEGO Phone: 503-598-3088 Phone: 503-799-6369 http://www.rmisweb.com/reports.asp?PropType=1 &ReportID=FULL&CMA=O 2/27/2004 • • Presented By: Donald Lain Agent Full CENTURY 21 Wright Christie No Phi Available RESIDENTIAL ML#: 254377 Addr:14700 SW 103RD City: Tigard Map Coord: 655/D/6 County:Washington Elem: TEMP High: TIGARD Nhood: Status: SLID 2/6/2004 1:06:32 PM Area: 151 List Price: $297,900 Unit#: Zip: 97224 Condo Loc: Zoning: List Type: ER LR: Tax ID: R2083942 Middle: PropType: RESID #Image: 0 Legal: PART. PLAT 1998-167 Internet:Y VOW: Lot Size: 15K-19,999SF Waterfront: River/Lake: Upper SQFT: 720 Main SQFT: 1836 Lower SQFT: Style: Total SQFT: 2556 Roof: Living: M / 12 X 18 / Kitchen: M / 16 X 25 IF Dining: M/ / Family: M / 18 X 20 / GENERAL INFORMATION # Acres: 0.5 Lot Dimensions: 24527 SQ FT View: Lot Desc: Seller Disc: EXEMPT Other Disc: RESIDENCE INFORMATION #Bedrooms: 3 Year Built: 1920/ EXISTNG #Levels: 2 Home Warra nty: Senior 55+ YIN: FARMHSE #Garage: 0 / #Fireplaces: 1/ COMP Exterior: WOOD Bsmt/Fnd: FINISHD, PARTIAL APPROXIMATE ROOM SIZES AND DESCRIPTIONS - Mstr Bd: M / 14 X 18 / Baths - Ful l.Part 2nd Bd: U Upper Lvl: 1.0 3rd Bd: U Main Lvl: 2.0 4th Bd: Lower Lvl: 0.0 Total Bth: 3.0 REMARKS XSt/Dir: 99W TO CONTERBURY TO 103 Private: WHAT A SETTING, THIS ADORABLE OLD FARM HOUSE SITS ON A LARGE LOT WITH OLD GROWTH BROADLEAF TREES, HOME HAS BEEN REMODELED MANY TIMES, SHOP IS NEARLY 2000 SQ FT WITH TONS OF PARKING, ROOMS IN HOME ARE EXTREMELY LARGE, IT EVENS HAS A COVERED PORCH. Public: WHAT A SETTING, THIS ADORABLE OLD FARM HOUSE SITS ON A LARGE LOT WITH OLD GROWTH BROADLEAF TREES, HOME HAS BEEN REMODELED MANY TIMES, SHOP IS NEARLY 2000 SQ FT W/TONS OF PARKING,ROOMS IN HOUSE ARE EXTREMELY LARGE FEATURES AND UTILITIES Kitchen: DISHWAS Interior: Exterior: SHOP Accessibility: PARKING Cool: Hot Water: Heat: FOR-AIR Water: PUBLIC Sewer: SEPTIC Insul: FINANCIAL Property Tax/Yr: 2263.76 Spcl Asmt Balance: Tax Deferral: Terms: CASH, CONV, OTHER 3rd Party: HOA Dues: / HOA Incl: BROKER 1 AGENT DATA BRCD: JLST01 Office: JOHN L. SCOTT/TIGARD LPID: GLEAVESG Agent: GREG GLEAVES CoLPID: CoBRCD: CoAgent: Agent E-mail: ShowHrs: Tran: LBHrs/Loc/Cmb: Show: RMLSLBX, VACANT BAC: 2.25V SAC: 0 Phone: 503-639-1111 Fax: 503-620-9426 Phone: 503-639-2028 Cell/Pgr: CoPh: Photo: SUBMIT 8/20/2001 List: 6/25/2001 Exp: Occ: VACANT Poss: Owner: PARLAY CO Phone: Tenant: Phone: COMPARABLE INFORMATION Pend: 7/27/2001 DOM: 32 Terms: CONV O/Price: $310,950 Sold Price: $290,000 Sold: 8/16/2001 SPID: HEWITTMA S/Agt: MARSHALL HEWITT S/Off: RER101 Fuel: GAS © Copyright 2004 RMLSTmPortland - MLS INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO OVERCROWDING OR OTHER CONDITIONS. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. • Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 Re: WCCCA Monopole Tower Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2003-00010 Variance (VAR) 2003-00094 Dear City of Tigard: . EXHIBIT F March 1, 2004 J Q-0) aV When I moved to 14875 SW 103rd in 1998 it was for the quiet, friendly neighborhood with large lots and a rural feeling with the undeveloped land that bordered the Del Monte Subdivision. It remains a quiet, friendly neighborhood, however, the rural feeling is changing. Erickson Heights has moved in and created more traffic and there has been talk of extending Murdock Street and putting in sidewalks. The rural feeling will be gone forever if the monopole use permit is granted in our little neighborhood park area. In 1998, I purchased my home for $194,900 and have invested a large sum of money to update, add on and enhance my .42 acre property. The only view I have and want is of Mt. Hood. I do not want a monopole tower looming over my property. The tower will be seen from my back yard, master bedroom and living room besides seeing the tower as I drive to my home from all directions. It will be an eye sore! This proposed monopole tower will adversely affect all of our property values by limiting the prospective buyers who will avoid our neighborhood because of perceived health hazards and the ugliness of such a tall tower. It is difficult for any real estate appraiser to exactly measure the loss of property value that will be witnessed once a tower is erected, however, it is possible that some homes will be negatively affected by up to $20,000. I work for Windermere Realty Group and I know what buyers say and are looking for when they drive through neighborhoods. A monopole tower is not a search criteria that buyers look for and choose a neighborhood for. It will be an eye sore and a detriment to our neighborhood. Please do not allow the conditional use permit for this proposed monopole tower. Sincere , Todd Zinda 14875 SW 103rd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 s HearinLys Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date: February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA Monopole Tower Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2003-00010 Variance (VAR) 2003-00094 • EXHIBIT G Eric C. & Debra J. Margeson 14795 cw 1001 A.,P Tigard_ OR 97224-4746 March 'i, 200q niir namo/aN aro lPri` anA Tlnbro A4or aann and n,,r aAArnaa ;e 1 A,72rZ 4Z`I1 het" e ~rnn`n in TiLyard_ OR. We purchased our property in Sentember 1996 for $190.000.00. Our decision to buv this nronertv was made after viewing twenty to thirtv homes in the Tigard/Beaverton area. With small children at home we loved the location on a cul-de- sac, the clearing near the John Tigard House where our children could safely play, the lush veaetatiotir the quiet atmosnhere. It was an ideal location for our family. The current property value of our home has risen significantly in the seven years we have lived here. The 2003-2004 assessed property tax value is $260,420 and reputable realtors estimate we could expect to get $275,000.00 if we were to sell today. This estimate is based on other similar sized homes which have recently sold in our neighborhood for $280,000 to $290,000. We believe the proposed tower on the water property site would decrease the value of our property by 2-3 or $5,500 - $8,250, based on the opinion of several experienced realtors. Potential buyers would be negatively impacted by the view of the 150 foot tower, adversely affecting our chances of selling our home and/or receiving the full value for our home. The view of the tower would be a blot on our existing view of the established trees (located on the last publicly owned green space on Canterbury Hill). The retention of the old-growth trees throughout neighborhoods in Portland is what makes our area special. We hope the City will consider alternative sites for the proposed tower, and establish long term guidelines for the use of this property that will merge the needs of the city, the integrity of the neighborhood and the natural beauty of the area, which is the major reason we chose to live here. Eric and Debra Margeson (503) 598-9216 &'o a *6&7_ qar • • EXHIBIT H Mr. and Mrs. John Baker 14825 SW 104`h Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 February 29, 2004 Hearings Officer City of Tigard RE: WCCA Monopole Tower Conditional User Permit (CUP) 2003-00010 Variance (VAR) 2003-00094 Dear Sirs, In 1997, we purchased our property and house for $178,000, the asking price of the seller. One of the reason's we chose to live on 104`h avenue was because of the rural feel the neighborhood gave while at the same time being located in a medium sized suburb. This is also one of the reasons why we paid a premium price for the house. In 2003, an estimator valued our property at $255,000. This was before we invested $15,000 in improvements to the house. We are aware that any negative dollar value a visual obstruction would have to the value of our property is speculation. We can only speak from our perspective on what we would have chosen to do if the tower had been in place when we purchased the house. It is simply the value that we place on being in our yard and enjoying all of the natural elements the come with living on our street. Minimal road noise, no buildings other the houses of our neighbors, no through traffic, the park that surrounds the John Tigard house, and the trees that surround our neighborhood. If we were to purchase a property today with a tower obstructing the view, we would either not pay market value for the property or we would look elsewhere. We feel that it is reasonable to believe that a potential buyer of our property would share the same perspective. Sincerely, John Baker 0 Julie Smelter 14900 SW 103`d Ave Tigard, OR 97224 02/29/04 Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mr. Tracy, I spoke with you on the phone the other day about the proposed tower at the water property. Thank you so much for your time and careful consideration on the application. The negative effects from such a tower will effect our neighborhood visually and with certain decreased property values, financially. As a neighborhood resident and citizen of Tigard, I pose several items for your consideration. First, may I state that I do hope that another, more appropriate site is selected. If the tower MUST be placed on the water property, please consider these conditions: #1 - That no other towers be placed at this location. #2 - That no other users (other than 911 communications) be allowed to use the monopole for their use and placement of hardware. #3 - That when technology for 911 communications turns to satellite use, the tower be dismantled and removed from the property. Thank you for your time, Juli?melter"* 503-620-2935 • EXHIBIT I a • ol, 12 -44 -zap, EXHIBIT J ;x60/6 ^ - ~/~IQ ) -2,c /D -4:!:)6 V a+ t 7 • • - - - - - - I • • I P • =61.1 Ee L,2~ II C J ✓ aft the j Ip 4? z ! D 1830 ~~l ~o~~ v Tq ck,~ , OR 9 7zz T; 0 0 EXHIBIT K 3/1/04 rezvve~ February 28, 2004 Hearings Office, City of Tigard Sir: re: WCCA Monopole Tower CUP #2003-00010 (Variance CUP #2003-00010) We reside at 14854 SW 104th Ave. in full view of the proposed monopole tower. We have lived here 32 years and value very much the tranquil parklike atmosphere of this neighborhood. If the tower is erected, we will have a see it everytime we look out of our living room windows or sit on on front deck.. It will be the first thing we notice when we turn off DelMonte Dr. onto 104th ave. We are also very concerned that our property value will be adversely affected. It's presence certainly will not enhance the liveability of our neighborhood. Surely the city can find a more suitable location for this tower than a quiet and beautiful neighborhood like ours. We urge you to consider locating it somewhere else. Sincerely, Gene & Marion Knutson • EXHIBIT L re,a-, ed 3/(/°4 Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: WCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 14870 SW 104" Tigard, OR 97224 February 27, 2004 We are Jim and Susan Devers and we reside at 14870 SW 104'h. We purchased our home in 1986. We chose this sight because of the beautiful forest and dead end street. We feel the large lot gives us privacy. We often have friends and family over for barbeques in our back yard and they remark how lucky we are to have the privacy (forest and dead end street) with the possibility of the monopole 150foot tower looming above the trees it will greatly change the atmosphere from our back yard. Let alone every time we drive home, the 150 foot tower will be clearly visible. We believe that the tower will adversely affect our property value. We recently refinanced our home and the appraised value was placed at $275,000.00, we would sell for around $300,000.00. The value is based on homes that have sold recently. We believe that the 150 foot tower would be a detriment to any prospective home buyers, it would be to us. We feel the tower would devalue our property 2-3% of its market value. Susan and Jim Devers MAR-01-04 16=57 FROM= ID=5032284529 PAGE EXHIBIT M CMISTINE M. COOK ATTORNEY AT LAW Fax the Ambassador Telephone (503) 228,4529 1207 SW. SbA Avenue (503) 24MU9 Portland, Oyu 97ZU March 1, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TO 503-684-7297 Larry Epstein, Esq. City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer c/o Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 Mall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 Re: Application by Greenstreet Architecture on Behalf of Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) for a Monopole Tower, CUP No. 2003-00010; VAR No. 2003-094 Dear Mr. Epstein- These comments are submitted on behalf of Robert and Betty Banford in opposition to the application for a conditional use permit and a variance to permit development of a 150 foot monopole tower on the city property just north of their residence. Please enter this letter into the record of the decision, and please give consideration to these views, and the views stated by the Banfords and their neighbors in the supplemental materials that they are providing in this open record period. Because the application for the WCCCA tower does not comply with the criteria that govern the decision, the Banfords respectfully request that you deny it. 1. The proposed tower is too large for the subject site. Tigard Code Section 18.330.030.A.1 requires that "[t]he site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use." Please note the Ranfords' letter of this date detailing the discrepancies between their measurements of the subject site and the measurements presented by the applicant. The Banfords have established that the distance from the proposed tower to the south property line of the subject site will be no greater than 138.5 feet. If tower is to be 150 fee in height, and if it were to fall to the south, the top several feet of the tower would extend into the Murdock Road right of way. The Staff Report for the February 23, 2004 public hearing on this matter states as follows: 2/3 "This site has adequate area and dunensions to accommodate the proposed use, as demonstrated by the fact that the highest setback standard (100% of the tower MAR-01-04 16:57 FROM: ID:5032284529 PAGE 3/3 Larry Epstein, Esq. March 1, 2004 Page 2 height to the property line) can be met as proposed." Staff Report at 7. Given the Banfords' evidence concerning the actual distance from the proposed tower site to the property line, the staff conclusion is incorrect, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with code section 18.330.030_A.1. The site for which the WCCCA tower is not of an adequate size to accommodate the proposed use. In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with section 18.798.060.8.3, which requires that "[flowers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower." For these reasons, the application should be rejected. At the very least, any approval should be conditional upon the applicant submitting to the city a survey of the subject property that demonsirates that the distance to the property's south boundary is not less than the height of the proposed 150 foot tower. 2. The value of the residential properties in the area will be diminished by development of the tourer. In order to grant the variance to the Historic Disu7ict overlay criteria which, as the Staff Report explains, cannot be satisfied by this application, the Hearings Officer must find that "The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity." Code section 18.370.010_C_2_a_ The Banfords have submitted both oral and written testimony stating what they estimate the value of their house to be, and the extent to Which they estimate that the value would be diminished by construction of the proposed tower. See Banford testimony submitted at February 23 hearing, and submitted during open record period. Their own thoughts on the matter are supported by the written opinion of a real estate professional and zeal estate listings for houses in the area. In Oregon, a property owner is competent to give an opinion regarding its fair market value and diminution in value. Lunda v. Matthews, 46 Or App 701, 710, 613 P2d 63 (1980), and other cases cited in Real Estate Disputes (Oregon CITE 1993), section 8,72. I f7P.Tf~ 7C YfA P`UYl~Pr1fA thM tho T2~n~n..rln 1~^Tr ..lr.at... -J w..w wv wwv v. ..vwww utv.w.wv IVQAAA%/A%4> AGLVAI JYAA1V1V11~ A\AAV VVIVU6G Vl U1g,- JU%azo MIJU circumstances surrounding their property and its market value; to the contrary, they have submitted for the recorded evidence of their knowledge and in support of their estimate. The Hearings Officer should find that if the variance were granted and the tower built, there would be material detriment in the form of diminished property value to other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and should deny the application. V y y urs, 1 0 0 N' 41 Association Member: t Pad E. OIM* 9160 S.W. Edgewood Li Tigard, OR. 97 • EXHIBIT N Tigard Area Historical & Preservation • EXHIBIT 0 RECEIVED PLANNINU MAR 0 2 2004 CITY OF TIGARD Julie Smelter 14900 SW 103`d Ave Tigard, OR 97224 03/01/04 Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: Monopole at water property I am writing in response to my concern over the tower proposal for our neighborhood. I have expressed several concerns in a previous letter, but desire to send a final letter sharing my thoughts on the subject on property value. I do not believe that towers belong in residential neighborhoods. We purchased our home in this quiet, wooded neighborhood in 1997 for $270,000. In searching for a home, we looked at many potential neighborhoods. Several houses that we were interested in, unfortunately had towers in the area or basically in the backyards. We did not even go inside these homes because we knew that we had other choices. The sellers lost out on a possible sale. Several homes in our neighborhood have sold recently. Based on extensive landscaping changes and remodeling that we have done to our property we feel that our home is now worth much more than we paid for it. We expected to be here for many years. Our thought is that we have a home that is worth perhaps $400,000 or more. Having a tower in the proposed location would be visible as one enters the neighborhood and would be in view from our Northern windows. We believe that the decrease in value would be perhaps $10,000 or more. We would loose out on other potential buyers who do not desire to live in a neighborhood with a tower. Thank you for your consideration in the matter, I e -Julie and Craig Smelter March 4, 2004 Hearings Office, City of Tigard Re: Case Nos: CUP2003-OOOIONAR2003-00094 H 10310 Canterbury Lane Gentlemen: MAR 0 5 200 We are responding to the March 1, 2004 letter written to you by John Harsock, Project Manager for WCCCA in which he responded to the hearing held on February 23, 2004 concerning this matter. We specifically refer to page 2 and under Attachment "A" with reference to Page 10 aerial photograph of trees located on a property at Delmonte Dr and 104th Ave. which are currenty at 135 ft. and in line with the signal...... thus making it necessary to mount the dish at 140 ft. Some of these trees may be on our property and the remaining-are on-adjacent- property to us. Our question and concern is........ why not investigate the feasibility of removing these trees or at least topping them before-proceeding with the need to go 140ft. Mr. Harsock mentions in paragraph 2 above that he could achieve the same level of radio coverage if the tower was as low as 13 Oft. except for the aforementioned trees. If any of them are our trees, we would prefer that you remove them before proceeding. We also feel that you should at least contact the owners of the trees in question-and determine whether they would agree to remove or reduce the heighth of these trees. We are inclined to think that they would agree to this course of action. At the very least, we feel that,this should be addressed before determining the heighth of the tower. Could the tower be even lower than 130 ft. if their heighth was altered? On page 3, paragraph 2 reference is made to "significant mature fir and other trees between the site and-adjacent-residential." These trees will not buffer our view down 104th St. at all since all of them are located east or west of the site and none are-to-the south of the site between it and view looking north on 104th St. True they may buffer residences a block or more away to the east on 103rd and the one residence on Canterbury Dr. and those on Murdock St. and 106th but will offer no buffering for-houses on 104th St. or those at the intersection of 104th and DeRvionte Dr. The aerial view (page 25) shows vegetation to the south of the site but these are mostly blackberry bushes and low shrubs.and they will offer little or no buffering at all for 104th St. residences. if this site must go forward, we would like to see it constructed-as low as possible and we urge you to act on the above suggestions regarding the obstructing trees before further action on this matter. Sincerely, Gen & Marion Knutson 14865 SW 104th Ave. EXHIBIT P RCC OVED EXHIBIT Q R 00 N404:4I0e50 Mr. and Mrs. John Baker 14825 SW 104`h Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 March 6, 2004 Hearings Officer City of Tigard RE: WCCA Monopole Tower Conditional User Permit (CUP) 2003-00010 Variance (VAR) 2003-00094 Dear Sirs, After reviewing the follow-up study for the proposed emergency services monopole, I am confused by the recommendation to locate the tower at Canterbury as opposed to Bull Mountain. It appears that the coverage area by a 148' tower at Bull Mountain far exceeds that of Canterbury. I did see some areas that Canterbury would be optimal in covering, however they looked to be relatively small as opposed to the significantly large area that Bull Mountain would be able to cover that Canterbury could not service. I would like to understand why Canterbury is being recommended over Bull Mountain. Specifically: 1) What areas would Canterbury cover that Bull Mountain would not? 2) If a tower were to go in at Canterbury, how does the applicant plan to service the large areas that Bull Mountain can reach that Canterbury obviously cannot? I also noticed that the tower height at Sextant was at 98' as opposed to 148' as it is at Bull Mountain and Canterbury. Would a comparable tower height at Sextant improve the coverage area from that location, making it more attractive location for the monopole? fan u, er ~ 004 WAR 08 Pm04a40'-59 EXHIBIT R Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date: February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA Monopole Tower Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2003-00010 Variance (VAR) 2003-00094 Eric C. & Debra J. Marges6n 14785 SW 104' Ave Tigard, OR 97224-4746 March 8, 2004 In regard to the proposed tower installation on the water property site at Canterbury, we do not believe that all possible sites for the tower have been investigated thoroughly. The site on 109'h Ave, just across from Kable Street, is 60-80' higher then the proposed site, and several sites on Bull Mountain are 100-200' higher and may not have the interference with the micro paths caused by the trees at the Canterbury site. While we have been told this is not the forum to address the possibility of extending Murdock through from 103rd to 106`h it cannot be ignored. The tower proposal addresses the view of the tower by pointing out that the existing trees will screen the view, yet the street extension will remove all the same said trees eliminating the screen we are being promised. We ask that the approval of the Canterbury site be postponed until other sites which meet the needed requirements be reasonably studied. Eric and Debra Margeson (503) 598-9216 EXHIBIT S $04 MAR 08 P04:41'02 Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 14790 SW 104th Tigard, OR 97224 March 8, 2004 We are Robert and Betty Banford and we reside at 14790 SW 104th. We have briefly reviewed the data contained in the Supplemental Information to WCCCA (9-1-1) Monopole Tower Application prepared by John Hartsock. While he has again submitted more information, it has not been without some prodding. The use of phrases such as "provide vital communications to the police and fire agencies serving the citizens of Tigard protecting their life and property" is a pure play on emotion. How could we not all support that particular proposition? We have stated over and over in the past that we're not against 9-1-1 Communication needs. The associated variances for placement of this facility must however be supported with unequivocal facts which are proven by the applicant so the variance requested is the minimum needed to site an emergency communication tower. We still believe that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the Canterbury location is the appropriate and proper site. Our response herein attempts to address those major areas as outlined in the WCCCA supplemental information that was requested by the City Staff and yourself at the hearing on February 23, 2004. Cover letter dated March 1, 2004: Pg 1 Par 1: "and thus does create a unique circumstance vs. a private communications carrier needs" This phrase is being used repeatedly in this report. What however makes this circumstance so unique? It is quite conceivable that private citizens would essentially have to use common carriers to communicate with the two services mentioned. Section 1. Demonstration of the necessity of the site: Page 1 Clearly states that: "The original Washington County system installed 8 years proved inadequate" Page 3 Points out that this site: "is being relocated to the new Cedar hills location' 1 • • It also states that: "we have not shown coverage maps from sites to the east of Tigard. This is due to our current experience of utilizing a site at Council Crest" It states unequivocally that: "over two thirds of the energy from sites in this area or coverage is wasted to the East in Multnomah County and does not serve our police and fire agencies." It states without qualification, that: "It is our desire to have the sites serving the County within the County" At this juncture it seems imminently reasonable to review the path loss surveys and the associated equipment specifications, for both the aforementioned sites, and the new proposed location. We should also seek confirmation that more competent and technically unbiased consultation has been engaged this time around. Or are we just being encouraged to believe that this time we will get "lucky". Nothing within this report substantiates the statement why sites on hills to the east of Tigard could not serve our police and fire agencies. This only leaves us to speculate that, if economic factors are paramount, then why don't we continue to utilize the Council Crest site and one of the many communication tower sites already in place along Highway 217? If the question is one of "control", we do not understand why the counties cannot work together in effectively reducing the overall economic impact. What really underpins this expressed but unsubstantiated "desire"? Attachment "A": Page 3: Alternate sites mentioned included locations on Bull Mountain, Cooper Mountain, and Sexton. The supporting data for coverage is not comparable because the tower heights being noted for the Bull Mountain and Sexton locations are not the same height as that is being proposed for the Canterbury location. Shouldn't we be comparing like tower heights? We also could not find any ComStudy data on the Cooper Mountain location in this supplemental documentation. It must also be noted that the Tigard Water District has two water tank facilities on Bull Mountain that are higher than the Canterbury site. Unfortunately we could not ascertain with the information given where on Bull Mountain the applicant was testing. There is also no evidence that the applicant has looked at any alternative sites either in the immediate area or the previously mentioned sites to the east in Multnomah County. 2 0 • Page 10: The Path Profiles clearly show the ability to reduce the tower height at the proposed site by judicious use of "topping" of the relatively few trees involved along the proposed line-of-sight paths. See Attachment "B" page 28 #5. Since these trees have been topped before, this neighbor would probably cooperate if asked. Why has this option not been exercised? Section 2. Buffering of the site from adjacent parcels: What buffering are we really talking about here? The applicant uses the phrase "trees between the proposed site and adjacent residential" and then uses "between the proposed site and adjacent property". How does one ascertain exactly what is being buffered and what does the buffer consist of? When the applicant is talking about the adjacent residential, we assume he is referring to our property. The only buffer that we have between our residence and the proposed site are the trees that are in the SW Murdock Street right of way. Therefore, we have a number of questions: Page 3 What do the following terms mean: "significant mature fir", "significant number of trees remaining", "major fir trees in excess..", "significant tree canopy" It seems that these terms are being used very loosely to the extent that they are misleading. Where are they defined so the reader can obtain an accurate picture? There isn't any information as to the number of trees, their type or whether they are deciduous versus evergreen. We request that an accurate inventory of trees on the site be accomplished before irrevocable decisions are made. Page 3 Aerial photograph: "depicts major fir trees in excess of 119' which will remain" The aerial photograph on Attachment "B" page 25 shows that not one of the 119 foot trees provides our home with any buffer. These trees are not between the tower itself and our home. Per the City staff, blackberries shown on aerial photographs appear to look like tree canopy so that the term "significant tree canopy" is then rendered totally misleading. Page 3 It is stated: "the potential Murdock Street" "is currently not on the City's street improvement plan". Indeed, the Staff Report noted "the City envisions SW Murdock Street being extended for vehicular'connectivity". Morgan attested to the fact that it is shown in the Tigard Transportation System Plan which is the long term list of City projects. In April of 1999, Murdock was on 3 the Capital Improvement Plan list of projects scheduled for the next fiscal year, and money had been earmarked by Gus Duenas to buy the additional five feet along the right of way from the Water District. Our neighborhood was successful through petitions, articles in the Tigard Times, countless meetings and sheer perseverance in delaying the road extension at that time. Now it's only a matter of time and funding! We would like to reiterate that over the past nine months we have had several conversations with City employees from the utilities department and the parks department. We have often heard the comment that the Murdock Street extension is still a "hot item" at City Hall. Even when we suggested reforestation on the adjacent property, the comment was made that the engineering department did not want to "put a lot of money into doing this when the street is planned to be extended". Granted this street extension is not in the immediate budget, however, there is sufficient agreement, based on the knowledge of City employees, that SW Murdock will be extended when funding becomes available. In fact the February 26, 2004 issue of the Tigard Times under "New Fee Coming Soon to Mailboxes" quoted Gus Duenas as saying "The task force will be reconvening to build new streets". To say that there is no plan to extend Murdock Street is specious at best and a gross understatement at worst. There may be no schedule . . but there is a plan! Page 3 Notes that: "100' plus distance from the northern edge of the right of way to the proposed site" What is the legal definition for "site"? We have been using measurements from the tower southern face as we previously stated to you in our letter dated February 27, 2004. It is evident by this "100' plus" vague measurement that the distance is not truly known. As we documented to you in the above letter, Gus stated to us his plan to increase the SW Murdock Street right of way from 45 to 50 feet by taking 5 feet from the southern edge of the Water District property. How then can there be a 140 foot tower put into place when it will infringe upon the Murdock Street right of way. Page 3 Conflicting statements: "In a field review of this area for the potential street there are few large trees affected in fact most of the vegetation is scrub under story that would be removed". "the bulk of the existing vegetation would remain". This appears to be a total fabrication of the facts. If there was an actual "field review" they must not have known where the right of way was. In fact, the major buffering between our house and the proposed site are the trees in the potential street. A walk through the potential street area between the 106th/Murdock dead end and the intersection of 104th showed there were "significant" trees of varying sizes, shapes and species. We have not inventoried the trees in the potential street from the intersection between 104th and 103rd/Murdock dead end due to the time required and the quantity of the trees. The written statement "as shown on the i • photograph the bulk of the existing vegetation would remain" is totally without foundation. Attachment "B": Page 25 The aerial photograph shows that not one of the 119 foot trees provides our home with any buffer. Those trees are not between the tower itself and our house. Page 25/26 As to the aerial photographs on these pages, the blackberry bushes will appear to look like tree canopy. The City staff will attest to that fact! An aerial photograph taken in winter months, without the blackberries, would look much different. Page 27/28 Photos: #1 104th Looking North shows the few trees that are directly at the end of the street, but the photo also misleads the viewer. Most of the trees on the right side of the road (East) are in danger of being removed for the right of way. Also within view in this picture are several of the neighbor's trees #3 Looking South to the Banford residence does not show much "buffering". However, it was taken 53 feet to the East of the newly proposed tower site and it clearly shows the lack of buffering (not to mention that the trees shown are in the road right of way) #4 Murdock at 106th looking East. The statement for this picture is confusing. It stated "noting 1 tall tree in the proposed right of way the tree on the left would remain". If the applicant is trying to mislead you to believe that only 1 tree is in the right of way, that is false. The angle of the shot does not show the several trees that line up behind the tall tree on the right. The referenced tree on the left of the photo may or may not remain depending on an arborist's point of view and depending on the road elevation. Page 29 The applicant is still showing that the distance from the edge of the tower to SW Murdock Street is 156 feet 10 :h inches. We know that this is factually inaccurate and therefore forced to believe that he either does not really know where the right of way is or is guilty of "terminological inexactitude" of the worst kind. 5 Section 3. Compatibility of design to the historic overlay: It has been well documented that this development does nothing to enhance the character of the John Tigard House. The fact that the State Historic Preservation Office did not voice objection to the development leads us to believe they are not fully aware of this site and its importance to the history of the City of Tigard. It is stated that the suggested "camouflage" will add tax dollars to the cost of the project. If the economic impact was the utmost criteria for selection why then did the applicant select a site that is within a Historic District in the first place? Section 4. Economic affect on adjacent parcels: Attachment "C" This document does NOT "appraise the affect of communication towers on real estate values" It is clearly titled "MARKET STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CELL TOWER SITING ON RESIDENTIAL HOME VALUES". The study was prepared for T-Mobile and doesn't address 150 foot monopole towers. Further reading of this report, prepared for a completely different purpose, also reveals that the general public are probably technically unable to discriminate between the characteristics of E.M.F. at power line frequencies and Electromagnetic Radiation at both progressively higher frequencies and E.M.R.P., up to and including the microwave spectrum. They are therefore forced to accept the proposition that visual contamination is the only aspect of an antenna installation that could conceivably compromise their financial well being! The sample size is minute and despite the claim on Page 1. to be "reporting the objective information", it is a grab bag of subjective statements. A classic being that on Page 3. "In areas where the perceived negative influence is landscaped or developed for recreational use (transmission lines), positive impacts have been measured. One has to assume that in reality these were just "perceived" positive impacts! For anyone contemplating a possible 10% "taking" of their property value, as stated on Page 3, this particular piece of pseudo science borders on being insulting. It was only addressing CELL tower impact on home value. CELL towers studied in the report are significantly lower than the proposed communication tower, therefore the report is not relevant to this application. 6 We have previously stated in our letter of February 27, 2004 that we had spoken with several certified appraisers regarding the impact on our neighborhood property values. Due to the time deadlines place upon us there wasn't time to accomplish an official appraisal. However all the appraisers contacted were adamant in sharing that it was their opinion there would be a financial impact on our property values with the proposed development. Conclusion: In conclusion we absolutely believe it fundamentally logical to adopt a holistic approach to this site, with all its ramifications. It is unconscionable that an expansion of the road right of way and the construction of the road be handled after the fact. No matter how one views it, it has not been demonstrated why the Canterbury location is the APPROPRIATE AND PROPER site that would suffice for this WCCCA project. Either this applicant has chosen to misrepresent the facts, or is not really knowledgeable about the site property in question. We had genuinely hoped that with each iteration of this process we would get closer to the truth. However, this latest document convinces us that, if anything, we are getting farther away. We request that prior to any decision being made on this application that: (1) a licensed survey be done of the entire property to ascertain precisely the location of the SW Murdock Street right of way (2) and a competent arboreal inventory of the trees within the property in question be performed to settle the critical buffering issues. Regards, Robert and Betty Banford 7 CHRISTINE M. COOK EXHIBIT T ATTORNEY AT LAW re- c.c. t ✓4 Fax The Ambassador ~ / ~ f p Y Telephone (503) 228-4529 1207 S.W. Sixth Aveauc e (503) 2450204 Portland, Oregon 97204 FAX TRANSMITTAL To: Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Fax Number: 503-684-7297 From: Christine M. Cook Date: 34WX Phone Number: Phone Number: (503) 248-0204 This fax consists of pages including this cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please telephone (503) 248-0204 immediately. Thank you_ ~kfe~k*~e~tc4e~efc~te~e4lt>F4c~k~iestr~~~te~Fa~efe~e~~Tc~hk9E~F~k~c~e~k~ft~~k3e~c>Te>tca~c~cstia~efe~te~tc*fe4e~e Please see accompanying document. Confidentiality Statement: The information contained in this facsimile may be legglly privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the we of the addressee listed on this cover sheet. If the reader of this ma mge is not the intended recipient, you are bereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this commnnxeat. is strictly forbidden. If you have received this fac"lle in error, please immediately notify me by telephone At the number listed on this cover sheet and return *e orig"mal message to we at the above address via the U.& Postal Service, You will be reimbursed for any telephone and postage eapease. Thank you 9/L aD'dd 6ZSV6ZZE0S ° QI ' Noad E5:91 vo-60-avw CHRISTINE A COOK ATTORMY AT LAW Fax The Ambassador (503) 2284529 1207 S.W. Sbah Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 March 8, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TO 503-684-7297 Larry Epstein, Esq. City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer c% Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 lull Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 Re: Application by Greenst reet Architecture on Behalf of Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) for a Monopole Tower; CUP No. 2003-00010; VAR No. 2003-094 Dear Mr. Epstein: Telephone (503) 248.0204 These comments are submitted on behalf of Robert and Betty Banfordd in opposition to the application for a conditional use permit and a variance to permit development of a monopole communications tower on the city property just north of their residence. Please enter this letter, which is offered in response to the Supplemental Information provided on behalf of WCCCA, into the record of the decision. The applicant still has not demonstzated that it has or can comply with the criteria that govern your decision on the tower, and the Banfords respectfully request that you deny the application. 1. The applicant has failed to justify its proposed location for the tower. The applicant's supplemental materials addressing "[d]emonstration of the necessity of the site" include a narrative and several other attachments- These may be adequate to show that the proposed Tigard site would work to provide the coverage that WCCCA seeks. The materials do not show that the alternative locations suggested by the Banfords and others would not provide needed coverage with less damaging effects to surrounding areas, or whether those sites would require variances at all. The applicant's March 1, 2004 materials do not even show the facts regarding the applicant's alternative sites. First, it is not possible, without more information, to conclude from the applicant's materials the characteristics, including zoning and surrounding development, of the sites that the applicant chose as alternatives. The applicant's evidence does not state the street addresses or tax lot numbers of its alternative sites, and so it is difficult to determine where on a readily 9/Z a0vd 6Z5b8Z3E05=QI :Noma bs:91 bo-60-8vw Larry Epstein, Esq. March 8, 2004 Page 2 available map the sites might be. Nor can one conclude that the elevations and heights of the towers at the applicant's alternatives mare sense. If there is not sufficient coverage from the applicant's alternative site at Bull Mountain, for example, the applicant has not addressed the following questions: 1. Could a taller tower be built on that site to eliminate areas that would be shadowed, using the applicant's assumption that the tower would be either 121 feet or 144 feet above ground level (see Supplemental Information (Sup Info), Attachment A at 16)? 2. Could the location of the tower be moved to a site suggested by the Banfords on Bull Mountain, or to some other site in that vicinity, to eliminate areas that would be shadowed from coverage? The applicant states that it has "not shown coverage maps from sites on the hills to the east of Tigard in Multnomah County" (the east hill sites). It gives three reasons for this, which it states are based on experience with the existing Council Crest site. First, the east hill sites are "too high," which results in the signal being received in the wrong area and not in the needed area. The applicant does not explain why no site that is at a lower elevation in those bills can be used, or why the tower height cannot be lower. Surely there is no requirement that the very top of a hill be used, if that location does not provide needed coverage. The applicant is concerned that an east hills site would waste coverage to the east. It does not explain why this is a problem, if a particular site would provide coverage to all the points where it is needed within Washington County. Last, the applicant explains that it would like to have all its tower sites within Washington County, but that reasoning does not appear to relate to any of the criteria governing approval of a site. The applicant's failure to examine other locations to the east is not adequately shown by its evidence. The Banfords are providing evidence that vacant sites in the vicinity of the proposed development site might be appropriate for tower location. The applicant's evidence does not rule out any sites near the proposed City of Tigard site. Because of its failure adequately to justify its selection of the proposed development site, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with Tigard Code Sections 18.370.010.C.2.b and 2.e. These require the decision maker to find that: "b. Where are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning. district; "e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship." 9/E 3EHd 6zSV8zZE05 ° D I ° Woaa VS : 9I VO-80-alvw Larry Epstein, Esq. March 8, 2004 Page 3 The applicant has provided no evidence of the characteristics of other potential sites, and therefore one cannot conclude that the special circumstances at the proposed site are not applicable to other properties in the zoning district. Finally, the applicant's failure to demonstrate that its site justification is anything but an after-the-fact rationalization of a site chosen for reasons of price, ownership, or administrative convenience, is also a failure to show that the hardship associated with the proposed site is not self-imposed. Perhaps another site, not seriously considered by the applicant, would provide sufficient coverage and require no variance. For these reasons, the application should be denied. 2. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the location, of the tower on the site complies with the conditional use approval criteria. Tigard Code Section 18.330.030.A.1 requires that "[t]he site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use."' Please note the Banfords' letters of March 1, 2004 and of this date, which detail the discrepancies between their measurements of the subject site and the measurements presented by the applicant. The Banfords have established that the distance from the proposed tower to the south property line of the subject site will be no greater than 138.5 feet. If tower is to be either 150 feet in height, as initially proposed, or 140 feet in height, and if it were to fall to the south, the top several feet of the tower would extend into the Murdock Road right of way. Further, with a fifteen foot vertical antenna on top, the tower and its necessary equipment would certainly fall into the Murdock right of way, posing a danger to the life and property of the public who may use that street. The Staff Report for the February 23, 2004 public hearing on this matter states as follows: "This site has adequate area and dimensions to accommodate the proposed use, as demonstrated by the fact that the highest setback standard (100% of the tower height to the property line) can be met as proposed." Staff Report at 7. Given the Balnfords' evidence concerning the actual distance from the proposed tower site to the property line, the staff conclusion is incorrect, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with code section 18.330.030.A.1. The site for which the WCCCA tower is not of an adequate size to accommodate the proposed use. In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with section 18.798.060.13.3, which requires that "[t]owers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower." For these reasons, the application should be rejected. At the very least, any approval should be conditional upon the applicant submitting to the city a survey of the subject property that demonstrates that the distance to the property's south boundary is not less than the height of the proposed tower plus its necessary antenna. 3. The applicant's Supplemental Information does not demonstrate that a variance to 9/b 39tHd GzSb6zzCOS ° Q I :Road bS ° 9I bo-90-avw Larry Epstein, Esq. March 8, 2004 Page 4 allow the tower will not be materially detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. In order to grant the variance to the Historic District overlay criteria which, as the Staff Report explains, cannot be satisfied by this application, the Hearings officer must find that "The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity:" Code section 18.370.010.C.2.a. The Banfords have submitted both oral and written, testimony stating what they estimate the value of their house to be, and the extent to which they estimate that the value would be diminished by construction of the proposed tower. See Banford testimony submitted at February 23 hearing, and on March 1, 2004. Their own thoughts on the matter are supported by the written opinion of a real estate professional and real estate listings for houses in the area On March 1, 2004, other property owners in the vicinity of the proposed tower site also submitted their estimates'of the approximate values of their homes, of the bases for their estimates, and their estimates of the loss of property value if the tower is built on the proposed site. In Oregon, a property owner is competent to give an opinion regarding its fair market value and diminution in value. Lunda v. Matthews, 46 Or App 701, 710, 613 P2d 63 (1980), and other cases cited in Real Estate Disputes (Oregon CLE 1993), section 8.72. There is no evidence in the record that either the Banfords or their neighbors lack sufficient knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding their properties and their market values; to the contrary, the Banfords have submitted for the record evidence in support of their estimate of a loss of value in the grange of 3%, or up to $10,000. The applicant's evidence set forth at Sup Info Attachment C, does not specifically address the properties in the vicinity of the proposed tower at all. Although the study reaches an overall conclusion that there would be no reduction la market value of a residential property from a nearby cell tower, Attachment C at 26, circumstances like those in the Banford's neighborhood, including construction in a 35-year old neighborhood coupled with loss of many trees (which could be thought of as "de-landscaping" the site) are not addressed by the study. It is a market study, prepared in 2002, regarding economic effects of cell towers and power lines in Beaverton, and mu,uy in newer neighborhoods. The applicant has not demonstrated that the locations and . circumstances of the properties whose values were estimated for this study are at all comparable to the properties in the vicinity of the proposed Tigard tower. Finally, to the extent that the study has any relevance to this application, a point that the Banfords do not concede, it is not entirely inconsistent with the estimates provided by the Banfords and their neighbors. The study states at page 3: "Overhead transmission lines can reduce the value of residential and agricultural property. The impact is usually small (0-10%) for single-family homes Other factors, such as location, improvements, and lot size are more likely to be major S/S a0vd 6ZSb9ZZE0S°DI :W0HA SS'SI b0-80-8vw Larry Epstein, Esq. March 8, 2004 Page 5 determinants of sale price. Impacts on sales are most likely to occur on property immediately adjacent to the lines." . The sort of "small impac&' on property values that the Banfords and their neighbors projects are entirely consistent with these findings, with one exception. The Banfords agree that the reduction in value of their property would be in the neighborhood of 0-10%. (',Chat amount could be as much as $30,000_) The Banifords have estimated a potential loss of $10,000 to the value of their property, which is adjacent to the development site. A loss of this extent is certainly a smaller portion of the property's overall value than the other factors mentioned. It would, however, be materially detrimental to the Banford's property, as would the losses estimated by the other property owners in the vicinity of the proposed tower site. The Hearings Officer should find that if the variance were granted and the tower built, there would be material detriment in the form of diminished property value to other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and should deny the application. 4. The overall circumstances of the proposed development site must be taken into account in evaluating the impacts of the tower. A. Noise impacts should be addressed by measuring the noise from generator operation in combination with other noise generated by the water district pumping facilities already on site. The applicant has provided no evidence that the noise was measured in this manner. B. The applicant has discounted the visual, and hence, market impact of the tower as a result of the destruction of trees from the development of Murdock Street. Because the street is to border the site, according to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan, the clearing of trees for the development of the street must be taken into account. 111e applicant's photographs in Sup Info Attachment B do not accurately portray the site as it will be with this street. 5. Conclusion The applicant has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the criteria that govern this decision. The Banfords respectfully request that the Hearings officer deny this application. Very y yours> Christine A Cook S/S 30Hd 6ZS69Z3E0S=4I 2WON3 SS=SI 60-90-avw • WCCCA POLICE • FIRE • MEDICAL EXHIBIT U Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency March 15, 2004 Mr. Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer W IECR V EDD Mr. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Case Nos: CUP2003-00010 / VAR2003-00094 10310 SW Canterbury Lane Gentlemen: The following is Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency's (Applicant) closing argument concerning Case Nos: CUP2003-00010 / VAR2003-00094. This conditional use permit request and variance request concerns Applicant's locating of a public safety communications tower at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane, Tigard. This site along with two others on the Highway 217 corridor are being proposed to resolve public safety radio communications coverage vital to the daily operations of the law enforcement, fire, and EMS services to the citizen's of Tigard, Beaverton, Tualatin, and Washington County protecting their life and property. The following outlines the land use application, staff report and comments received from citizen's review of supplemental information submitted on March 1, 2004. Application: The construction of a communications facility and related communications tower is a conditionally allowed use at this location. The location is also within a historic district and the use requires a variance from the historic district standards. The application for the conditional use permit and variance for the proposed land use were submitted on December 15, 2003 and found to be complete. The City of Tigard Staff reviewed the application and prepared a staff report of their findings for the February 23, 2004 hearing: Staff Report: The staff report outlined a series of conditions to be satisfied to allow the facility to be permitted and subsequently constructed. It should be noted that staff deleted condition number 3 "fee in lieu of undergrounding" at the hearing as not being required. Applicant's representative agreed to the conditions as imposed at the hearing. The staff report states that the use is conditionally permitted based on the conditions outlined in the staff report being satisfied. Staff recommended denial of the application due to inadequate evidence to demonstrate that the proposed location is the only site that will achieve the desired results and that the height of the tower is the minimum necessary to support the proposed use. On March 1, 2004 Applicant submitted supplemental information which: P.O. Box 6375 • Beaverton, Oregon 97007-0375 • (503) 690-4911 • Fax (503) 531-0186 "Excellence In Emergency Communicadons" WCCCA Monopole Tower • • Page 2 March 15, 2004 1. Demonstrates the unique ability of this site to achieve the desired results and provide the desired radio coverage and signal to the Tigard area, thus demonstrating that the hardship is not self imposed. 2. Outlined the requirement for the tower height to allow connectivity to adjacent sites via the microwave system which must clear trees within the path today and into the future as the trees continue to grow. By moving the tower slightly to the east from the originally proposed location it was determined that the tower could be lowered to 140'. With further analysis and the possibility of cutting trees at 104`h and Delmonte Dr. it is possible to lower the tower to 130'. Applicant is willing to perform such analysis and submit the results to staff as a condition of issuing the permit. The staff report also outlines a concern about the appearance of the tower, but notes that these types of communications facilities are allowed in historic overlay districts. Staff concluded that the code must have envisioned instances where these facilities can be located in a manner compatible with the district. As outlined in the Applicant's supplemental information it is significant that the State Historic Preservation Office found that "there will be no historic properties adversely affected" by this project. The facility housing the radio equipment is not visible from the John Tigard House, the historic location in question, due to a dense stand of trees on the City property. At 140' there would be approximately 20' of the communications tower above the adjacent trees and thus visible from the John Tigard house. The Applicant has agreed to paint the tower as outlined in the conditions shown in the staff report. Further if the Hearing's Officer concludes that the fir tree "stealth" design as outlined in the staff report and at the public hearing to "camouflage" the 20' above adjacent trees the Applicant will accept this condition. The impact of this camouflage solution adds approximately $60,000 to the cost of the project. Opponents Comments: The following is in response to various written Opponents comments concerning the supplemental report. (Note: Page numbers reference pages in the supplemental report) Alternate sites: Comments from the Opponents state that the materials supplied in the supplemental report do not demonstrate that the alternative sites do not provide the required coverage, to which the Applicant disagrees. The coverage map for Canterbury (page 8) clearly demonstrates that the coverage and signal strength (shown as yellow) provided is complete and meets the needs of the primary Tigard area. The coverage provided by the other sites, as shown on the maps on pages 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23, is not complete and thus does not meet the needs of the primary Tigard area. The reasons for the lessor coverage on the other sites is: a. Bull Mtn (page 15) utilizing a 150' tower,'shadowed by Canterbury - additional height added to overcome this would not fully resolve the issue and create other coverage issues; b. Sexton Mtn (Pagel 7) utilizing a 150' tower, shadowed by Bull Mtn, and Canterbury; c. Cell site #7 (Page 19) to low an elevation and no microwave path; d. Cell site #9 (Page 21) shadowed by Canterbury and no microwave path; WCCCA Monopole Tower • • Page 3 March 15, 2004 e. Cell site #14 (Page 23) shadowed by Canterbury and Bull Mtn and no microwave path. Opponents noted that site locations were not given which is incorrect as precise coordinates were provided for each alternate site and the street addresses of the cell sites were listed in the original application. Opponents questioned if other sites would require conditional use permits or variances.. Any of the alternate sites whether in the City of Tigard, Washington County, City of Beaverton, or City of Portland would require conditional use permits and variances for tower height and/or lot size. Further any modifications to existing towers in the form of additional antennas or a change in height would also require a conditional use and variances for tower height and/or lot size. Opponents questioned the use of sites to the east of Highway 217 and as stated previously these sites do not maximize the coverage for Washington County, and as demonstrated by existing sites do not cover the desired area. The radio energy is emitted in a 360 ° pattern from the antenna and when the antenna in positioned on the outer edge of the desired coverage area i.e. the County line or further east at least 180° of the energy is wasted to adjacent areas not serving Washington County. With the antenna mounted on Canterbury we obtain full use of the signal over the coverage area. The coverage from this site when added to other sites in the system achieve the desired coverage results. It is important to maximize the system efficiency to minimize the number of overall sites required. Comments were provided by the Opponents that they had suggested other specific vacant sites and that those sites were not studied. In our research of the record we can find no other specific sites suggested. Other sites adjacent to the proposed Canterbury site at the same approximate elevation could be utilized but in a review of those properties none of those sites meet the property size requirements of the code. It is the Applicant's opinion that the Tigard Code Section 18.370.010.C.2.b and 2.e. have been satisfied as outlined below: b. The lot is among the highest points on the hill allowing maximum distribution of the radio signals; and the lot is the only one of sufficient size to meet the requirements of the code for tower failure without additional variances. e. The variance, which is to allow the communications tower in a historic district, and according to the State Historic office "there will be no historic properties adversely affected" and the Applicant has offered suggested mitigation as a condition, is the minimum variance to meet the public safety need. The hardship is not self imposed but a condition of the physics of radio propagation and the requirement of lot size by the code. 2. Site Size: Comments state that there are questions concerning the dimensions provided and precise locations of property lines based on measurements made by one of the opponents. This is purely a factual issue and to remedy the question the Applicant as a condition WCCCA Monopole Tower Page 4 March 15, 2004 precedent to obtaining a building permit shall provide a survey to show the exact location of the property lines and final location of the communications tower to meet the requirements. It should be noted that ORS 197.522 requires the City to grant the conditional use permit if the application can be made approved with the "imposition of reasonable conditions of approval. Approval of Variance is Materially Detrimental: Tigard Code 18.370.010 C. 2. a. (use materially detrimental to purpose of the zoning district ....and other properties) The staff found that the purpose of the zoning district is to protect that area from changes that will adversely affect the historic character of surrounding area within the historical overlay district. Staff concluded that a variance which results in this type of impact would have a detrimental affect to the purpose of the historic overlay district. Staff goes on to say that other than the design factors e.g. screening of the tower, the granting of a variance would have no additional affect on the district. Staff concluded that the application did not provide adequate screening. The staff report recommends a condition to change the color of the structure to lessen the glare to which the Applicant has agreed. Further, the Applicant has agreed to accept a condition of approval to "camouflage" the exposed portion of the communications tower as suggested'as a mitigation measure by staff if required by the Hearing's Officer. 4. Property Value: Acceptance of the Opponents' argument that their opinion that the proposed use would be "materially detrimental" to their property, based upon their own perceptions, would put the application of the Tigard Code 18.370.010 C. 2. a, criteria on a slippery slope. How many times has a neighboring property owner lamented that a development on nearby or adjacent undeveloped property would negatively impact their property values. If such a criteria were applied it is likely that there would be little development next to existing neighborhoods. Staff's conclusion that there has been "no showing of detrimental economic value from the establishment of communications facilities" was in consideration of the effect of the structure on the historic value of the district. To attempt to determine any detrimental impact on a specific property, based upon the opinion of the property owner, reaches too far. The Applicant recognizes that courts have allowed property owners to express their opinions as to value of their property. However, those opinions must necessarily be considered in the context they are provided - by an interested party with no training or experience in the field of real estate appraisal. A more reliable manner in attempting to determine if there may be a detrimental economic impact from the proposed use is utilizing the services of an unbiased and trained professional who utilizes market data to determine if there is any economic impact to residential properties located near communication facilities. The Applicant provided just such an analysis, performed by Craig Zell MAI. Appraiser Zell concluded "(a)fter research into ten or more sites and finally choosing four sites for study, the empirical data showed no affect on the value of homes in close proximity to the towers." (Zell Report page 26 in the supplemental report). The Opponents attempt to rebut the findings of the Zell report and buttress their own opinion by presenting a letter from a realtor (March 1, 2004 letter of Jack Auerbach). However, Mr. WCCCA Monopole Tower • March 15, 2004 0 Page 5 Auerbach in that very letter acknowledges he is not an appraiser and cannot set a value on the opponent's property. Notwithstanding Mr. Auerbach without any explanation, estimates the proposed structure would reduce the opponent's property by "approximately $10,000". Not having Mr. Auerbach's opinion of the value of the opponent's property (which he is not qualified to give) it is impossible to determine if the $10,000 amount is "material". The better evidence of economic impact, if any, on the opponent's property is the study of appraiser Zell on just such conditions on residential properties." Topping or Removing Trees: Comments were provided by Opponents that the Applicant should evaluate topping or removing the trees that cause the microwave path interference at 104`h and Delmonte and thus lowering the overall tower height. Topping or removing the trees would require the permission of the property owners where the trees are located. Second topping of trees is not a good solution as the trees would then regularly require topping as they grow. As outlined above the Applicant will evaluate the microwave path in greater detail and as suggested by an Opponent contact the property owners of the property that contains the trees and determine if removal is possible. If either of these solutions is viable we will lower the communications tower to 130'. 6. Buffering the Site: Comments were provided from the Opponents concerning the "buffering" of the site. Staff has concluded that there is sufficient buffering provided by existing trees and landscape provisions imposed as a condition of approval. The Applicant sincerely appreciate your consideration of these final arguments in your deliberation and your thoughtful process of this critical public safety facility. SAHartsock, J Project Manger rMOR. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue March 15, 2004 Mr. David Austin Director Office of the Fire Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, Fire Chief 20665 S.W. Blanton Street, Aloha, Oregon 97007 Office (503) 649-8577 Fax: (503) 649-2615 Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency 17911 N.W. Evergreen Parkway Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Dear Mr. Austin: The Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA), on behalf of the Emergency Services providers in Washington County, is currently underway with a Communications System Upgrade project that is being funded by a voter approved levy passed in November 2000. The most significant portion of the project is the upgrade and enhancement of the 800MHz public safety radio system. The current radio system, installed in 1992, was designed with four simulcast radio sites to serve the County, which includes: Parrot Mountain in Sherwood, Bald Peak and Gales Peak in Western Washington County, and Council Crest in Portland. This design was based on coverage predictions and budget constraints at the time. When designed, the engineering input stated that the four "high" sites surrounding the County would provide adequate coverage. We have subsequently determined from user agency input, field surveys, and extensive coverage predictions studies that additional sites are required to provide adequate radio coverage. The areas of Tigard, King City, Tualatin, Beaverton, Wilsonville, and Hillsboro require additional sites to enhance radio system operations. Areas along Highway 217, Bonita Road, Highway 99W, I-5, and the Washington Square Mall, in particular, have lacked adequate radio coverage and have been a significant concern. Motorola, our system vendor, has determined that the "high" site concept, though providing good general coverage, is inadequate for dense urban areas. This conclusion was the result of Motorola's continuing engineering work and experience in other systems. Their recommendation is that we add additional sites lower and more closely related to the radio traffic needs. Mr. Dave Austin March 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Motorola's engineers and the technical staff at WCCCA have spent considerable time studying the potential sites that would achieve the goals of enhancing and improving coverage in the County, specifically in the cities of Tigard and King City. The terrain of the County dictates the need to identify sites that provide coverage to the greatest area, while not being blocked by the adjacent terrain. The sites they have chosen to provide the most advantageous coverage, while minimizing the number of sites are: Canterbury Lane in Tigard, Witch Hazel in Hillsboro, Burntwood in Beaverton, and the relocation of the Council Crest site to Cedar Mill at Highways 26 and 217. The Canterbury Lane site has adequate elevation to maximize coverage, in addition to providing the best solution to improve radio operations in key spots within Tigard and King City. The team produced coverage predictions utilizing other sites for Tigard, including Nansen Summit, Cooper Mountain, Bull Mountain, and other areas. None of these other sites provide as good a solution as did the Canterbury Lane site. We fully understand the citizen concerns about communication structures, in particular the significance of this site and the surrounding area. This site is critical to improved public safety communications. We feel that we can locate this tower within the large trees on the Canterbury Lane site, thus masking its appearance as much as possible. Sincerely, TUALA ALLEY F RESCUE Jeffrey D. Johnson Fire Chief 0 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping ,4 Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: March 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Additional Exhibits received at and prior to the February 23rd Hearing WCCCA Wireless Comm. Facility (CUP2003-0001ONAR2003-00094) At the February 23, 2004 hearing, several exhibits were entered into the record. These are separate from the additional testimony that will be received during the open record period, which will be filed under separate cover. The following lists the additional testimony and exhibits received prior to and during the oral testimony. ® Letter received February 18, 2004 from Kirk Ranzetta, State Historic Preservation Office ® Letter received February 20, 2004 from Barbara and David Crist ® Letter received February 20, 2004 from Don and Bonnie Thomas ® Letter received February 23, 2004 from Christine M. Cook (3 pgs) ® Letter received February 23, 2004 from Jim and Susan Devers ® Petition received February 23, 2004 signed by 39 Calway Hill Homeowners (5 pgs) V Letter received February 23, 2004 from Bob and Betty Banford (3 pgs) vi z 18 9 • 0 iregon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Parks and Recreation Department State Historic Preservation Office 725 Summer St. NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301-1271 (503) 986-0707 FAX (503) 986-0793 www.hcd.state.or.us RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 18 2004 Mf. Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SHPO Case No. 04-0143 City of Tigard Emergency Comm Facility 10310 SW Canterbury Ln, Tigard, Clackamas County Dear Mf.Tracy: CITY OF TIGARD We have reviewed., the materials submitted on the project referenced above, and .we concur with the determination that the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with 36 CFR Part 60.4. Additionally, there will be no historic properties adversely affected for this undertaking. Our response here is to assist you with your responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (per 36 CFR Part 800). Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions, comments or need additional assistance. Sincerely, Kirk Ranzetta Review and Compliance Coordinator (503) 986-0678 or Kirk. Ranzetta@state.or.u There are no known cultural resources within your project area: however, there have been no previous cultural surveys in your area. If during project operations you discover any cultural material, all work should cease immediately and an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the discovery. FYI: It is a Class B misdemeanor to impact an archaeological site (ORS 358.905-955) and a Class C felony to impact Indian burials (ORS 97- 740-990). 73410-0807, T~ ryarra9 st J p3 -Gee-~.Z.~ ol%4)t~ 6t&-ftCu/'.~003 oovro yC(~ iN~ ~ 0 elA Gda:►~.,1& Al).i" f February 20, 2004 Morgan Trace City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 Dear Mr. Trace: We will be out of town on February 23`d, but as property owners in the immediate area wish to go on record at the present time as opposed to the construction of the proposed WCCCA Communication Tower at the Tigard Water District property. Sincerely; DON W. THOMAS BONNIE L. THOMAS 14940 SW 103RD TIGARD, OR 97223 • i CHRISTINE M. COOK ATTORNEY AT LAW Fax The Ambassador Telephone (503) 2284529 1207 S.W. Sixth Avenue (503) 248-0204 Portland, Oregon 97204 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 23, 2004 To: Land Use Hearings Officer, City of Tigard From: Christine M. Cook, Attorney at Law, Representing Robert and Betty Banfo Re: Application on Behalf of Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) for Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Develop 152-Foot Monopole in Low-Density Residential District, With Historic District Overlay; (CUP) No. 2003-00010; (VAR) 2003-00094 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Robert and Betty Banford, in opposition to the application to develop a monopole tower for emergency wireless communications by WCCCA, and in support of the recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Staff to deny that application. Please enter these comments into the record of the hearing on this matter. In general, the Banfords concur with and support the staff analysis of this application, and are particularly in agreement with the conclusion that the applicant has not met its burden of proving compliance with the standards governing approval of a variance to the Historic District requirements stated in Code section 18.740.040.D. Variance approval standards are set forth at code section 18.370.010.C. The applicant has not demonstrated that the hardship of complying with the district standards is not self-imposed, because the applicant offers no evidence that the site proposed for this development is actually necessary for the development. If the applicant could construct the tower where a variance is not required, but because of mere convenience, the i 0 Land Use Hearings Officer, City of Tigard February 23, 2004 Page 2 price of the lease, for example, has settled on this site without exploring other possibilities, the criterion is not met. Attendees at the neighborhood meeting held by the applicant suggested that other sites might better suit the needs of the facility. There is not adequate evidence in the record to show that this site does the job better than areas that would not require a variance. In addition, however, the applicant has not demonstrated that the impacts of the development, if allowed by this variance, would not be materially detrimental to other properties in the same vicinity, as required by code section 18.370.010.C.2.a. From SW 104`h St., the end of which abuts the development site, there will be a significant visual impact from the tower. As the application materials note, many trees on the site now are damaged and hazardous, and will need to be removed. Any buffering that will be provided by existing trees will thus be significantly reduced. Further, SW Murdock St., a platted but unbuild road right of way, traverses the southern boundary of the property. If the City should decide to develop the road, as it has considered in the recent past, all of the trees and vegetation now on that right of way are subject to removal. As a result, the applicant's portrayal of the site as generally surrounded by trees that would visually obscure most of the tower, is inaccurate. The record does not validly demonstrate that any of the trees and vegetation to the south of the tower would remain to buffer the visual impacts of the tower on the nearby houses. With the visual appeal of the neighborhood adversely affected by the tower, the property values of homes in the neighborhood would also be affected negatively. Finally, staff has rejected the Banfords' suggestion for a condition in the event of permit approval that would prohibit additional antennae from being installed on the proposed tower. Land Use Hearings Officer, City of Tigard February 23, 2004 Page 3 (Report at p. 5). Staff incorrectly states that it would be counter to requirements in the code to impose such a limitation. The code allows outright and encourages collocation on a non-tower structure in a residential zone. This is a tower structure in a residential zone with a historic district overlay. Collocation is not required in this area. Additional antennae would be place lower on the tower, and therefore need a lower buffer for the entire tower. A condition that would limit the tower to WCCCA as a user would be the sort of additional condition that is listed as valid by code section 18.330.030.B, in that it would require preservation of existing trees, and serve as a standard for screening of the tower. • • Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23,2004 RE: WCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-2004 We have lived in our house at 14870 SW 104`h for the last seventeen years. Over the years we have seen the Tigard Water District property in our neighborhood change from water tanks to storage buildings, bins, and storage for heavy equipment. Now we are being told that a 150 foot tower is going to be placed on the property. The tower is not a very attractive addition to a residential neighborhood. We feel a 150 foot tower will reduce the value of our home. It has been suggested the trees will be a buffer, but if you drive down 104`" the tower will be directly in your sight. Simultaneously the City of Tigard is proposing that Murdock be extended through this property. If this should occur any buffering provided by the trees would be gone. It appears that the City of Tigard is not willing to negotiate and is forcing both the 150 foot tower and the extension of Murdock on us. Although we are proponents of public safety we feel there must be an alternative site that could be used. We are therefore opposed to the tower and believe you should look at the long-term development plan of this property. Thank you for your review of our concerns. We remain available to discuss this further. Sincerely, Jim and Susan Devers Petition Against the Construction of the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility and the Extension of Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106th Avenue An application has been filed with the City of Tigard to seek a conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter, to house associated support equipment, at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM2S I I I BC, Tax Lot 2600. Owner: Tigard Water District, Attention: Ed Wegner, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, OR 97224 Applicant: Greenstreet Architects,. Attention: Randy Tomic, PO Box 82125, Portland, OR 97282 We the homeowners of Calway Hill Homeowners Association oppose the construction of the Emergency Communications Facility. The close proximity of the 150' monopole tower to residential property will be intrusive and compromise property values. We also oppose extending Murdock Street from 10 ) Avenue to 106°i Avenue. The road extension would increase the speeding problem we already have and remove a desirable park. We the undersigned strongly oppose having two detrimental projects in our area. Name Address ~~A Ave 12 e ~ 1 1 S,-) WwJock- T 7 _ C y cc r~ 0 • Petition Against the Construction of the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility and the Extension of Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106th Avenue An application has been filed with the City of Tigard to seek a conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter, to house associated support equipment, at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM2S111BC, Tax Lot 2600. Owner: Tigard Water District, Attention: OR 97224 Applicant: Greenstreet Architects,, Attention: Portland, OR 97282 We the homeowners of Calway Hill Homeowners Association oppose the construction of the Emergency Communications Facility. The close proximity of the 150' monopole tower to residential property will be intrusive and compromise property values. We also ,rd Avenue to 106`x' Avenue. The road oppose extending Murdock Street from l0) extension would increase the speeding problem we already have and remove a desirable park. We the undersigned strongly oppose having two detrimental projects in our area. G Name Ed Wegner, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Randy Tomic, PO Box 82125, Address 35 -5w /off C+= IH ASS sw 10& it;L . J , o ~ a Sw l! ` Q c V V-2 18513 140 M Ltia f S c :J , Ci ~v p~rdj /~y~~ 5""V / o 'b' f • • n Petition Against the Construction of the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility and the Extension of Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106th Avenue An application has been filed with the City of Tigard to seek a conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter, to house associated support equipment, at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM2S 111 BC, Tax Lot 2600. Owner: Tigard Water District, Attention: OR 97224 Applicant: Greenstreet Architects,, Attention: Portland, OR 97282 Ed Wegner, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Randy Tomic, PO Box 82125, We the homeowners of Calway Hill Homeowners Association oppose the construction of the Emergency Communications Facility. The close proximity of the 150' monopole tower to residential property will be intrusive and compromise property values. We also oppose extending Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106`x' Avenue. The road extension would increase the speeding problem we already have and remove a desirable park. We the undersigned strongly oppose having two detrimental projects in our area. Name Address ~.w. 4v-&, -qo ;Y A in A A4 ,l A D 3CJ A J ~~t4~ ~Q2 (0 6 za ~ fJ~ ~ ~o~~ 4glq4l Je If s-0-4-dgf L • • J Petition Against the Construction of the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility and the Extension of Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106th Avenue An application has been filed with the City of Tigard to seek a conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter, to house associated support equipment, at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM2S 1 I I BC, Tax Lot 2600. Owner: Tigard Water District, Attention: Ed Wegner, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, OR 97224 Applicant: Greenstreet Architects,, Attention: Randy Tomic, PO Box 82125, Portland, OR 97282 We the homeowners of Calway Hill Homeowners Association oppose the construction of the Emergency Communications Facility. The close proximity of the 150' monopole tower to residential property will be intrusive and compromise property values. We also n rd oppose extending Murdock Street from 10) Avenue to 106`h Avenue. The road extension would increase the speeding problem we already have and remove a desirable park. We the undersigned strongly oppose having two detrimental projects in our area. Name Address +i~AU3p 2T/,d Id.,5`70 U/ e4X D®cT(- IZ~C' Cr ~c'~ 0' T 2 L Y / 7 2Z _I\ I 1224- J - G'~ . (40 , /t-(&g sr- s L-v (06 ~ , ~ 0 2 c 7-2- Alb '~-S S1A lw 0 S(10 06 ' Ave, a PL a . r.~t r.9~ ~ ~~a cr • • Petition Against the Construction of the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility and the Extension of Murdock Street from 103rd Avenue to 106th Avenue An application has been filed with the City of Tigard to seek a conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter, to house associated support equipment, at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM2S 11 l BC, Tax Lot 2600. Owner: Tigard Water District, Attention: Ed Wegner, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, OR 97224 Applicant: Greenstreet Architects,, Attention: Randy Tomic, PO Box 82125, Portland, OR 97282 We the homeowners of Calway Hill Homeowners Association oppose the construction of the Emergency Communications Facility. The close proximity of the 150' monopole tower to residential property will be intrusive and compromise property values. We also oppose extending Murdock Street from 103`d Avenue to 106`h Avenue. The road extension would increase the speeding problem we already have and remove a desirable park. We the undersigned strongly oppose having two detrimental projects in our area. Name Address 0 Hearings Officer City of Tigard Meeting Date February 23, 2004 RE: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00094 We are Robert and Betty Banford. • f (-(e-1V A e, l/I &,r1,1) 2/7_3l &J 14790 SW 104th Tigard, OR 97224 February 21, 2004 Rban72838@aol.com We have lived in our house at 14790 SW 104th for the last thirty-four years. During that time we've actively involved ourselves in the replanting of trees, and also the maintenance of walking paths in the Water District open space area. Unfortunately our property is immediately adjacent to the Tigard Water District site and this provides us with unique visibility of the history surrounding this area and its evolving development over time. We have observed evolutionary changes on this property, from initially just the housing of Water District tanks and the necessary support buildings, to it becoming a paved storage area site now overseen by the City of Tigard. The proposed WCCCA monopole tower is certainly something that we never envisioned in our worst nightmare scenarios. Obviously this letter will probably be biased toward our opinion of the impact, on our immediate neighborhood, of this Greenstreet application. As we're obviously not legally qualified to address those aspects of this application, we most willingly defer to our representative, Christine Cook, to more than adequately present those parameters. We are critically concerned with the detrimental effect this proposed tower will have on our property and also on our neighborhood overall. While we are supportive of good public safety communications, we believe that any site in a residential neighborhood, as well as in an historical district, is absolutely not the appropriate place for such a tower. With great conviction we actually believe that other more suitable locations for this kind of development already exist and should therefore be considered. During the last eight months we've had numerous conversations with various City of Tigard employees regarding this next-door property and this particular proposal. While we've formed the impression the City is neutral on this particular development, we are also apprehensive of what else will be done with this site in the future. This entire property has a Historic District overlay designation, because of the John Tigard House, and we feel that the proposed tower absolutely violates that ambiance. The current `open space' surrounding the John Tigard House creates a park-like atmosphere that adds to the character of the site. A 150 foot tower in such close proximity does absolutely nothing to add to the character of the area. The application suggests that the tower would not be a visual distraction for the John Tigard House. The picture used in the application is incredibly misleading as to the visual effect of the proposed tower, when seen from the historic house. • In fact, standing anywhere within the John Tigard House complex, there is no way to hide this proposed development. The grove of trees that supposedly block the view from the historic house are located adjacent to the house on SW 103rd Street. There are very few trees actually in the line of sight from the John Tigard House complex to the proposed tower site, within the Water District property. Undoubtedly the whole character of this historical house will be affected! Aside from the Historic District designation, the surrounding neighborhood is totally residential. Our property is to the South of the Water District and will indeed be adversely affected by this proposed development. We will see the tower from top to bottom every time we drive down SW 104th to our house. The trees that currently stand as a barrier between our property and the Water District property are within a road right of way that has existed for the entire time we have lived here. This barrier will be gone when the road is extended, therefore the "visual screening provided by existing trees" minimizing the impact on the adjacent lots, as cited in the Greenstreet application on page 9 under Chapter 18.740, appears intentionally misleading. our house is just one of many in the surrounding neighborhood that will be dominated by the visual impact of this tower every time we are either outside our home, or merely attempting to enjoy our northerly aspect. Contrary to what the applicant portrayed at the neighborhood meeting in June of 2003, property values within the neighborhood will undoubtedly be affected if this structure is allowed. We have spoken to a real estate broker and he has stated that not only would our selling price be affected but the appeal of our total property would also suffer. Most of the neighboring properties are 1/3 of an acre in size and are very appealing in today's market. The broker we talked to estimated our property value would decrease a minimum of $10,000, if the development were approved. This diminished value of property is a concern to all of our neighbors. Even more disconcerting to us is the fact that the appeal of property next to a monopole tower, as proposed, would limit prospective buyers. He informed us that many buyers would consider the communication tower to be a potential health hazard as well as an eyesore. While we are aware that a Federal law prohibits a potential health hazard from being the sole reason for denial of this application, we feel that since it has a perceived effect on property values it should definitely be a consideration. At this point in time we have not seen any polar diagrams graphically defining the electromagnetic radiation pattern of the proposed antennae, and in particular its inevitable side lobes. We believe that this proposal should not just be taken as a single event, but as a continuation of development that has occurred on the Water District property since 1996. We have observed this site transform from the single purpose of water storage units in a graveled area, with a multitude of trees buffering the site, to a multiple purpose paved area containing additional buildings, over a hundred plus feet of concrete storage bins, increased heavy equipment noise and truck traffic. There is already a diesel engine, running at unpredictable times, which is quite loud. The Greenstreet application does not consider this existing source of noise, but only those noises to be generated by their application. We believe this proposal should not be taken singularly, but as a continuation of development. The impact on our residential neighborhood should be considered in the aggregate of all the activity within this residentially zoned site. In reviewing the applicant's proposal, we have concerns regarding several of the criteria, or lack thereof, used in selecting this location as the appropriate site for this 150 foot high monopole tower. Chapter 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts implies that a wireless communications facility is permitted with restrictions. This area is designated as R3.5 and consists of single family residences as well as owner occupied duplexes (referred to as condominiums in the Staff Report). The purpose of 18.510.010 is to preserve and protect neighborhood livability. Our opinion is that this proposal does nothing to preserve our neighborhood livability. The application does not offer any photos from SW 104th where the tower would be most visible. The few trees that are to the South of the location that would act as a buffer, according to the applicant, are in real danger of being removed, according to the Staff Report, when SW Murdock is extended for vehicular connectivity. We are concerned that this applicant is not paying appropriate attention to the holistic needs for visual screening. Neighborhood livability is definitely at stake here. Chapter 18.740 Historical Overlay speaks to the preservation of the historical value of the district. The applicant readily admits that the proposed tower does not comply with the standards. It will not enhance the character of the area one iota. The HD designation was placed on this area to ensure that any development upon the land area would be compatible with the character of the historic structure. The proposed tower design is not compatible! Furthermore, it will distract from the character of the John Tigard House. Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities again addresses the protection of neighborhood livability and minimizing the visual impact. The applicant has proposed a tower height that, if allowed, could set a precedent in a residential/historical district neighborhood. Adequate support data for the need of a 152 foot tower, as stated in the project description of the application, has not been shown in this proposal. The applicant has stated the tower needs to be above the tree level and yet the applicant is proposing having some of the trees removed. We are very concerned about what method will be utilized in any tree removal. It seems to us that the applicant is not addressing the protection of the neighborhood livability, or minimizing the visual impact. Applicant has not shown which alternative sites were considered, or why each one was rejected. This particular site cannot possibly be the only one within the Tigard area, suitable for this communications need. While we are presenting our own unique objections to this proposed monopole tower in our neighborhood, it is important to note that we are not alone. Our understanding is that our neighbors do not want to see this application approved any more than we do. A neighborhood is not just the area 250 feet away from a proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views, and we currently remain convinced that you will give them their due attention. Rene a/ &5-14 R obert and Betty Banord • • "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. • • Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearina Date: "REVISED" STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY Of TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER Community~DeveCopment Shtaping,A Better Community FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 5/25/2004 THIS STAFF REPORT HAS BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT THE CORRECT 120 DAY APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMEFRAME SHOWN ABOVE. - - - - SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) CUP2003-00010 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) VAR2003-00094 OWNER: Tigard Water District APPLICANT: Greenstreet Architects Attn: Ed Wegner Attn: Randy Tomic 8777 SW Burnham PO Box 82125 Tigard, OR 97224 Portland, OR 97282 PROPOSAL: The applicant (representing Washington County Consolidated l t l Ul i se approva o ona Communications Agency) Is seeking Condit construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a t h lt t i f 20 f er ions s e commun ca oot x - oo 150-foot monopole tower and a 10- to house associated support equipment. The proposed facility is located within a Historic District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic district standards. LOCATION: 10310 SW Canterbury Lane; WCTM 25111 BC, Tax Lot 2600. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONE(S): R-3.5, Low-Density Residential District. (HD), Historic Overlay District. Wireless communication facilities are conditionally permitted in the HD APPLICABLE Overlay District. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.740, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff can not make adequate findings based on the information provided in the record to support a recommendation to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL, but has provided recommended Conditions of Approval should the applicant be able to provide supplemental evidence for the Hearings Officer to make findings to support approval of the request. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 1 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: -Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall identify the access point to the facility. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall prepare a site plan that illustrates the current width of this alley and shows improvements, as necessary, to bring the paved width to 16 feet in order to comply with TpDC18.810.030.A. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall prepare construction plans that show a paved drivewa to the facility using the best management practices for construction of the pavedyarea around trees, as prepared by a certified arborist. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure that the vision clearance area as described in 18.795 is met through removal of shrubbery, or other obstructions as necessary at the intersection of the driveway and street. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding in the amount of $14,175.00. 4. The applicant shall provide clear RF documentation showing the need for a tower height in excess of 130 feet. Additionally the applicant shall strive to minimize the height of the tower, by employing all available OF techniques including alternate antennae designs and or placement. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with the FAA and Oregon Aeronautics Division to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes "steady-on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or white lights. The applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a tree protection F Ian from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the app licant o protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030(6)(4). 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(6)(8) The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC Section 7.40.140. The project's accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to protect the existing trees and vegetative screening on site: A. All removal of hazard and dead trees shall be undertaken in the least impacting manner possible, as established by a certified arborist. This may include restricting heavy machinery to presently paved areas, and leaving tree stumps intact. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 2 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • B. Establish a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees greater than 12-inch in diameter south of the proposed facility. This easement shall set forth the permitted and prohibited activities as determined by a certified arborist, and shall be recorded with Washington County. The boundaries of the easement shall be clearly marked on site. C. Create a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees within the easement area, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborist. D. Develop a landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible under story which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. A minimum of four 15-foot-tall evergreens shall be included in this plan, and positioned where they will have the greatest screening effect from the properties to the south. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING SITE WORK: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) or review an approval: 10. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED j PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) or review an approval: 11. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall certify that the best management practices as provided by the certified arborist for construction of the paved drive were followed in the construction of the access drive. Failure to follow these measures constitutes a violation of the conditions of approval and depending on the severity of damage incurred on the existing trees, a possible violation of the tree ordinance as well. Penalties as prescribed in the development code will be applicable. 12. Prior to final inspection, the landscaping shall be installed according to the previously required revised landscape plan and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. 13. Prior to final inspection, the access way and parking space shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(6)(5). A • n_'_ a_ c!-_I _i: aL_ a_ _L_II L. -L.. ..I .A .....I. L. L. L... L. +L... I~+. r 1 tU Anal inspecuon uie waver snail uc paiiiLUU a Uair~ brown color below aye ree line (510 foot elevation), similar to the color of the tree bark on the fir trees, instead of the proposed green color. The remainder of the tower shall be gray, unless alternate marking is required by the FAA. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE APPLICANT: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) or review an approval: 15. It is the continuing obligation of the applicant to ensure that the generator shall only be tested between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm and only during a weekday. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 3 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 16. It is the continuing obligation of the applicant to ensure that no signa a is displayed on the facility apart from emergency contact information. The applicant shall apply for a siggn permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC CFiapter 18.780 and the above noted restriction on signage. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histor : Is site is owned by the Tigard Water District, who operates a water reservoir and small storage facility for the City. The 5 acre site is presently developed with two water tanks built in 1960 and 1964 respectively, and a small building constructed in 1968. A generator was added to the site in 1989. The Water District and the City merged in 1996, when the City began overseeing operations on the site. On the east side of the site is the John Tigard house, designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Built in 1880, the house is one of two Tigard sites listed on the National Historic Register. John Tigard was the eldest son of Wilson Tigard, the founding father of Tigardville. John operated a coach route from Tigardville to Portland. The house is significant in its association with John and as an example of early frame construction. The house was moved to the site from a location along SW Pacific Highway when a road construction project threatened preservation of the home. Approvals for the relocation of the house were granted under case files SDR 17-79 and CU 5-79. The entire property is desiggated on the City's zoning map as a Historic District. The site was originally created as lots 5, 6, and 7 of the Tigardville Heights Subdivision and is part of the original donation land claim of the Wilson McClendon Tigard family dating back to 1852. Vicinity Information: The site is zone -3.5 with a Historic District overlay and is surrounded by various uses. To the east and south of the site are singgle-family residences. To the west is a number of condominiums. To the north is a church and an assisted living facility. Tuality Junior High and Templeton Elementary are located about Y2 mile away to the east. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is currently developed with aci Ides for Tigard's water supply system: The proposal is to construct and operate an emergency wireless communications facility in the southern portion of the lot. The tower meets the required setbacks applicable to the district and specific setbacks for towers; however, the applicant has requested a variance to the Historic District Code Standards which in essence require new construction to complement the historic district. SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff receive two one calls, an one written comment from the public. One phone call was from Bonnie Tp homas who was seeking additional information related to the proposal. No specific objections were raised. The second phone call was from Richard Barton who objected to the location of the proposed site in a residential zone, as well as the proximity of the site to multi family, adult assisted living facility, and the schools. He raised objections based on the potential health impacts from the transmission and receiving antennae. According to the Federal Telecom Act of 1996, the issues of health impacts, so Iong as the facility is in compliance with the requirements as established by the FCC, cannot be used as the sole basis for denying a proposed wireless communications site. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 4 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Finallyi Robert and Betty Banford submitted written objections to the proposal. They desire the heght of the tower be reduced, the tower be restricted to the single user, a better buffer be provided from residential properties, other future uses be limited on the district's property, a master plan be developed for the property, a final determination as to required lighting on the tower, specific tree removal methods be described, and that Murdock Street be vacated for park use. STAFF'S RESPONSE: 1) Reducing the height of the tower. It is the applicant's responsibility to establish the needed height of the tower based on RF requirements. IN this case, part of the applicant's justification is that the antennae must be above the tops of the trees. The Banford's express that with some of the dead and dying trees removed, the height may not need be so tall. Staff has recommended a condition to address this issue. 2) Restrict the tower to a single user. The Development Code encourages collocation, and makes specific provisions to do so. It runs counter to these requirements to limit the site to a single user. Therefore, staff makes no recommendation to add this limitation. 3) Better buffer between the site and the residential properties. Staff has addressed this issue in further detail later in this report and imposing a recommended condition to enhance the landscape plan and provide a long term maintenance plan and protection of the buffer area. 4) Limit future uses on the property. It is outside the authority granted in the development code for this, or any other land use application to establish a blanket limitation on future uses, provided those uses are permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the zone. Each subsequent development shall be reviewed based on its own merits. 5) Develop a master plan for the property. If the application were proposing a phased approval for several types of uses or structures, the applicant may propose a master plan for review and approval. The master plan would then guide development and its sequence of occurrence. This was not part of the applicant's proposal in this case. Also, the development code cannot impose this requirement. What the Banford's may be seeking is a Capital Facilities Improvement Plan, which is developed by the City's engineering department. To staffs knowledge, a facilities plan addressing this property has not been prepared. 6) Final FAA determination prior to approval. Staff has routinely reviewed and approved requests subject to final FAA determination for lighting, similar to applications requiring final DSL and Army Corps approval for wetland related issues. Because of the time involved in obtaining FAA approval, as well as the fact that the FAA requires an approved design to make their determination, the code prohibits lighting, "except as required by the FAA." This pprovides applicants the ability to obtain an approval and then seek final approval from the hi her review authority. Staff has responded to this concern with a recommended condition of approval, based on the Conditional Use Criteria to limit impacts form outdoor lighting. 7) Specific tree removal methods. The Banford's assert that certain removal methods are more harmful to existing trees that remain than other methods. For example, heavy . equipment used to drag and haul whole trunks or pull stumps will impact the roots of existing trees more than hand removal by rounds and leaving stumps intact. This has been required through a recommended condition of approval. 8) Vacation of Murdock Street for park purposes. This application is the improper venue to entertain a street vacation. The right of way is vacated through a separate process and is approved by the City Council. Separate application would need to be made to accomplish this. Moreover, it should be noted that the City envisions SW Murdock Street being extended for vehicular connectivity. Also, should the area be vacated, approximately half of the area would become part of the Water District property (not a park) and the other half would return to private ownership (not available to the public). "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 5 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to build a 150-foot high monopole wireless communications facility. Wireless communication facilities are permitted by Conditional Use in the R-4.5 zones. Summa Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-ma Ring type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed use (wireless communications facility) is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO decision. Alterations or construction of new structures in a historic district are subject to a Type II process. When applications are heard concurrently, the highest decision making body will make the decision on all matters. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Saecific Conditional Use Criteria 31 Hp rovai urneria nal Conditions of P B. ndards I ts.3 i u variances/Hajusimenxs) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.740 Historic Overlay) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities C. Street and Utt Im rovement Standar s 18.810 D. mpac u v A. Specific Conditional Use A roval Criteria 18.330 Section states t Fat the purpose o is c apter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is approximately 5 acres in size and is generally square in shape. This site has adequate area and dimensions to accommodate the proposed use, as demonstrated by the fact that the highest setback standard (100% of the tower height to the property line) can be met as proposed. The actual footprint size of the use requires roughly 30X50 feet. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 6 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The site is currently developed with a historic structure and public water facilities. The site slopes gently to the east from about 400 to 380 feet in elevation, with the proposed tower located at approximately 390 foot elevation. The applicant asserts that this site was selected primarily due to its location in relation to other approved tower sites in the 911 network. The applicant has proposed retaining all existing healthy trees on site, but will remove several trees due to their hazard potential. Considering the above characteristics, this site is suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and The proposed use requires only access, storm drainage, electricity, and phone facilities. There is no impact to sewer or water facilities. All public facilities and private utilities have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The proposed site is located within the R-3.5 zoning district. As indicated earlier, wireless communications facilities are permitted conditionally. As discussed later in this report, the project will meet the applicable requirements of the zoning district. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter. 18.360; Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.370, Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705,'Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay, 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.360, Site Development Review;18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Design Standards; 18.630, Washington Square Regional Center; 18.640 Durham Quarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; and 18.785_ Temnorarv Uses. These chaDters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the general approval criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 7 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE. Section 18.330.030.6 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The proposed use is intended to operate 24 hours a day, year around for continual emergency communications. The nature of the use will only require a maintenance technician to visit the site once every 30-45 days to conduct routine maintenance. A generator is proposed for emergency backup power, which will require occasional testing to ensure it is properly maintained. While the nature of emergencies is such that a limitation on the time of operation would not be rational, the applicant can control the times when the generator is tested. Staff recommends that to disguise the generator sound amongst other ambient sounds, the generator should only be tested during a weekday between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. With this limitation, this criterion is satisfied. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The proposal would not likely generate any vibration, air pollution, odor, or dust that would be considered unacceptable. However, in response to impacts that may occur as a result of glare, the applicant has proposed to paint the tower a green color below the treeline, which would theoretically absorb the light and help the tower blend in with the trees that are within close vicinity to the site. The a Tay)/60 has also indicated that the site would not generate noise that exceeds the 75 dBA~day)/60 dBA(night) standards as measured at the pro pert y line. There are two HVAC units that operate individually at a level of 52dBA measured at y meters. The generator will be equipped with a silencing enclosure as well as a silencer on the exhaust unit. The generator operates at 66 dBA measured at 7 meters. The closest noise sensitive unit is across SW Murdock Street, 134 feet away. The applicant indicates that the sound will diminish over distance and will fall below the 60 dBA limit before reaching the noise sensitive units. FINDINGS: Painting the tower dark brown versus the proposed green will have better light absorbing effect, and will help the tower base blend into the trees better, as the vertical elements of the trees, i.e. the trunks, are brown; whereas the horizontal elements, i.e. needles or leaves, are green. The project contains a generator with specifications that illustrate the unit would exceed the decibel levels allowed under the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40 and TDC Section 18.798.060(B)(8), however, these levels were measured at 7 meters (23 feet from the source. The applicant as not factually confirmed that the noise levels will be met at the property line with the proposed generator design. CONDITIONS: • The tower shall be painted a dark brown color below the tree line (510 foot elevation), similar to the color of the tree bark on the fir trees, instead of the proposed green color. • The generator shall only be tested between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm and only during a weekday. • Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(6)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC Section 7.4b.146. The projects accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 8 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The proposed tower already exceeds the 100% tower height setback as required. The site is well in excess of the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the zone as well as the required lot width of 50 feet. There has been no showing that additional setbacks, lot area, depth, or width is necessary. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; The applicant is proposing to utilize a 2,000 square foot leased area of a 1.04-acre site, and the height of the tower is proposed to be 60 feet in height. There are no specific height limitations for wireless communications facilities in residential zones, although in other zones 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users is a threshold appried to distinguish between outright permitted and conditionally allowed towers. The applicant's proposal for 152 feet is the tallest pole of its type in the City. The next highest facility is 130 feet located near the Costco Store on Pacific Highway. Part of the applicant's justification is the fact that the surrounding trees are so tall. According to the applicant's site survey, the top of the tower is between 19 to 89 feet taller than the trees noted on the plan, and average about 44 feet in difference. The applicant has proposed removing some of the dead and hazardous trees, which may effectively lower the height of the surrounding canopy. A limitation on height may be appropriate based on the final height of the remaining vegetation. Staff is also concerned by the precedent that may be set by allowing a tower taller than 130 feet. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant has proposed a joint access with the reservoir site main access entry. The water district has provided comments that recommend an alternate access point to maximize security at the reservoir site. Since the applicant will need unlimited 24/7 access to the monopole site, water district staff would be unable to provide an onsite escort each and every time the applicant needed to obtain access. Therefore, a separate means of entry to specifically the monopole site was suggested. By utilizing the existing paved alley along the west edge of the property, the appricant would be able to enter the site at an existing secondary gate, and with additional fencing, provide a separated route to the monopole facility. From a traffic safety or impact perspective, based on the level of anticipated traffic, planning staff does not foresee a need to require a different point of access; however, staff does not object to utilizing this alternate access point. Further improvements may be necessary, as described later in this report under Street and Utility Improvements. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; This criteria is addressed later in the street and utility improvements section of this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; These items are addressed later in this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the prescribed requirements of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; The applicant has proposed one (1) sign with emergency contact information. Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a design is reviewed. The applicant will be required to indicate the location and type of sign proposed for this site prior to building permit issuance. No signage shall be permitted on the facility apart from emergency contact information. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated that the tower will only be lighted as determined by the FAA. The FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 70/7460-1 K CHG 1) describes the marking and lighting requirements for aeronautical obstructions: "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 9 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • "Any temporary or permanent structure, including all appurtenances, that exceeds an overall height of 200 feet (61m) above ground level (AGL) or exceeds any obstruction standard contained in 14 CFR part 77, should normally be marked and/or lighted. However, an FAA aeronautical study may reveal that the absence of marking and/or lighting will not impair aviation safety. Conversely, the object may present such an extraordinary hazard otential that higher standards may be recommended for increased conspicuity to ensure safety to air navigation. Normally outside commercial lighting is not considered sufficient reason to omit recommended marking and/or lighting: Recommendations on marking and/or lighting structures can vary depending on terrain features, weather patterns, geographic location, and in the case of wind turbines, number of structures and overall layout of design. The FAA may also recommend marking and/or lighting a structure that does not exceed 200 (61m) feet AGL or 14 CFR part 77 standards because of its particular location." While the structure is below 200 feet in height, there may still be reasons for marking and/or lighting the structure. It is beyond the City s authority to require or limit marking or lighting that conflicts with the FAA's requirements. Nevertheless, to lessen the potentiar impacts to surrounding residential properties from light and glare caused by tower lighting, the applicant shall strive to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes "steady-on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or white lights. Lighting is also discussed later in this report when discussing crime prevention. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; As discussed further in this discussion, the applicant has proposed a mixture of landscaping and fencing to screen the use from surrounding properties. The applicant indicates that a grove of existing mature trees effectively screens the tower from existing off-site residences. fn order to ensure the long term viability of this screen, standards for maintenance and preservation of the existing grove should be established and should include such measures as: 1) A conservation easement area around the existing mature trees. 2) A program for the care and treatment of the existing trees, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborlst. 3) A landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible under story which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The required and proposed fencing meets the height, location and material standards that are prescribed in the TDC Chapter 8.798 for wireless communication facilities. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Some of the trees on site are scheduled for removal based on their hazard potential. Preservation methods have previously been discussed. The applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed further in this report. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 10 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. FINDING: To limit the amount of impact to nearby residences and to further respect the historic nature of the district, signage and lighting shall be limited. Additionally, to protect the existing ve etative screening, measures shall be in place to ensure the long term viability o~ the screening. Finally, the height of the tower should be a function of necessity, and should respect the precedent established with the 130 foot height previously allowed. CONDITIONS: • No signage shall be permitted on the facility apart from emergency contact information. • The applicant shall work with the FAA and Oregon Aeronautics Division to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes "steady-on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or, white lights. • The applicant shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to protect the existing trees and vegetative screening on site: A. Establish a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees greater than 12-inch in diameter. This easement shall set forth the permitted and prohibited activities as determined by a certified arborist, and shall be recorded with Washington County. The boundaries of the easement shall be clearly marked on site. B. Create a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees within the easement area, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborist. C. Develop a landscaping plan to introduce 'new evergreen trees and compatible under story which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. • The applicant shall provide clear RF documentation showing the need for a tower height in excess of 130 feet, after the dead and hazardous trees have been removed. Additionally the applicant shall strive to minimize the height of the tower, by employing all available RF techniques including alternate antennae designs and or placement. B. Applicable Development Code Standards VARIANCES 18.370) Section 18.3 0.010 provides the criteria for granting of variances. The Director shall approve )prove with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding thaat fphe following criteria are satisfied: The applicant is requesting a variance to the historic overlay standards which require, in relevant part: 18.740.040.D. Criteria for construction of new structures. Approval for exterior alterations of structures in an historic overlay district shall be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, by the Director using the following criteria: 1. The uurnose of the historic overlav district as set forth in Section 1U.14UMIU; 18.740.010.A. Purposes. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Facilitate the protection enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; 2. Enhance any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; 3. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; 4. Strengthen the economy of the City; 5. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City- and l' 6. Implement the applicable provisions of LCD Goal 5 anc the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 2. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 11 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 3. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; 4. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure. The applicant concedes that ggiven the utilitarian nature of the proposed facility, it is not possible to comply with all of 4 above standards. He argues that since the structure was relocated to the site in 1979, it is the structure itself that is deemed historic, and not the surrounding land area. Since the Historic Overlay standards are written to apply to the district and not specific structures, a variance is required to deviate from these requirements. Therefore, the following criteria will be applied to evaluate the applicant's request to deviate from the above noted standards. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The relevant purposes from Title 18 include: "As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan." "Conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources." [18.110.020] Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan Volume 1-Resource Document describes the rational for the Historic Overlay Designation on the property: "The John F. Tigard House, located on the southwest corner of SW 103rd %nd SW Canterbury was included on the National Register of Historic Structures on July 20 , 1979, and, therefore, has been included as a historic resource for the City of Tigard. This structure has been Tigard's historic focal point, and is a good example of early frame construction. In 1979, it was moved from its original location on Pacific Highway to its present location. The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the site is Low Density Residential (1-5 units per acre) with an underlying zone of R-10 (single family residential). These designations are not in conflict with the historic resource since it is a residential use. The 10,000 square foot minimum lot size appears adequate to situate the structure and accessories in a similar setting as originally built. A Historic Overlay District (HD) designation will be placed upon the land area on which the structure and accessories stand. This designation will ensure that any development upon the land area will be compatible with the character of the historic structure." Staff must therefore determine that the it is the intent and purpose of this overlay designation as described in the Comprehensive Plan to protect not )just the structure, but the surrounding area within the district from changes that will adversely affect the historic character of the structure and the setting upon which the structure stands. A variance which results in this type of impact will have a detrimental affect to the purposes of Title 18 which requires conservation of these resources. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The applicant has not requested variances to any set dimensional standards to which the property or proposal does not comply. The lot size and shape are relevant factors in the applicant's choice of sites as adequate area must be included for meeting the tower setback requirements. Topography is also a relevant factor as a particular elevation is required to achieve the. desired coverage and line of sight communication with other facilities. The R-10 designation is the equivalent of the present R-3.5 zoning classification. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 12 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The use is conditionally permitted under this title, and appart from the standards to which the variance is being requested, all other City standards will be maintained. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and Physical systems such as transportation, drainage, and utilities will not be impacted by allowing deviation from what is ostensibly a design requirement. The nearest park is nearly a mile away and should therefore not be impacted. The term "dramatic landforms" is vague and not defined in the code. However, this could possibly be applied to such features as Little Bull Mountain and Bull Mountain. Nevertheless, wireless communications facilities are allowed (via conditional use permits) in the R-3.5 and HD overlay zones. Other than the particular design factors, the granting of the variance would have no additional affect than what is specified in the title. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is a function of the historic overlay designation and the applicant's proposed design (which is a sub function of radio frequency communications requirements). To the extent the property is designated a historic district is beyond the control of the applicant. To the extent the proposed design does not satisfy the elements of the historic overlay approval criteria, the applicant based on radio frequency requirements is constrained by two ma.or factors: location and elevation. The applicant has asserted that "the proposed 500 MHz radio facility is not a function that can be located on just any site in the County. The effectiveness of this radio system is dependent on the altitude of the transmitters and receivers to provide adequate radio coverage and on the placement of towers in appropriate areas to provide radio coverage to populated areas. This site is in the right area of the County to expand coverage to an underserved area, and it provides the necessary elevation to allow the most consistent coverage. Other sites on the hill do not have the appropriate area or configuration to support the facility. Other hills will not allow the signal to reach the target area." There is inadequate evidence provided in the application that shows what the target area is, that other sites will not adequately serve that area, and that the requested height of the tower is the minimum necessary to support the proposed use. FINDINGS: • The Comprehensive Plan indicates that it was the intent of the Historic Overlay designation for the John F. Tigard House to ensure any development on the land area will be compatible with the historic structure. • The purposes of the Development Code, Title 18, include protection of Historic Resources and to implement the comprehensive plan. • The proposed structure cannot be adequately screened from and is not compatible with the character of the Historic Structure. • The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed location is the only site that will achieve the desired result. Therefore, staff cannot find that the hardship is not self-imposed. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510 The zoning dis ric is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Wireless communication facilities are also permitted conditionally. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 13 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. STANDARD R-3.5 CUP Requirements Proposed Facility Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 10,000 sq.ft. ----0---- 2,000 sq.ft. - Duplexes Leased Area - Attached unit 1 verage Minimum of Width -De tached unit lots 50 ft. ---0--- -500 ft. - Duplex lots 90 ft. - Attached unit lots Maximum of overa e - N/A N/A Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 20 ft. 311 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 ft. 20 ft. 347 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 169 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. 134 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line N/A and front of ara a 20 ft. 20 ft. N/A As illustrated in the table and on the plans provided by the applicant, the proposal meets the minimum development requirements of the underlying zone where applicable. This criterion is satisfied. ACCESS EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) Where the provisions o Chapter 18.360, i site Development Review, do not apply: the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in conjunction with another permit or land use action. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. yy. The applicant has proposed utilizing the existing site access to the water district ropert The water district staff have commented that as a result of their recently completedpsecurlty assessment, unmonitored access is not desired. Therefore, they have requested that the access be provided through a separate gate on the western side of the site, via an existing alleyway. A new fence would be installed to separate the water district functions from the wireless communications facility. As there will only be two vehicular trips to and from the site every 30-45 days by a technician, either access is sufficient to meet this standard. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (18.725) Reequirehffederal an sae environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 rah oug Ti 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park (I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a proppert y line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 14 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be read'i detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodli hts or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visTle at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Many of these items have been addressed earlier in this report. As stated previously, there is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents. Glare has been addressed by the condition requiring the tower to be painted a deep brown to blend in with the existing trees. A condition has also been suggested to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed the allowable levels as defined in the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 7.40. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the expanded use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, or possible fines until they were brought back into compliance. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. HISTORIC OVERLAY (18.740 iT e appliican as soup a variance to the standards of this chapter, however, staff finds the applicant has not met Fiis burden of proof that the variance criteria are met, and therefore will apply the following criteria to the proposal. Approval for construction of new structures in an historic overlay district shall be granted using the following criteria: "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 15 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 1. P_ a. _ A- _ L An 7 An ^A^. I ne purpo5e or lHe f1151UrIG UVefldy U15U 11rL CM WIC IUI U1 III .MULIVII I FJ.1 -rv.v IV 18.740.010.A. Purposes. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; The proposed communications tower does not protect, enhance, or help perpetuate the John F. Tigard House, which has been termed Tigard's historic focal point by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Enhance any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; The proposed communications tower does not enhance the area in terms of its historic character. 3. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; There is no evidence that communications facilities negatively detract from property values. 4. Strengthen the economy of the City; The economy of the City is better served by a dependable emergency communications system. This is an essential public service that both businesses and residents depend on. Without adequate emergency service protection, the economy of the City would be adversely affected. 5. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City; and The proposed communications tower does not promote the use of the district or landmark for the education, energy conservation, or housing. However, the public welfare is promoted with the availability of enhanced emergency communications. 6. Implement the applicable provisions of LCD Goal 5 and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. As discussed previously under the variance discussion, the Comprehensive Plan established this district overlay to protect the John F. Tigard house, as well as the land area to preserve the setting for the structure. 2. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; As previously mentioned, there has been no showing of detrimental economic value from the establishment of communications facilities. 3. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; See discussion under Criteria #4, below. 4. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure. The proposed structure will have a negative effect on the architectural character of the district. The John F. Tigard house is an 1890's structure utilizing early wood frame construction, typical of early western settlements. The proposed steel monopole construction was not in use until the late 1970's. Structures of the proposed height in the 1890's were typically constructed of wood, lattice-type construction, as evidenced in turn of the century train trestles and windmills. The proposed accessory building uses a stucco fagade and steel roof, which is also out of character for that era. Since communications facilities are allowed in Historic Overlays through a conditional use process, and not prohibited, the code must have envisioned certain instances where these facilities can be established in a manner that is compatible. Through additional architectural treatments, the accessory buildingg can be made to look like a period era structure (e. . ship- lap siding, wood shingle roof). We larger concern is the proposed monopole and an ennae "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 16 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • attachments. Several stealth design options are available, albeit the added cost may be significant. However, the cost of meeting the code requirements is not a relevant factor for the City in its decision making process. In fact, applications in Historic Overlay districts are expected to provide an additional measure of design excellence than proposals outside of the overlay district. Some possible "stealth" options include disguising the tower as a water tank, period era fire-lookout, windmill, grain silo, or tree as the following examples suggest: FINDING: The applicant's proposed tower and accessory building do not meet the Historic Overlay chapter requirements. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (18.745) ree trees: Section 18.7 40 saes that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The project fronts four rights of way, only two of which are developed to City standard; SW Canterbury and SW 103 Streets. The applicant has made no provision for street trees; however there are existing trees that satisfy these requirements. FINDING: The applicant's landscaping plan does not show the street trees, however, staff has confirmed that the existing trees meet the landscaping standards. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed facility is in a residential zone with abutting residential uses on three sides. There are no specific requirements in this section with regard to wireless communication towers. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are subject to the special screening standards of TDC Section 18.798.060(8)(7). Landscaping and screening will be discussed in more detail under that section. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) Except osingle-family an up ex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; The applicant has proposed a gravel parking space. This will not meet the above standard. Therefore, this space shall be required to be paved. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 17 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 0 Table 18.765.2 does not require a minimum off-street parking requirement for wireless communications facilities. Nevertheless, the site plan Indicates a parking space for the technician's vehicle when on-site. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; With either access scenario, the site is controlled to limit conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. One technician is expected to visit the site once every 30-45 days. There should not be any additional pedestrian traffic on site. This criterion is satisfied. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Either access to the site meets this standard. As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; The access is clearly marked by a standard curb cut design designating a driveway location. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; The applicant has not indicated whether vision clearance is met. Moreover, if the secondary access is to be used, this intersection with the public street will need to ensure that adequate vision clearance is available. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant will be required to improve the access with asphalt or concrete as necessary, depending on the chosen access point location. The existing access through the water district rounds is already improved, but the alternate access may require some additional asphal& reach the proposed facility compound location. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. There is ample room for the service vehicle to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required. This criterion is satisfied. FINDINGS: The applicant's access and the parking space may not meet the requirement for hard surfacing. If there is no asphalt or concrete for the alternate access location, then this area will be required to be hard surfaced. The parking space, shown as gravel on the plans, must be hard surfaced. The applicant shall also note that if the area of added impervious surface exceeds 5,000 square feet, then water detention will be required. There is inadequate information in the record to establish whether the vision clearance requirements are met. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 18 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • CONDITIONS: • Prior to final inspection, the access way and parking space shall be im ved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)5ro). • Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall establish the approved access point and ensure that the vision clearance area as described in 18.795 is met through removal of shrubbery, or other obstructions as necessary. Staff shall confirm the standard is met prior to final building inspection. SIGNS 18.780 Requires a a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. The applicant has indicated that they only intend to place one sign on the site to give contact instructions, but did not provide the dimensions or location of the sign. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: There are no plans provided for the proposed signs, so staff cannot verify compliance with the sign standards. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780 and the previously recommended condition limiting signage. TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790 Section 18.790.030 requires a a ree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from, David Hunter, consulting arborist that generally describes the trees that are on the project site and their condition. According to this report no trees over 12 inches in diameter will require removal to accommodate the proposed tower; however, the arborist notes that there are several dead and dying trees that constitute an immediate hazard and should be removed. Hazard trees are not considered for purposes of calculating mitigation. The City Forester has reviewed the report and provided comments later in this report. Since no healthy trees are to be removed, no mitigation is required. The Water District has requested an alternate means of access to improve the security of the water reservoirs. This alternate access would require a paved drive through an area already occupied by trees. The paving in this area may have a detrimental impact on those trees and/or require that additional trees be removed, based on an arborist's assessment. Based on the large number of trees on the property in general, even in the worst case scenario with all the trees between the proposed access point and wireless facility being removed, this would still represent fewer than 25% of the total trees 12" and greater on site. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed to retain greater than 75% percent of the non-hazardous trees over twelve inches on site and is not subject to tree mitigation in accordance with TDC Section 18.790.030. The applicant did not propose any tree protection measures that would be necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4). "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 19 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The alternate access requested by the Water District may impact additional trees, but will represent fewer than 25% of the total trees 12" or larger on site. Measures to protect these trees with the minimum impact method of constructing the access drive should be in place. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used b the applicant to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section f 790.030(13)((4). Moreover, allremoval of hazard and dead trees shall be undertaken in the least impacting manner possible, as established by a certified arborist. This may include restricting heavy machinery to presently paved areas, and leaving tree stumps intact. The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Should the alternate access, as requested by the water district, be utilized the applicant shall prepare construction plans using the best management practices for construction around trees, as prepared by a certified arborist. The applicant shall certify that these measures were followed in the construction of the access drive. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18.795 Section . states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.6. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Visual clearance was reviewed and addressed previously in this report. A condition has been recommended to ensure compliance. This standard can be satisfied. WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES- CHAPTER 18.798 Section 18.798.060 saes a the Hearings icer shall review wireless communication towers in residential and/or Historic Overlay zones sub''ect to conditional use review, by means of a Type III-HO procedure, using the following approval criteria. Views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility to the following points of visual interest shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: J1 Mountains; 2 Significant public open spaces; 3 Historic structures. Staff has visited the site, and has determined that no visual points of interest will be obscured by the proposed location. There are eight homes within 250 feet of the proposed facility: 10380 SW Canterbury, 14678 SW 106th Ave, 14684 SW 106th Ave, 14690 SW 106th Ave, 10561 SW Murdock, 14785 SW 104th Ave, 14790 SW 104th Ave, and 14805 SW 103rd Ave. Mountains: "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 20 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 Mountains: The mountains lie to the east and northeast. Of the eight homes in question only four are to the west of the facility. There is a large stand of trees along the east and north property lines that currently obscure any views of mountains. Significant Public O en Spaces: Is term is vague; however, the area on the Water District property itself may be considered public open space. The fact that the term does not specify ' park" seemingly is meant to be a broader term to Include areas in public ownership, that are relatively under or undeveloped. Of the eight homes within 250 feet of the site, four homes lie between the public open space and the proposed facility. The existing vegetation provides screening of the facility, and primarily only the base of the tower and the accessory building will be in the line of sight. Additional landscaping has been proposed by the applicant to screen the perimeter of the facility. Moreover, staff believes, that given the location of existing, trees, placing the tower near the center of the site as proposed provides the greatest protecon as practical. Historic Structures: The nearest Istorical structure is the John F. Tigard house located in the northeast corner of the site, approximately 375 feet away. The closest property is next to the historic structure and the facility is outside of the direct view. The remainder of homes do not have a view of the historic structure due either to the presence of the evergreen trees, or existing structures on the Water District property. Of these, the facility lies between the homes and the historic structure of about % of a mile east of this site and cannot be seen from any of the properties that are immediately adjacent to the proposed tower. The historic site is far enough away that the tower will not obscure, its view from any surrounding properties. This criterion is satisfied. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; The applicant has proposed to paint the tower green below the tree line. Staff has recommended that a condition be imposed to change this color to brown to lessen the potential for glare and to make the tower structure as visually unobtrusive as possible. The galvanized gray finish above the tree line is appropriate as the lighter color will blend into the skyline more than a dark color would. Also the height at which the gray color is applied, will reduce the amount of glare onto adjacent properties. This criterion is satisfied. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the propert y line by a distance equal to the hei'ht of the tower. A Type II adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; The applicant has satisfied this requirement as previously described. This criterion is satisfied. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. There are no other towers located within 2,000 feet of this tower. The closest tower is located at 15700 SW Pacific Highway, and the properties are approximately 3,000 feet apart. It should be noted that an application is under review for a cell tower site at 13680 SW Pacific Highway, but has not been approved. Nevertheless, this property is approximately 2,100 feet from the Water District property. Therefore this standard is met. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; The applicant has indicated that the tower would only be lighted if the FAA required it. Lighting has been previously addressed. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 21 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; The applicant has proposed a 6-foot-high chain link fence around the equipment. This standard is satisfied. The site is also within the enclosed area of the Water District facilities, which are presently protected by a 6-foot high fence. Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. The applicant has provided a landscape plan in which they show 5-foot-tall arborvitae outside of the fence on three sides (east, west, south) of the facility. However, since the arborist has not indicated that existing evergreen trees will meet the screening requirements of this section, the applicant must install a minimum of four additional evergreen trees 15 feet in height. Staff has previously recommended a condition of approval related to the long term viability of the existing mature trees which includes a landscape planting plan. This plan shall include the addition of a minimum of four 15 foot tall trees. Moreover, the City Forester ahs recommended that to complement the natural area, the plant selections shall be natives. FINDING: Insufficient landscaping has been proposed. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection, the landscaping shall be installed according to the previously required revised landscape plan and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. All plant species shall be native, and the arborvitae shall be replaced with an equivalent native evergreen species. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. Noise was discussed previously in this report, and conditioned as necessary to meet these standards. This criterion is satisfied. Other requirements: At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit prior to construction. The plans examiner will ensure that the structures comply with all applicable building codes, and the applicant is responsible for ensuring compliance with FAA standards. FINDING: Staff has no way of ensuring that the proposed tower meets the requirements of the FAA as required in Section 18.798.060(C). CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 22 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 0 C. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER-18.810 ap er provides construction standards or the implementation o public and 18 private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 2-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Canterbury Street and SW 103`d Avenue. Both of these streets area classified as Neighborhood Routes and are both improved to City standards. Two other unimproved rights of way border the protect site; SW Murdock Street, and an unnamed alleyway: As proposed, the site would take access from SW Canterbury. As this street is already improved, no additional street improvements would be required. If the site is accessed as requested by the Water District, then the alleyway would be required to meet current standards for improvements. The alleyway is currently paved, but" ma not be fully improved to City standards. The applicant's development has the need o an additional access onto this roadway. The standard for the alleyway is 16 feet of paved width. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a site plan that illustrates the current width of this alley and shows improvements, as necessary, to bring the width to 16 feet in order to comply with TDC18.810.030.A. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and loca-I residential streets. Sidewalks are present on SW Canterbury, and are not required for an alleyway. This criterion is met. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include considerafion of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There are 8-inch public sewer lines in 103Id, 104th, Rnd Canterbury which all terminate short of the water district site. The 8-inch line in SW 104 terminates at the southern boundary of the site and satisfies the requirement for sewer service. No actual connection is needed because the proposed development has no requirement for sewage disposal. This standard is met. Storm Drainage; General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 23 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted b Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendmenls). There are no existing upstream drainage facilities that affect this parcel. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Mana ement Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City wifT require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. According to the water quality report submitted with the application, the proposed cell tower facilities add 1500 square feet of impervious surface. CWS standards state that impervious area additions of less than 5,000 sf do not require onsite detention. Therefore, no detention is required for this project. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall incrude provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Canterbury Street is not designated as a bike facility. So no bikeway improvements are required. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Not applicable. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bigycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Not applicable. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the under round services; The City reserves The right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall e constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 24 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pa a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existin ufilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval au~hority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in con unction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in- lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Canterbury Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed it is equal to $35.00 er lineal foof of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this si a is 405 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $14,175.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY Public Water System: This site does not require water, apart from any irrigation that may be proposed in the landscaping plan. Given the fact that this is a city reservoir site, there is ample supply available to support the requested use. Storm Water Qualit : e i y as agreed to enforce Surface Water Management iSWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Cons ruction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Increases in impervious area of more than 1 000 square feet requires storm water treatment. The applicant has proposed a storm water filter catch basin to treat the storm water runoff. Final construction plans will need to include a maintenance plan. This standard is satisfied. D. IMPACT STUDY: section a states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet 'City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 25 OF 26 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 The wireless communications facility is not subject to any traffic impact fees, so all improvements that have been proposed are required by the code in order to meet the criteria that is related to access and frontage improvements. The applicant has submitted an impact study that responds to the above requirements. Of those, noise was the only issue that required further documentation. The applicant will provide water quality treatment for storm drainage, and the site has minimal to no impact to the street, sewer, water, and park system. All other impacts have been addressed elsewhere in this report. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Forester recommends replacing the proposed arborvitae with a native species such as vine maple, red-twig dogwood, pacific ninebark, ocean spray, etc. RESPONSE: Sight obscuring vegetation is required, so these deciduous species will not meet this standard, however, staff has recommended a condition of approval to use western red cedar or an approved native evergreen alternate. The City of Tigard Operations Manager has reviewed the application and wishes to commenwith respect to the proposed access route to the monopole location. The site Ian provided with the application shows that access would be taken through the middle o?t1he City reservoir site. The City recently completed a security vulnerability assessment process. Security at all Cit facilities will become more critical and in relation to the project in question, o avoid having monopole traffic coming through the middle of the site. the City will want Y01 As an alternative, there is a dedicated ROW adjacent to the west boundary of this site, containing a paved alley that has been used by City staff as an alternate access to the reservoir site. There are access gates along the western boundary of the site accessible from the alley. The City will want the access to the monopole site to be via the paved alley and the southerly access gate. Once onsite, the access to the monopole should be directed around the edge of the torested southwest corner of the site and around the existin concrete stor a bays. The monopole site and access fencing should be configured sucR that access to-the monopole and activities within the monopole site are separated from the remainder of the City site. The designer for the applicant should work with the Public Works staff to develop a final site access and security fencing design. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) is typically notified of all wireless communications facility requests, to ensure that conflicts in system networks are minimized. The agency submitted comments for this application in support, although staff notes that they are the applicant. Se lion Public Utilities Commission, Oregon Department of Aviation, Clean Water Ore Services, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and Portland General Electric were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. C an Februa 17, 2004 UAlt Associate manner Ic ar ewers o Planning Manager "REVISED" - WCCCA (911) MONOPOLE TOWER 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING Februa 17, 2004 UAIL PAGE 26 OF 26 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER I OEOORAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM vicimilym" i f i -CUP2003-00010 l VAR2003-00094 T WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER 7L - „ Tigard Area Map N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1"-311 feet City of Tigard Infcrma" on this map Is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 hftp:/Mww.cI.tIgard.or.us Plot date: Jan 29, 2004; Qkmagic\MAGIC03.APP A SW CANTERBURY' LANE sz I »...r..r 1 to w u :~1°.o~.~`x TAX LOT 1 I TAX LOT 2SIlIBC02600 2700 1 1 mm n 1 I ~.unu~r ew w ww, woo I I M t I 't- I ' mca w .e..wr~ I ,.curt wiw"ein. ,woe I Lu D z I lu I> c I o ce M I > I SW MURDOCK STREET (QTY OF TIGARD T cm or no RD SITE PLAN N (Map is not to scale) CUP2003-00010 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER LI t i 1 I•~, I ` 00.1rM LL p~OOC Goef ' . 4 R£MOVE EXISTING CONCRM BLOCKS i ...I FOR ACCESS / li o ra °''r 1 t i TOP OF 25' MAPLE rp ELJ18.0 \ i F 12 \ R►. M 8 1{~•~rm a n. reLL 2Q 1 I ~ pp 1 w C VJ I 1 I' a I I TO Yt r I 1 ' /0 3 1 i Zvo t i ' PARKING I 1I ~ I ' 3'x8' xb' ~r CONC. PAD I ,•i O •r X620' FIR 1 I NT, IIIY O BUILDING _ I COOLING I Et2UIPMENT BUILDING Q T j li 1 N li I li 1 I: 1 1f _ &IILDING i TOP OF 20' FIR ELECTRIC EL,S 1,0 COMPACTED GRAVEL SERVICE NT 119.2' 11/7' MIWS. IB' DEEP L \ I I a UTILI CONC. PAD TREES SHOWN ARE EXISTING. 1 SEE AfWIOR1ST'5 REPORT L p9GAPING AN~DATSCREENING. t 1 I TOP OF MAPLE TWIN 1 i Q i IS' 6 IV EL'485.7 , J I NT, 93.8 f 1 SILT FENCE TOP L 20' FIR TOP OF MAPLE TWIN EL911A' EXISTING 17 f 151 EL-488.4• NT' 119.9 I CHAIN LINK FENCE ! M, 95.9 ~mao (ITY OF TIGARD T CUP2003-00010 FACILITY PLAN N WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER Ma is not to scale 0 Agenda Item: r 'qs/ Hearin Uate: i-eprua z;3, ZUU4 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OFTIGARD Community 0eve(opment FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SfiapingA(Better Community 120 DAYS = 08/22/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) CUP2003-00010 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) VAR2003-00094 OWNERS: Tigard Water District Attn: Ed Wegner 8777 SW Burnham Tigard, OR 97224 APPLICANT: Greenstreet Architects Attn: Randy Tomic PO Box 82125 Portland, OR 97282 PROPOSAL: The applicant (representing Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency) is seeking conditional use approval to construct an 800 MHz Emergency Communications Facility to include a 150' monopole and a 10'x20' communications shelter to house associated support equipment. The proposed facility is located within a Historic District. The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the historic district standards. LOCATION: The project is located at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane WCTM 25111 BC Tax Lot 02600). COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE(S): R-3.5, Low Density Residential District (HD), Historic Overlay District Wireless communication facilities are conditionally permitted. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.740, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.795, and 18.810. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 1 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff can not make adequate findings based on the information provided in the record to support a recommendation to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL, but has provided recommended Conditions of Approval should the applicant be able to provide supplemental evidence for the Hearings Officer to make findings to support approval of the request. ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, , ext. 2428) or review an approval: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall identify the access point to the facility. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall preppare a site plan that illustrates the current width of this alley and shows improvements, as necessary, to bring the paved width to 16 feet in order to comply with TDC18.810.030.A. If the alleyway access is utilized, the applicant shall prepare construction plans that show a paved driveway to the facility using the best management practices for construction of the paved area around trees, as prepared by a certified arborist. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure that the vision clearance area as described in 18.795 is met through removal of shrubbery, or other obstructions as necessary at the intersection of the driveway and street. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the fee in lieu of undergrounding in the amount of $14,175'.00. 4. The applicant shall provide clear RF documentation showing the need for a tower height in excess of 130 feet. Additionally the applicant shall strive to minimize the height of the tower, by employing all available RF techniques including alternate antennae designs and or placement. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with the FAA and Oregon Aeronautics Division to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes "steady-on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or white lights. The applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a tree protection F Ian from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the applicant t o protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 18.790.030(6 4 . 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(6)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 2 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • in TMC Section 7.40.140. The project's accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to protect the existing trees and vegetative screening on site: i. All removal of hazard and dead trees shall be undertaken in the least impacting manner possible, as established by a certified arborist. This may include restricting heavy machinery to presently paved areas, and leaving tree stumps intact. ii. Establish a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees greater than 12" in diameter south of the proposed facility. This easement shall set forth the permitted and prohibited activities as determined by a certified arborist, and shall be recorded with Washington County. The boundaries of the easement shall be clearly marked on site. iii. Create a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees within the easement area, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborist. iv. Develop a landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible understory which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. A minimum of four 15 foot tall evergreens shall be included in this plan, and positioned where they will have the greatest screening effect from the properties to the south. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING SITE WORK: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 10. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) or review an approval: 11. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall certify that the best management practices as provided by the certified arborist for construction of the paved drive were followed in the construction of the access drive. Failure to follow these measures constitutes a violation of the conditions of approval and depending on the severity of damage incurred on the existing trees, a possible violation of the tree ordinance as well. Penalties as prescribed in the development code will be applicable. 12. Prior to final inspection, the landscaping shall be installed according to the previously required revised landscape plan and pa long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. 13. Prior to final inspection, the access way and parking space shall be im roved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)5). 14. Prior to final inspection the tower shall be painted a dark brown color below the tree line (510 foot elevation), similar to the color of the tree bark on the fir trees, instead of the proposed green color. The remainder of the tower shall be gray, unless alternate marking is required by the FAA. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 3 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE APPLICANT: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) or review an approval: 15. It is the continuing obligation of the applicant to ensure that the generator shall only be tested between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm and only during a weekday. 16. It is the continuing obligation of the applicant to ensure that no signage is displayed on the facility apart from emergency contact information. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780 and the above noted restriction on signage. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION 111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: This site is owned by the Tigard Water District, who operates a water reservoir and small storage facility for the City. The 5 acre site is presently developed with two water tanks built in 1960 and 1964 respectively, and a small building constructed in 1968. A generator was added to the site in 1989. The Water District and the City merged in 1996, when the City began overseeing operations on the site. On the east side of the site is the John Tigard house, designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Built in 1880, the house is one of two Tigard sites listed on the National Historic Register. John Tigard was the eldest son of Wilson Tigard, the founding father of Tigardville. John operated a coach route from*Tigardville to Portland. The house is significant in its association with John and as an example of early frame construction. The house was moved to the site from a location along SW Pacific Highway when a road construction project threatened preservation of the home. Approvals for the relocation of the house were granted under case files SDR 17-79 and CU 5-79. The entire property is designated on the City's zoning map as a Historic District. The site was originally created as lots 5, 6, and 7 of the Tigardville Heights Subdivision and is part of the original donation land claim of the Wilson McClendon Tigard family dating back to 1852. Vicinity Information: The site is zoned R-3.5 with a Historic District overlay and is surrounded by various uses. To the east and south of the site are single-family residences. To the west is a number of condominiums. To the north is a church and an assisted living facility. Twality Junior High and Templeton Elementary are located about'/2 mile away to the east. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is currently developed with facilities for Tigard's water supply system: The proposal is to construct and operate an emergency wireless communications facility in the southern portion of the lot. The tower meets the required setbacks applicable to the district and specific setbacks for towers; however, the applicant has requested a variance to the Historic District Code Standards which in essence require new construction to complement the historic district. SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received two phone calls, and one written comment from the public. One phone call was from Bonnie Thomas who was seeking additional information related to the proposal. No specific objections were raised. The second phone call was from Richard Barton who objected to the location of the WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 4 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER proposed site in a residential zone, as well as the proximity of the site to multi family, adult assisted living facility, and the schools. He raised objections based on the potential health impacts from the transmission and receiving antennae. According to the Federal Telecom Act of 1996, the issues of health impacts, so long as the facility is in compliance with the requirements as established by the FCC, cannot be used as the sole basis for denying a proposed wireless communications site. Finally, Robert and Betty Banford submitted written objections to the proposal. They desire the height of the tower be reduced, the tower be restricted to the single user, a better buffer be provided from residential properties, other future uses be limited on the district's property, a master plan be developed for the property, a final determination as to required lighting on the tower, specific tree removal methods be described, and that Murdock Street be vacated for park use. STAFF'S RESPONSE: 1) Reducing the height of the tower. It is the applicant's responsibility to establish the needed height of the tower based on RF requirements. IN this case, part of the applicant's justification is that the antennae must be above the tops of the trees. The Banford's express that with some of the dead and dying trees removed, the height may not need be so tall. Staff has recommended a condition to address this issue. 2) Restrict the tower to a single user. The Development Code encourages collocation, and makes specific provisions to do so. It runs counter to these requirements to limit the site to a single user. Therefore, staff makes no recommendation to add this limitation. 3) Better buffer between the site and the residential properties. Staff has addressed this issue in further detail later in this report and imposing a recommended condition to enhance the landscape plan and provide a long term maintenance plan and protection of the buffer area. 4) Limit future uses on the property. It is outside the authority granted in the development code for this, or any other land use application to establish a blanket limitation on future uses, provided those uses are permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the zone. Each subsequent development shall be reviewed based on its own merits. 5) Develop a master plan for the property. If the application were proposing a phased approval for several types of uses or structures, the applicant may propose a master plan for review and approval. The master plan would then guide development and its sequence of occurrence. This was not part of the applicant's proposal in this case. Also, the development code cannot impose this requirement. What the Banford's may be seeking is a Capital Facilities Improvement Plan, which is developed by the City's engineering department. To staffs knowledge, a facilities plan addressing this property has not been prepared. 6) Final FAA determination prior to approval. Staff has routinely reviewed and approved requests subject to final FAA determination for lighting, similar to applications requiring final DSL and Army Corps approval for wetland related issues. Because of the time involved in obtaining FAA approval, as well as the fact that the FAA requires an approved design to make their determination, the code prohibits lighting, "except as required by the FAA." This provides applicants the ability to obtain an approval and then seek final approval from the pi her review authority. Staff has responded to this concern with a recommended condition of approval, based on the Conditional Use Criteria to limit impacts form outdoor lighting. 7) Specific tree removal methods. The Banford's assert that certain removal methods are more harmful to existing trees that remain than other methods. For example, heavy equipment used to drag and haul whole trunks or pull stumps will impact the roots of existing trees more than hand removal by rounds and leaving stumps intact. This has been required through a recommended condition of approval. 8) Vacation of Murdock Street for park purposes. This application is the improper venue to entertain a street vacation. The right of way is vacated through a separate process and is WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 5 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER approved by the City Council. Separate application would need to be made to accomplish this. Moreover, it should be noted that the City envisions SW Murdock Street being extended for vehicular connectivity. Also, should the area be vacated, approximately half of the area would become part of the Water District property (not a park) and the other half would return to private ownership (not available to the public). SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to build a 150-foot high monopole wireless communications facility. Wireless communication facilities are permitted by Conditional Use in the R-4.5 zones. Summa Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed use (wireless communications facility is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO decision. Alterations or construction o new structures in a historic district are subject to a Type II process. When applications are heard concurrently, the highest decision making body will make the decision on all matters. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Specific Cond Additional Conditions of Approval) B. Applic able Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances/Adjustments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.740 Historic Overlay) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities C. Street and Utility Improvement Standar s 18.810 D. Impact Study (18.39 A. Specific Conditional Use Approval Criteria (18.330) Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval 'can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 6 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • The existing site size is approximately 5 acres in size and is generally square in shape. This site has adequate area and dimensions to accommodate the proposed use, as demonstrated by the fact that the highest setback standard (100% of the tower height to the property line) can be met as proposed. The actual footprint size of the use requires roughly 30X50 feet. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The site is currently developed with a historic structure and public water facilities. The site slopes gently to the east from about 400 to 380 feet in elevation, with the proposed tower located at approximately 390 foot elevation. The applicant asserts that this site was selected primarily due to its location in relation to other approved tower sites in the 911 network. The applicant has proposed retaining all existing healthy trees on site, but will remove several trees due to their hazard potential. Considering the above characteristics, this site is suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and The proposed use requires only access, storm drainage, electricity, and phone facilities. There is no impact to sewer or water facilities. All public facilities and private utilities have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The proposed site is located within the R-3.5 zoning district. As indicated earlier, wireless communications facilities are permitted conditionally. As discussed later in this report, the project will meet the applicable requirements of the zoning district. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.370, Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay, 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.360, Site Development Review;18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tiggard Triangle Design Standards; 18.630, Washington Square Regional Center; 18.640 DurFiam Quarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; and 18.785, Temporary Uses. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 7 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the general approval criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE. Section 18.330.030.6 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The proposed use is intended to operate 24 hours a day, year around for continual emergency communications. The nature of the use will only require a maintenance technician to visit the site once every 30-45 days to conduct routine maintenance. A generator is proposed for emergency backup power, which will require occasional testing to ensure it is properly maintained. While the nature of emergencies is such that a limitation on the time of operation would not be rational, the applicant can control the times when the generator is tested. Staff recommends that to disguise the generator sound amongst other ambient sounds, the generator should only be tested during a weekday between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. With this limitation, this criterion is satisfied. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The proposal would not likely generate any vibration, air pollution, odor, or dust that would be considered unacceptable. However, in response to impacts that may occur as a result of glare, the applicant has proposed to paint the tower a green color below the treeline, which would theoretically absorb the light and help the tower blend in with the trees that are within close vicinity to the site. The a plicant has also indicated that the site would not generate yy noise that exceeds the 75 dBA da )/60 dBA night standards as measured at the pro pert line. There are two HVAC units that operate( individually at a level of 52dBA measured at 7 meters. The generator will be equipped with a silencing enclosure as well as a silencer on the exhaust unit. The generator operates at 66 dBA measured at 7 meters. The closest noise sensitive unit is across SW Murdock Street, 134 feet away. The applicant indicates that the sound will diminish over distance and will fall below the 60 dBA limit before reaching the noise sensitive units. FINDINGS: Painting the tower dark brown versus the proposed green will have better light absorbing effect, and will help the tower base blend into the trees better, as the vertical elements of the trees, i.e. the trunks, are brown; whereas the horizontal elements, i.e. needles or leaves, are green. The project contains a generator with specifications that illustrate the unit would exceed the decibel levels allowed under the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40 and TDC Section 18.798.060(B)(8), however, these levels were measured at 7 meters (23 feet from the source. The applicant as not factually confirmed that the noise levels will be met at the property line with the proposed generator design. CONDITIONS: • The tower shall be painted a dark brown color below the tree line (510 foot elevation), similar to the color of the tree bark on the fir trees, instead of the proposed green color. • The generator shall only be tested between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm and only during a weekday. • Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide staff with a noise study from a certified consultant that illustrates a design that ensures that any noise creating device WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 8 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 used by the project does not exceed the allowable levels in TDC Section 18.798.060(6)(8). The study shall be governed by the prescribed techniques in TMC Section 7.40.140. The projects accessory systems must be constructed to meet the prescribed standards. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The proposed tower already exceeds the 100% tower height setback as required. The site is well in excess of the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the zone as well as the required lot width of 50 feet. There has been no showing that additional setbacks, lot area, depth, or width is necessary. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; The applicant is proposing to utilize a 2,000 square foot leased area of a 1.04-acre site, and the height of the tower is proposed to be 60 feet in height. There are no specific height limitations for wireless communications facilities in residential zones, although in other zones 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users is a threshold applied to distinguish between outright permitted and conditionally allowed towers. The applicant's proposal for 152 feet is the tallest pole of its type in the City. The next highest facility is 130 feet located near the Costco Store on Pacific Highway. Part of the applicant's justification is the fact that the surrounding trees are so tall. According to the apppicant's site survey, the top of the tower is between 19 to 89 feet taller than the trees noted on the plan, and average about 44 feet in difference. The applicant has proposed removing some of the dead and hazardous trees, which may effectively lower the height of the surrounding canopy. A limitation on height may be appropriate based on the final height of the remaining vegetation. Staff is also concerned by the precedent that may be set by allowing a tower taller than 130 feet. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant has proposed a joint access with the reservoir site main access entry. The water district has provided comments that recommend an alternate access point to maximize security at the reservoir site. Since the applicant will need unlimited 24/7 access to the monopole site, water district staff would be unable to provide an onsite escort each and every time the applicant needed to obtain access. Therefore, a separate means of entry to specifically the monopole site was suggested. By utilizing the existing paved alley along the west edge of the property, the applicant would be able to enter the site at an existing secondary gate, and with additional fencing, provide a separated route to the monopole facility. From a traffic safety or impact perspective, based on the level of anticipated traffic, planning staff does not foresee a need to require a different point of access; however, staff does not object to utilizing this alternate access point. Further improvements may be necessary, as described later in this report under Street and Utility Improvements. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; This criteria is addressed later in the street and utility improvements section of this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; These items are addressed later in this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the prescribed requirements of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location,-height and/or lighting of signs; The applicant has proposed one (1) sign with emergency contact information. Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a design is reviewed. The applicant will be required to indicate the location and type of sign proposed for this site prior to building permit issuance. No signage shall be permitted on the facility apart from emergency contact information. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 9 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated that the tower will only be lighted as determined by the FAA. The FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 70/7460-1K CM 1) describes the marking and lighting requirements for aeronautical obstructions: "Any temporary or permanent structure, including all appurtenances, that exceeds an overall height of 200 feet (61m) above ground level (AGL) or exceeds any obstruction standard contained in 14 CFR part 77, should normally be marked and/or lighted. However, an FAA aeronautical study may reveal that the absence of marking and/or lighting will not impair aviation safety. Conversely, the object may present such an extraordinary hazard potential that higher standards may be recommended for increased conspicuity to ensure safety to air navigation. Normally outside commercial lighting is not considered sufficient reason to omit recommended marking and/or lighting. Recommendations on marking and/or lighting structures can vary depending on terrain features, weather patterns, geographic location, and in the case of wind turbines, number of structures and overall layout of design. The FAA may also recommend marking and/or lighting a structure that does not exceed 200 (61 m) feet AGL or 14 CFR part 77 standards because of its particular location." While the structure is below 200 feet in height, there may still be reasons for marking and/or lighting the structure. It is beyond the City s authority to require or limit marking or lighting that conflicts with the FAA's requirements. Nevertheless, to lessen the potential impacts to surrounding residential properties from light and glare caused by tower lighting, the applicant shall strive to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes 'steady- on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or white lights. Lighting is also discussed later in this report when discussing crime prevention. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; As discussed further in this discussion, the applicant has proposed a mixture of landscaping and fencing to screen the use from surrounding properties. The applicant indicates that a grove of existing mature trees effectively screens the tower from existing off-site residences. in order to ensure the long term viability of this screen, standards for maintenance and preservation of the existing grove should be established and should include such measures as: 1 a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees. 2) a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees, including hazard removal where gropriate as determined by a certified arborist. landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible understory which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The required and proposed fencing meets the height, location and material standards that are prescribed in the TDC Chapter 18.798 for wireless communication facilities. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Some of the trees on site are scheduled for removal based on their hazard potential. Preservation methods have previously been discussed. The applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed further in this report. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 10 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. FINDINGS: To limit the amount of impact to nearby residences and to further respect the historic nature of the district, signage and lighting shall be limited. Additionally, to protect the existing vegetative screening, measures shall be in place to ensure the long term viability of the screening. Finally, the height of the tower should be a function of necessity, and should respect the precedent established with the 130 foot height previously allowed. CONDITIONS: • No signage shall be permitted on the facility apart from emergency contact information. The applicant shall work with the FAA and Oregon Aeronautics Division to find a design that either negates the need for lighting, or that utilizes "steady-on" red lighting as opposed to strobe type red or white lights. The applicant shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to protect the existing trees and vegetative screening on site: i. Establish a conservation easement area around the existing mature trees greater than 12" in diameter. This easement shall set forth the permitted and prohibited activities as determined by a certified arborist, and shall be recorded with Washington County. The boundaries of the easement shall be clearly marked on site. ii. Create a program for the care and treatment of the existing trees within the easement area, including hazard removal where appropriate as determined by a certified arborist. iii. Develop a landscaping plan to introduce new evergreen trees and compatible unders ory which will continue to screen the facility from off site properties. The applicant shall provide clear RF documentation showing the need for a tower height in excess of 130 feet, after the dead and hazardous trees have been removed. Additionally the applicant shall strive to minimize the height of the tower, by employing all available RF techniques including alternate antennae designs and or placement. B. Applicable Development Code Standards VARIANCES (18.370) Section 18.370.010 provides the criteria for granting of variances. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: The applicant is requesting a variance to the historic overlay standards which require, in relevant part: 18.740.040.D. Criteria for construction of new structures. Approval for exterior alterations of structures in an historic overlay district shall be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, by the Director using the following criteria: WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 11 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • r 1. 1 ne purpose of the nistorlc overlay district as set torte in 5ectlon 18.74U.U'IU; 18.740.010.A. Purposes. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; 2. Enhance any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; 3. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; 4. Strengthen the economy of the City; 5. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City; and 6. Implement the applicable provisions of LCD Goal 5 and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 2. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; 3. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; 4. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure. The applicant concedes that given the utilitarian nature of the proposed facility, it is not possible to comply with all of the above standards. He argues that since the structure was relocated to the site in 1979, it is the structure itself that is deemed historic, and not the surrounding land area. Since the Historic Overlay standards are written to apply to the district and not specific structures, a variance is required to deviate from these requirements. Therefore, the following criteria will be applied to evaluate the applicant's request to deviate from the above noted standards. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The relevant purposes from Title 18 include: "As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan." "Conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources." [18.110.020] Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan Volume 1-Resource Document describes the rational for the Historic Overlay Designation on the property: "The John F. Tigard House, located on the southwest corner of SW 103rd and SW Canterbury was included on the National Register of Historic Structures on July 20th, 1979, and therefore has been included as a historic resource for the City of Tigard. This structure has been Tigard's historic focal point, and is a good example of early frame construction. In 1979, it was moved from its original location on Pacific Highway to its present location... . WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 12 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the site is Low Density Residential (1-5 units per acre) with an underlying zone of R-10' (single family residential). These designations are not in conflict with the historic resource since it is a residential use. The 10,000 square foot minimum lot size appears adequate to situate the structure and accessories in a similar setting as originally built. An Historic Overlay District (HD) designation will be placed upon the land area on which the structure and accessories stand. This designation will ensure that any development upon the land area will be compatible with the character of the historic structure." Staff must therefore determine that the it is the intent and purpose of this overlay designation as described in the Comprehensive Plan to protect not just the structure, but the surrounding area within the district from changes that will adversely affect the historic character of the structure and the setting upon which the structure stands. A variance which results in this type of impact will have a detrimental affect to the purposes of Title 18 which requires conservation of these resources. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The applicant has not requested variances to any set dimensional standards to which the property or proposal does not comply. The lot size and shape are relevant factors in the applicant's choice of sites as adequate area must be included for meeting the tower setback requirements. Topography is also a relevant factor as a particular elevation is required to achieve the desired coverage and line of sight communication with other facilities. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The use is conditionally permitted under this title, and apart from the standards to which the variance is being requested, all other City standards will be maintained. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and Ph%miral cvctPmc ci irh nc trancnnrtatinn riminnna nnri i itilitiac will not ha imnarrtari by r,...,....,.., y.,, ,...r,~..,..,.. -.Y allowing deviation from what is ostensibly a design requirement. The nearest park is nearly a mile away and should therefore not be impacted. The term "dramatic landforms" is vague and not defined in the code. However, this could possibly be applied to such features as Little Bull Mountain and Bull Mountain. Nevertheless, wireless communications facilities are allowed (via conditional use permits) in the R-3.5 and HD overlay zones. Other than the particular design factors, the granting of the variance would have no additional affect than what is specified in the title. ' The R-10 designation is the equivalent of the present R-3.5 zoning classification. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 13 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is a function of the historic overlay designation and the applicant's proposed design (which is a sub function of radio frequency communications requirements). To the extent the property is designated a historic district is beyond the control of the applicant. To the extent the proposed design does not satisfy the elements of the historic overlay approval criteria, the applicant based on radio frequency requirements is constrained by two ma.or factors: location and elevation. The applicant has asserted that "the proposed 500 MHz radio facility is not a function that can be located on just any site in the County. The effectiveness of this radio system is dependent on the altitude of the transmitters and receivers to provide adequate radio coverage and on the placement of towers in appropriate areas to provide radio coverage to populated areas. This site is in the right area of the County to expand coverage to an underserved area, and it provides the necessary elevation to allow the most consistent coverage. Other sites on the hill do not have the appropriate area or configuration to support the facility. Other hills will not allow the signal to reach the target area." There is inadequate evidence provided in the application that shows what the target area is, that other sites will not adequately serve that area, and that the requested height of the tower is the minimum necessary to support the proposed use. FINDINGS: • The Comprehensive Plan indicates that it was the intent of the Historic Overlay designation for the John F. Tigard House to ensure any development on the land area will be compatible with the historic structure. • The purposes of the Development Code, Title 18, include protection of Historic Resources and to implement the comprehensive plan. • The proposed structure cannot be adequately screened from and is not compatible with the character of the Historic Structure. • The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed location is the only site that will achieve the desired result. Therefore, staff cannot find that the hardship is not self-imposed. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7-,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Wireless communication facilities are also permitted conditionally. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. STANDARD R-3.5 CUP Proposed Requirements Facility Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 10,000 sq.ft. ----0---- 2,000 sq.ft. Duplexes Leased Area Attached unit 1 Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 50 ft. ---0--- -500 ft. - Duplex lots 90 ft. - Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Coverage ---N/A--- N/A Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 20 ft. 311 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 ft. 20 ft. 347 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 169 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. 134 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line N/A and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. N/A WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 14 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ~ r As illustrated in the table and on the plans provided by the applicant, the proposal meets the minimum development requirements of the underlying zone where applicable. This criterion is satisfied. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in conjunction with another permit or land use action. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant has proposed utilizing the existing site access to the water district property. The water district staff have commented that as a result of their recently completed security assessment, unmonitored access is not desired. Therefore, they have requested that the access be provided through a separate gate on the western side of the site, via an existing alleyway. A new fence would be installed to separate the water district functions from the wireless communications facility. As there will only be two vehicular trips to and from the site every 30-45 days by a technician, either access is sufficient to meet this standard. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (18.725) Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stac or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a proppert y line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Many of these items have been addressed earlier in this report. As stated previously, there is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents. Glare has been addressed by the condition requiring the tower to be painted a deep brown to blend in with the existing trees. A WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 15 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER condition has also been suggested to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed the allowable levels as defined in the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 7.40. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the expanded use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, or possible fines until they were brought back into compliance. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. HISTORIC OVERLAY (18.740) The applicant has sought a variance to the standards of this chapter, however, staff finds the applicant has not met his burden of proof that the variance criteria are met, and therefore will apply the following criteria to the proposal. Approval for construction of new structures in an historic overlay district shall be granted using the following criteria: 1. aistrict as set torte in Section I t$. t4U.U'1 U: 18.740.010.A. Purposes. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; The proposed communications tower does not protect, enhance, or help perpetuate the John F. Tigard House, which has been termed Tigard's historic focal point by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Enhance any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; The proposed communications tower does not enhance the area in terms of its historic character. 3. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; There is no evidence that communications facilities negatively detract from property values. 4. Strengthen the economy of the City; The economy of the City is better served by a dependable emergency communications system. This is an essential public service that both businesses and residents depend on. Without adequate emergency service protection, the economy of the City would be adversely affected. 5. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City; and The proposed communications tower does not promote the use of the district or landmark for the education, energy conservation, or housing. However, the public welfare is promoted with the availability of enhanced emergency communications. 6. Implement the applicable provisions of LCD Goal 5 and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. As discussed previously under the variance discussion, the Comprehensive Plan established this district overlay to protect the John F. Tigard house, as well as the land area to preserve the setting for the structure. 2. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; As previously mentioned, there has been no showing of detrimental economic value from the establishment of communications facilities. 3. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; See discussion under Criteria #4, below. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 16 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 4. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure. The proposed structure will have a negative effect on the architectural character of the district. The John F. Tigard house is an 1890's structure utilizing early wood frame construction, typical of early western settlements. The proposed steel monopole construction was not in use until the late 1970's. Structures of the proposed height in the 1890's were typically constructed of wood, lattice-type construction, as evidenced in turn of the century train trestles and windmills. The proposed accessory building uses a stucco fagade and steel roof, which is also out of character for that era. Since communications facilities are allowed in Historic Overlays through a conditional use process, and not prohibited, the code must have envisioned certain instances where these facilities can be established in a manner that is compatible. Through additional architectural treatments, the accessory building can be made to look like a period era structure (e.g. ship- lap siding, wood shingle roof). The larger concern is the proposed monopole and antennae attachments. Several stealth design options are available, albeit the added cost may be significant. However, the cost of meeting the code requirements is not a relevant factor for the City in its decision making process. In fact, applications in Historic Overlay districts are expected to provide an additional measure of design excellence than proposals outside of the overlay district. Some possible "stealth" options include disguising the tower as a water tank, period era fire-lookout, windmill, grain silo, or tree as the following examples suggest: FINDING: The applicant's proposed tower and accessory building do not meet the Historic Overlay chapter requirements. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (18.745) Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.~ 45 .040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The project fronts four rights of way, only two of which are developed to City standard; SW Canterbury and SW 103 d Streets. The applicant has made no provision for street trees; however there are existing trees that satisfy these requirements. FINDING: The applicant's landscaping plan does not show the street trees, however, staff has confirmed that the existing trees meet the landscaping standards. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 17 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed facility is in a residential zone with abutting residential uses on three sides. There are no specific requirements in this section with regard to wireless communication towers. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are subject to the special screening standards of TDC Section 18.798.060(8)(7). Landscaping and screening will be discussed in more detail under that section. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 8.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; The applicant has proposed a gravel parking space. This will not meet the above standard. Therefore, this space shall be required to be paved. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. Table 18.765.2 does not require a minimum off-street parking requirement for wireless communications facilities. Nevertheless, the site plan indicates a parking space for the technician's vehicle when on-site. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; With either access scenario, the site is controlled to limit conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. One technician is expected to visit the site once every 30-45 days. There should not be any additional pedestrian traffic on site. This criterion is satisfied. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Either access to the site meets this standard. As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; The access is clearly marked by a standard curb cut design designating a driveway location. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; The applicant has not indicated whether vision clearance is met. Moreover, if the secondary access is to be used, this intersection with the public street will need to ensure that adequate vision clearance is available. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant will be required to improve the access with asphalt or concrete as necessary, depend ng on the chosen access point location. The existing access through the water district grounds is already improved, but the alternate access may require some additional asphalt to reach the proposed facility compound location. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 18 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a streef or other public right-of-way will be required. There is ample room for the service vehicle to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required. This criterion is satisfied. FINDINGS: The applicant's access and the parking space may not meet the requirement for hard surfacing. If there is no asphalt or concrete for the alternate access location, then this area will be required to be hard surfaced. The parking space, shown as gravel on the plans, must be hard surfaced. The applicant shall also note that if the area of added impervious surface exceeds 5,000 square feet, then water detention will be required. • There is inadequate information in the record to establish whether the vision clearance requirements are met. CONDITIONS: • Prior to final inspection, the access way and parking space shall be im roved with an asphalt or concrete surface consistent with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)5). • Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall establish the approved access point and ensure that the vision clearance area as described in 18.795 Is met through removal of shrubbery, or other obstructions as necessary. Staff shall confirm the standard is met prior to final building inspection. SIGNS (18.780) Requires that a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. The applicant has indicated that they only intend to place one sign on the site to give contact instructions, but did not provide the dimensions or location of the sign. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: There are no plans provided for the proposed signs, so staff cannot verify compliance with the sign standards. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780 and the previously recommended condition limiting signage. TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790 Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from, David Hunter, consulting arborist that generally describes the trees that are on the project site and their condition. According to this report no trees over 12 inches in diameter will require removal to accommodate the proposed tower; however, the arborist notes that there are several dead and dying trees that constitute an immediate hazard and should be removed. Hazard trees are not considered for purposes of calculating mitigation. The City Forester has reviewed the WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 19 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 report and provided comments later in this report. Since no healthy trees are to be removed, no mitigation is required. The Water District has requested an alternate means of access to improve the security of the water reservoirs. This alternate access would require a paved drive through an area already occupied by trees. The paving in this area may have a detrimental impact on those trees and/or require that additional trees be removed, based on an arborist's assessment. Based on the large number of trees on the property in general, even in the worst case scenario with all the trees between the proposed access point and wireless facility being removed, this would still represent fewer than 25% of the total trees 12" and greater on site. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed to retain greater than 75% percent of the non-hazardous trees over twelve inches on site and is not subject to tree mitigation in accordance with TDC Section 18.790.030. The applicant did not propose any tree protection measures that would be necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4). The alternate access requested by the Water District may impact additional trees, but will represent fewer than 25% of the total trees 12" or larger on site. Measures to protect these trees with the minimum impact method of constructing the access drive should be in place. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan from a certified arborist that defines standards that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction as required by Section 1090.030(13)(4). Moreover, all removal of hazard and dead trees shall be undertaken in the least impacting manner possible, as established by a certified arborist. This may include restricting heavy machinery to presently paved areas, and leaving tree stumps intact. The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Should the alternate access, as requested by the water district, be utilized the applicant shall prepare construction plans using the best management practices for construction around trees, as prepared by a certified arborist. The applicant shall certify that these measures were followed in the construction of the access drive. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18.795 Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.6. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Visual clearance was reviewed and addressed previously in this report. A condition has been recommended to ensure compliance. This standard can be satisfied. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 20 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES- CHAPTER 18.798 Section 18.798.060 states that the Hearings Officer shall review wireless communication towers in residential and/or Historic Overlay zones subject to conditional use review, by means of a Type III-HO procedure, using the fo~lowing approval criteria. Views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility to the following points of visual interest shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: 1 Mountains; 2 Significant public open spaces; 3 Historic structures. Staff has visited the site, and has determined that no visual points of interest will be obscured by the proposed location. There are eight homes within 250 feet of the proposed facility: 10380 SW Canterbury, 14678 SW 106th Ave, 14684 SW 106th Ave, 14690 SW 106th Ave, 10561 SW Murdock, 14785 SW 104th Ave, 14790 SW 104th Ave, and 14805 SW 103rd Ave. Mountains: The mountains lie to the east and northeast. Of the eight homes in question only four are to the west of the facility. There is a large stand of trees along the east and north property lines that currently obscure any views of mountains. Significant Public Open Spaces: This term is vague; however, the area on the Water District property itself may be considered public open space. The fact that the term does not specify park" seemingly is meant to be a broader term to include areas in public ownership, that are relatively under or undeveloped. Of the eight homes within 250 feet of the site, four homes lie between the public open space and the proposed facility. The existing vegetation provides screening of the facility, and primarily only the base of the tower and the accessory building will be in the line of sight. Additional landscaping has been proposed by the applicant to screen the perimeter of the facility. Moreover, staff believes, that given the location of existing, trees, placing the tower near the center of the site as proposed provides the greatest protecon as practical. Historic Structures: The nearest historical structure is the John F. Tigard house located in the northeast corner of the site, approximately 375 feet away. The closest property is next to the historic structure and the facility is outside of the direct view. The remainder of homes do not have a view of the historic structure due either to the presence of the evergreen trees, or existing structures on the Water District property. Of these, the facility lies between the homes and the historic structure of about'/4 of a mile east of this site and cannot be seen from any of the properties that are immediately adjacent to the proposed tower. The historic site is far enough away that the tower will not obscure its view from any surrounding properties. This criterion is satisfied. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; The applicant has proposed to paint the tower green below the treeline. Staff has recommended that a condition be imposed to change this color to brown to lessen the potential for glare and to make the tower structure as visually unobtrusive as possible. The galvanized gray finish above the tree line is appropriate as the lighter color will blend into the skyline more than a dark color would. Also the height at which the gray color is applied, will reduce the amount of glare onto adjacent properties. This criterion is satisfied. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the hei'ht of the tower. A Type II adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 21 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The applicant has satisfied this requirement as previously described. This criterion is satisfied. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. There are no other towers located within 2,000 feet of this tower. The closest tower is located at 15700 SW Pacific Highway, and the properties are approximately 3,000 feet apart. It should be noted that an application is under review for a cell tower site at 13680 SW Pacific Highway, but has not been approved. Nevertheless, this property is approximately 2,100 feet from the Water District property. Therefore this standard is met. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; The applicant has indicated that the tower would only be lighted if the FAA required it. Lighting has been previously addressed. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; The applicant has proposed a 6-foot-high chain link fence around the equipment. This standard is satisfied. The site is also within the enclosed area of the Water District facilities, which are presently protected by a 6-foot high fence. Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. The applicant has provided a landscape plan in which they show 5 foot tall arborvitae outside of the fence on three sides (east, west, south) of the facility. However, since the arborist has not indicated that existing evergreen trees will meet the screening requirements of this section, the applicant must install a minimum of four additional evergreen trees 15 feet in height. Staff has previously recommended a condition of approval related to the long term viability of the existing mature trees which includes a landscape planting plan. This plan shall include the addition of a minimum of four 15 foot tall trees. Moreover, the City Forester ahs recommended that to complement the natural area, the plant selections shall be natives. FINDING: Insufficient landscaping has been proposed. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection, the landscaping shall be installed according to the previously required revised landscape plan and a long-term maintenance plan including irrigation and pruning schedule shall be provided to and approved by the City. Additionally, the revised landscape plan shall include a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height to satisfy the criterion. All plant species shall be native, and the arborvitae shall be replaced with an equivalent native evergreen species. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 22 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. Noise was discussed previously in this report, and conditioned as necessary to meet these standards. This criterion is satisfied. Other requirements: At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit prior to construction. The plans examiner will ensure that the structures comply with all applicable building codes, and the applicant is responsible for ensuring compliance with FAA standards. FINDING: Staff has no way of ensuring that the proposed tower meets the requirements of the FAA as required in Section 18.798.060(C). CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation from the FAA that the tower design complies with the applicable standards. C. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER- 18.810 Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Canterbury Street and SW 103`d Avenue. Both of these streets area classified as Neighborhood Routes and are both improved to City standards. Two other unimproved rights of way border the project site; SW Murdock Street, and an unnamed alleyway. As proposed, the site would take access from SW Canterbury. As this street is already improved, no additional street improvements would be required. If the site is accessed as requested by the Water District, then the alleyway would be required to meet current standards for improvements. The alleyway is currently paved, but may not be fully improved to City standards. The applicant's development has the need of an additional access onto this roadway. The standard for the alleyway is 16 feet of paved width. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a site plan that illustrates the current width of this alley and shows improvements, as necessary, to bring the width to 16 feet in order to comply with TDC 18.810.030.A. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Sidewalks are present on SW Canterbury, and are not required for an alleyway. This criterion is met. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 23 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There are 8-inch public sewer lines in 103`d, 104'h, and Canterbury which all terminate short of the water district site. The 8-inch line in SW 104'h terminates at the southern boundary of the site and satisfies the requirement for sewer service. No actual connection is needed because the proposed development has no requirement for sewage disposal. This standard is met. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states regwires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no existing upstream drainage facilities that affect this parcel. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. According to the water quality report submitted with the application, the proposed cell tower facilities add 1500 square feet of impervious surface. CWS standards state that impervious area additions of less than 5,000 sf do not require onsite detention. Therefore, no detention is required for this project. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 24 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i Canterbury Street is not designated as a bike facility. So no bikeway improvements are required. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.6 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Not applicable. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Not applicable. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing uflities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval auhority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in copjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- y-case basis. The most common, .but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in- lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Canterbury Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 405 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $14,175.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: This site does not require water, apart from any irrigation that may be proposed in the landscaping plan. Given the fact that this is a city reservoir site, there is ample supply available to support the requested use. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 25 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Increases in impervious area of more than 1,000 square feet requires storm water treatment. The applicant has proposed a storwater filter catchbasln to treat the storm water runoff. Final construction plans will need to include a maintenance plan. This standard is satisfied. D. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall p roposeimprovements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at rty urs. large, p ubl i c facilitie s systems, and affected private prop e se In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The wireless communications facility is not subject to any traffic impact fees, so all improvements that have been proposed are required by the code in order to meet the criteria that is related to access and frontage improvements. The applicant has submitted an impact study that responds to the above requirements. Of those, noise was the only issue that required further documentation. The applicant will provide water quality treatment for storm drainage, and the site has minimal to no impact to the street, sewer, water, and park system. All other impacts have been addressed elsewhere in this report. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Forester recommends replacin.9 the proposed arborvitae with a native species such as vine maple, red-twig dogwood, pacific ninebark, ocean spray, etc. RESPONSE: Sight obscuring vegetation is required, so these deciduous species will not meet this standard, however, staff has recommended a condition of approval to use western red cedar or an approved native evergreen alternate. The City of Tigard Operations Manager has reviewed the application and wishes to comment with respect to the proposed access route to the monopole location. The site plan provided with the application shows that access would be taken through the middle of the City reservoir site. The City recently completed a security vulnerability assessment process. Security at all City facilities will become more critical and in relation to the project in question, the City will want to avoid having monopole traffic coming through the middle of the site. As an alternative, there is a dedicated ROW adjacent to the west boundary of this site, containing a paved alley that has been used by City staff as an alternate access to the reservoir site. There are access gates along the western boundary of the site accessible from the alley. The City will want the access to the monopole site to be via the paved alley and the southerly access gate. Once onsite, the access to the monopole should be directed around the edge of the forested southwest corner of the site and around the existing concrete storage bays. The monopole site and access fencing should be configured such that access to the monopole and activities within the monopole site are separated from the remainder of the City site. The designer for the applicant should work with the Public Works staff to develop a final site access and security fencing design. WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER PAGE 26 OF 27 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) is typically notified of all wireless communications facility requests, to ensure that conflicts in system networks is minimized. The agency submitted comments for this application in support, although staff notes that they are the applicant. Oregon Public Utilities Commission, Oregon Department of Aviation, Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and Portland General Electric were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. PRE ARE Y: Morgan -Pfacy Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Richard B sdorff Planning Manager February 13, 2004 DATE February 13, 2004 DATE WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER 2/23/2004 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 27 OF 27 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP CUP2003-00010 VAR2003-00094 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1'= 311 feet City of Tigard Community Development Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified v ith the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd I Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 6354171 _ http'l/www.ci.tigard.Gr.us Plot date: Jan 29, 2004; CAmagic\MAGIC03.APR Q SW CANTERBURY- LANE A ro as~ui~an TAX LOT I I^ TAX LOT 2SIlIBC02600 L 2700 I Cam, I I I rea. raa .te. ru.: u II • ~y - - _,p,~1 ewm Lwc r6rE 1 I w to o-:r :a r. ~•ilj... ww.nem ~tw wao I. ~ ~ k, j.,1 •j e Y° /1,.~pL ~ i. M en.. I llr Alt .V~ I.A nYOt tt~ C i SW MURDOCK STREET ® (ITYOFTIGARD T em or TIGAR SITE PLAN N (Map is not to scale) CUP2003-00010 WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER E:I . j ••I:•: -REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCKS FOR ACCESS i : _ / TOP OF 25' MAPLE ! ro- EL" HT, 817 ! .®e Fr. t.ui f I ARBOR V1T4E 1C F 0. Q 1 I 1! ! C 7 1 t I T I ak I 1 f . I 1 4 1 I 1 O f• 2 ~ 1 ~m~ mo 1 0 PARKING ' U %i j I I : Y I i~~ 3'x8' x6' E I p :TOP OF 10 FIR 1• CONC. PAD BUILDING Q HLi' O i COOLING E{7UIPMff11T BUILDING 0') I: 1 I O 1 1 ~ J r li 1 9. R z BUILDING ________G___~ ELECTRIC ! NP TOP 119.7 17 20' FI j~ COMPACTED RAVEL SERVICE L. II i I VY MINJ5. IB' DEEP i j 4'x4•x6' a~adx to-aK seNCt UTILI CONC. PAD TREES 9NOWN ARE IXISTING. RAN 9EE gi~OR1ST'9 REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION ON LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. i I' TOP OF MAPLE TWIN O 15' 4 15' EL•485.7 WT 93.8' i ' i 1 t~ ~ 1 i • 1 51LT FENCE TOP OF 70' FIR ~ TOP OF MAPLE TUN EL£ Ild EXt5TING 6'4' IY 4 IV EL"88.4- .HT: 119.9' CHAIN LINK FENCE HP 95,9' 1 i - 77 --------------77------------- o o • CITY CITY OF TIGARD T CUP2003-00010 FACILITY PLAN N WCCCA MONOPOLE TOWER Ma is not to scale CUP2003-00010 VAR2003-00094 WCCA 911 TOWER CITY OF TIGARD .OREGON TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOURCE DOCUMENT VOLUME I Adopted Noveu&ec 9. 1965 ORDDYANC6 NO. 65.51 The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the site as Public/Institution. The designation would restrict conflicting uses on the site to public or institution; therefore, no other residential, commercial, or industrial uses would be permitted on the site. The Community Development code includes a Historic Overlay District (HD) which is placed on the school site property. This overlay district requires any development proposal to be reviewed in a public hearing. The standards within the Historic Overlay District chapter requires that all changes with the district be compatible with the historic structure. The staff recommendation for this resource is to preserve the structure as historic and facilitate, if possible, placing the structure on the National Historic Register. A Historic Overlay District designation should be placed over the zoning. L. John F. Tigard House The John F. Tigard House, located on the southwest corner of SW 103rd and SW Canterbury was included on the National Register of Historic Structures on July 20, 1979, and therefore, has been included as a historic resource for the City of Tigard. This structure has been Tigard's historic focal point, and is a good example of early frame construction. In 1979, it was moved from its original location on Pacific Highway to its present location on the southwest corner of SW Canterbury and SW 103rd. It is currently being restored. The exterior restoration is almost complete, however, there is still substantial work needed on the interior of the structure. The property on which the structure is located is owned by the Tigard Water District. The Comprehensive Plan map indicates the site is Low Density Residential (1 - 5 units per acre) with an underlying zoning of R-10 (Single Family Residential). These designations are not in conflict with the historic resource since it is a residential use. The 10,000 square foot minimum lot size appears adequate to situate the structure and accessories in a similar setting as originally built. An Historic Overlay District (HD) designation will be. placed upon land area on which the structure and accessories stand. This designation will ensure that any development upon the land area will be compatible with the character of the historic structure. The staff recommendation for this resource is to preserve structure and accessories, and an Historic overlay District designation should be placed over the land area. M. Summer Creek/Woodward School Fir Grove This heavily treed area has been determined to be a significant Goal #5 resource as a natural area and an outstanding scenic site. The approximately 2.5 acre site is bordered by the Summer Creek floodplain/greenway on the north and east, the Mary Woodward Elementary I - 103 The John Tigard House The John Tigard House, circa 1880, entered on the National Register of Historic Places, July 20, 1979 is located at.SW Canterbury Lane and SW 103rd in Tigard, Oregon. It is owned by T.A.H.P.A. and the land on which the house is pater cated is leased through the Tigard District. The house was originally built on a Donation Land Claim dated October 15, 1873 and signed by President U.S. Grant. It was the home of John W. Tigard, son of Wilson M. Tigard, founding father of Tigardville, presently known-as Tigard. John, the only son of Wilson Tigard's children to cross the plains wagon train, was born near yetteville, Arkansas, December 25, 1850. He operated a coach route over the corduroy road from Tigardville to Portland, and was the owner of a general store in Fulton, part of today's Southwest Portland. This living history house restoration has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the U.S. Department of the Interior. Individuals or groups wishing to arrange for a tour of the house or obtain information on its rental for meetings or weddings may contact Kathy Davis at the Tigard Public Library, 684-6537. CL M w m 2 w . H oa 02 w a~ 3 ac m r c 3 Ca Ec M 1o L C mom = U m wcisc t E f- a .8 0 3v= 0.g 0) = a c15 t cn m o a E N 0) S 0, E 0' a) r 0= Y ~a ~~N ~ c a, cv c 3 H E cnE' CC Et0 L 0 O = m ~ 'rn a O ` o (D CL 3 0) Q E =5 <n 0 E c (D 7 = n. m O > :=c o-2 'c ca Oa)E 0 z c N CV) Z -621 a mow =Cr,N o 0 as ac = v M.6 o 0 F- no•`~~ Q f Q O i a ❑ ❑ a H 0 c 0 E m ~ U E C o M .0 of M ` Y > Q C -'4 a (D M squ MM 0 c ~c~ 75 Ci o 'p N MCO~ m p° rn - ° ~ 6% Cc w CNp '0 O) >,0 M64 MOE cp =-(D Cc M 0 : V) 5 m a) C 0 M a E z N m v v a i' 1 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION No. 79- ! TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ToR CAL & PRESERVA ~ON A RESOLUTION OF THE TIG USE PERMIT GRANTED To TTD HO EjRD AREA HIS z' ASSOCIATION (JOHN it was issued on the 20th WHEREAS, a te,porary use perm lacement of the Jahn T$g d tember 19 , to alas erbiry Lane and 103rd Avenue, day of Sep Home on the corner of S•W. tember ard, Oregon, eriod of Sep this permit wasandsthasftime will expire before the WHEREAS, 23, 1979, , 1978 Februar} proceeding can be heard 20 1979.by the for March 6, applicant's ending conditional use Planning Commission, now scheduled Tigard Temporary Use permit Tigard City Council extended1979F and additional WHEREAS, 1979, to March 17, on 12th day of February, time is required for construction of foundation and building im- provements, NOW, THEREFORE > BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL T temporary use permit Council hereby extends the Sec t 1,~ The City 1979. through. May 27 , l day of PASSED THIS o igard. a t e 2ty 19.791 by the Co«nci ity igar ayor _ H 1 ATTEST: .a igar t~ ~co er - , i Y u., p, G CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 79- 1: A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO EXTEND A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT GRANTED TO THE TIGARD AREA HISTORICAL b PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION (JOHN TIGARD HOME). WHEREAS, a temporary use permit was issued on the 20th day of September 1978, to allow the emplacement of the John Tigard Home on the corner of S.W. Canterbury Lane and 103rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. WHEREAS, this permit was issued for the period of September 20, 1978 - February 23, 1979, and this time will expire before the applicant's pending conditional use proceeding can be heard by the Tigard Planning Commission, now scheduled for March 6, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: The City Council hereby extends the temporary use permit through March 174 1979. PASSED this d4t' 4~ 1 ~ ''ay of 1979, by the Council of the City of Tigard. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Recorder - City- ty of rd Rl38OL1J` lox 79 --gu,,- n y ~i~k 4 ~~+~::-yy,.i• ' YwJY`r' T~Y~ rK .r ~ ~ J 6 _ .u~ ?c•-v...y~,.... ~..'(.eN - t~~ ~++k V - l •4a.dl..E...,..r..r..L. - ~ _ . O. Y~n . V i :a RECEIVED CITY OF TIGARD APR 2 51979 P.O. Box 23397 QF'' , QTY OF TIGRRO 12420S.W. Main <Q Tigard, Oregon 97223 April 19, 1979 David Bissett GRIGGS, LEE, RUFF ARCHITECTS 5920 S.W. Macadam Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 Re: SDR 17-79 - John Tigard Home Dear Mr. Bissett: Please be advised that the Planning Director on April 13, 1979, approved your request for site plan and architectural review of the ahove referenced project: This approval is subject to the following condition(s): 1. That when the complete list of plants is available, a copy of that list be submitted to Design Review. 2. That if the gravel drive is found to be necessary as a service access the applicant will allow for its installation if required by the Building Department. 3. That a copy of the lease between the Tigard Water District and The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association be submitted to the Planning Department. 4. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings, engineering specifications and other details requested by the department. No construction shall take place in these instances until after the changes have been approved. Any deviation from this condition will result in the immediate posting of a stop work order on the project or any portion of the project. If we con be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office 639-4171. Sincer y, ilary ackenzie Assistant Planner , HM/Pjr cc: Mrs. LaVerne Sharp i~~, J:.~ f" Etll....~.+~;'iv;:"~_.'c"...._.'S' "-..~;~:kY~.'.•.35~c'...:Wr'r9~.s-.^..,~:ilt)u'tt:'-~,. SITE AEVE10PIMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW 40 Site 71an Review Architectural Review APPLICATION Tigard Planning Department 12420 SW Main Street, Tigard, Or. 97223 639-4171 File No. Fee Received Receipt # - Z Y-/ Z Date Received Z 617q By Project TitJ JOW4 `T''16A-t-~ "ntAS Date Filed 2Ce • Project W43 p Tax Ma.; r'~~5, ISCSG._ Tax.Lot No. ~Z&e2~ DevelopQ :s Name Address Telephone Ownees Name Telephone 24iqo - 4:0 9--OZ. 1714 L7 old g7-9.1,3 ~=ddress 2 D2 i~l . ~lJ~ 'f'~~'t'L~ND < cam: ~t 72 ~°l - - - G-~,,-y~ s, ~Ruf~ 2s~s a Signat Ciff~7TLriQ4l. " G~.77N Description of Proposed Use _ AffiVg=A*ZAT7n/1/ /ST?r~2jG a DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Proposed Use ±Miildings # Units sq. t., Site size lo-0 Lta, Tot. Sq. Ft. of Buildings Sq. Ft. of Paving Sq. Ft. of Landscaping Anticipated Development Date Anticipated Development Phases Valuation ti-4 P. e_ CITY OF TIGARD P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 87223 March 12, 1979• Tigard Area Historical & Preservation Association 2042 S.W. Custer Street Portland, Oregon 97219 Re: CU 5-79 - John Tigard Home To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Conmission at their regular meeting of March 6, 1979, approved your request fora conditional use permit for the above referenced project. This approval is subject to the following conditions: v/1. That the•.approval of the conditional use be subject.to the approval of the minor land partition if found to be applicable by the applicant's and land owner's attorneys. /2. That this be resolved between staff and the applicant so far as appropriate number of accesses--whatever is reasonably possible in view of the special nature of the building. n/3. That half street improvements be made along S.W. Canterbury Lane to City local street standards prior to final building inspection. V/4. That five feet of right-of-way be dedicated with half street. ..improvements to City standards along S.W. 103rd prior to final building inspection. 5. That all utilities be subsurface and street lights provided. 6. Utilities be installed prior to final building inspection, ~j 7. That the fire marshall approve site and building prior to final building inspection. V` 8. That construction and drainage and sewage drainage plans be sub- mitted and approved by the City's building and engineering departments with necessary bonds prior to final building impaction. 1- 0 JOHN TIGARD HOME 1 CU 5-79 March 12, 1979 Page 2 • 9. That landscaping plan and emplacement be approved prior to final building inspection. The conditional use permit shall expire in one year from the date of approval, if the use has not begun and continual progress towards its full operation is not in evidence. if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639=4171. Sincerely, AUX04ie- Ken Selby Associate City Planner KS:db cc: Bob Santee Tigard Water District Note: The following acknowledgement must be received by the City.of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of'your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgement may result-in action by the'City of Tigard. I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Commission. I have received and read this letter, and I agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached. - Signature (applicant) Date ,1 Signature (owner) Date r 'App - ( , r A VARIANCE V 3=79 (ms orb hard #2) #7 A request, by Hazeltree.Development for a street variance. for improvement of the. approximately .200 feet of remaining:S.W. Hazelhill (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 16BB, Tax Lot 600). 5.6 CONDITIONAL USE Cu 5-79 (John Tigard Home) NPO #6 A request by Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association to locate the John Tigard Home in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a 5.09 acre.parcel (portion•of) at S.W, 103rd Avenue & S.W. Canterbury Lana .(Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 2600). 5.7 CONDITIONAL USE CU 4-79 (S.W. 110th Park) NPO #3 A request by Ed Gause for a conditional use permit to build duplexes in an R-10 "Single Fancily Residential" zone on a 1.45 acre parcel, east. of S.W. 110th Avenue, at west end of S.W. Garden Park (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3DD, Tax Lot 1301). 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Other Business: 9. Adjournment: MINUTES TIKrARD PLANNING COMMISS1 March 6, 1979 Page 4 Smith MOVED denial of Item 5.4, Conditional Use CU 1-79 requested by Michael Elton; and that this parcel be required to be developed in the Planned Development concept with a maximum density of 14 units. The motion was seconded and carried, with four ayes, two noes. At this time (9:08 P.M.) the President declared a 5 minute recess. 5.5 Variance v 3-79 (Ames Orchard #2 Subdivision) y A request by Hazeltree Development for a street variance for improvement of the approximately 200 feet of remaining S.W. Aazelhill (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 1OBB, Tax Lot 600). The STAFF REPORT was read by Howard. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Bob Cruz of David Evans and Associates, engineer-planner for the owner-applicant. He briefly restated the request and the reason therefor, and offered to answer any questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY was confined to a question by Herbert Olson, an adjoining property owner for whom the development has raised run=off water problems. Staff told him that issue would be addressed later. The STAFF RECCIMMENDATION was read by Howard. Selby stated in answer to Mr. Olson's question that it is a condition on the zone change, and it will be a condition of the subdivision, that the applicant have site drainage plans approved R1 by the City prior to issuance of building permits. There is some difference in the County standards from the City standards, which require underground drainage control. t Mr. Ames, the applicant, who specifically disclaimed being an engineer, 4 explained some of the problems in the first Ames subdivision which should not recur in this one. Mr. Speaker commented that apparently staff felt the four requirements for a variance were met in this case, and that it was rather unfortunate the applicant seemed to be caught by a conflict be County and City standards in his develop- ment. Thereupon he MOVED approval of Variance 3-79, based on staff findings and recommendations. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. 5.6 CONDITIONAL USE CU 5-79 (John Tigard Home) Ref. TV 7-78 A request by Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association to locate the John Tigard Home (historical building) in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a 5.09 acre parcel (portion of) at S.W. 103rd Avenue & S.W. Canterbury Lane (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 2600). Howard read the STAFF REPORT. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Dave Bissett of the architectural firm of Griggs, Lee, Ruff Architects, 5920 S.W. Macadam Avenue, Portland, Oregon, who is the architectural consultant for the Tigard Area Historical and Preservation i71PlU"1'C:5 TIGARD PLANNING COMM~I i March 6, 1979 j Page 5 A' Association. He made three general comments: (1) there should be some special treatment for projects of this type which are aimed at preserving historical values, and the City's ordinances do not really address projects of this type. (2) The intention of the group is to preserve and restore landmarks in the community which have a significant historical nature. (3) That the building code requirements for a public building are not appropriate for such a historical land- mark. Mr. Bissett voiced objections to the requirement for minor land partition, because the Association is only a lessee from the Water District, a public body; that the required on-site parking would destroy the proper physical environment for this historical building, and he presented as a solution the offer of the Calvin Presbyterian Church (which would be reduced to writing on March 27) of the use of their parking lot. He suggested painted cross walks would adequately protect visitors to the house; that if on-site parking is mandated, there be only one ingress-egress and a maximum of five on-site parking spaces; that the requirement of inside rest- rooms would destroy the original nature of the house, and that the bathroom presently installed is expected to be taken out and the original pantry restored. He stated the church had offered its restroom facilities during visiting hours. He pointed out the Uniform Building Code recognizes this problem in historic buildings and does not require public restrooms. The interior doorways are not adequate to accommodate handicapped access, and to provide ramps, wide doorways, etc., would destroy the historical integrity of the building. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: John Wilson, 8965 S.W. Edgewood, pointed out the TAHPA has been successful so far in getting funding for this project, but that it is nevertheless a non-profit organization and that requirements for sewers would be a burden to the group, as well as being contrary to the historical aspects of the building. Bob Santee, Administrator of the Tigard Water Commission, commended the holding of this hearing, where the concerned citizens could be heard. He pointed out that two conditions were important: that the house be located on the original DLC, and that the house face east. 'He explained the acquisition of the site by the Water District in the absence of funding by the City to purchase it for park purpose. He expressed a preference for not having a minor land partition; for having no parking on the site; that the Water District would be glad to donate 5 feet all along 103rd, not just for the 70 feet involved in this request. It was stated the lease would be a permanent one for $1 per year, and that plans for future building of another water storage tank have not been considered and such an installation is rather unlikely, but that the site would still have room for one. Mr. Bliss stated it is estimated the house would be opened only once a month to begin with, and at full use only three times a week. He estimated 10 to 20 would be the maximum to be accommodated at one time. Howard of staff expressed concerns with respect to permanent arrangements for parking, compliance with codes, handicapped access, etc. He suggested possible modifications to the various conditions, but stated the final decision was the Commission's. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Staff and Mrs. Nancy Stimler of the City Council and the Commissioners discussed the proposal and problems at some length. The house was characterized as less real estate than personal property, and it was reiterated the building codes applicable to i f new construction are not appropriate for this request. Tepedino discussed each r~ l MINUTES TlgARD PLANNING LOMMISM.-: ) March 6, 1979 page 6 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION CONTINUED: condition in turn, and modifications which are reasonable in terms of proposition's unique character. He thereupon moved approval, based on staff findings and recommendations, with staff conditions modified during further discussion as follows: #1. As stated, with addition of "if found to be applicable by the applicant's and land owner's attorneys". #2. That this be resolved between staff and the applicant so far as appropriate number of accesses--whatever is reasonably possible in view of the special nature of the building. #3. Unchanged. #4 Unchanged. (But the Water District will dedicate 5 feet without improve- ments along their additional frontage on 103rd Avenue). #5. Unchanged. #6. Included, but with the words "sewer and other" stricken. V. Unchanged. #8. Modified to read, "That construction and drainage and sewage drainage plans be submitted . . . " #9. Unchanged. #10. Deleted on the basis of low traffic to the facility. #11. Deleted. The motion as finally revised was seconded by Speaker. Smith commented on the unique nature of the building, and that because of it's historic nature, the necessity of providing sewer and on-site parking is inappropriate. The motion then carried unanimously. 5.7 CONDITIONAL USE CU 4-79 (S.W. 110th P..rk) A request by Ed Gause for a conditional use permit to build four duplexes (consisting of eight dwelling units) in an R-10 "Single Family Residential" zone on a 1.45 acre parcel, located east of S.W. 110th Avenue, at west end of S.W. Garden Park (Wash. Co.. Tax Map 2S1 3DD, Tax Lot 1301). The STAFF REPORT was read by Howard. Ed Gause, 14635 SW 133rd Avenue, the owner-applicant, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. He pointed out that in the area there are approximately 35 duplexes, on smaller lots than his, including those on Mr. Van Atta's land adjoining, permission for which was quite recently granted by the Commission. He was followed by Joe Walsh of Waker Associates, planning consultant representing Mr. Gause, who expressed the opinion single-family residences would prove difficult to market in that particular location. :P,- ~ .a.«w.~..n..«.. t..... n..~rYYYtrNwv Wba`pLU.wwwr. N`. M ~ .aw.r...wrM.l+w...wa..w......~.....«...~.....~. ~....~..ti . STAFF REVIORT ` AGENDA ' S . Ht " TIGARD PLANNING COM~~..«.~~•SION March 6, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 S.W. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Docket: Conditional Use CU 5-79 (John Tigard Home) Reference: TU 7-78 Applicant:- Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association Owner: Tigard Water District Site Location: S.W: Canterbury Lane and 103rd Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax . Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 2600). Request: To locate the John Tigard Home (historical building) in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a 5,09 acre parcel and operate the site and building as a public museum. 1. Findings of Fact: 1. The subject site is designated "Urban Low Density" on the NPO #6 Plan and is presently zoned R-7 "Single Family Residential". 2. Section 18.20.020(7) of the Tigard Municipal Code allows museums-in a R-7 zone as a conditional use. 3. The applicant proposes to restore the House (see attached narrative dated January 29, 1979) and open it to the public.as a museum. 4. The site is presently owned by the Tigard Water District (see attached plan illustrating land use). The surrounding properties consist of single family units to the west across S.W. 103rd and south across S.W. Murdock. To the east is a vacant lot and to the north is an existing church. 5. Sewer service is available to the site from the Unific-:d Sewerage Agency trunk line approximately 560 feet north of the parcel along S.W. 103rd. Tigard water service is also available. 6. Southwest Canterbury and S.W. 103rd will be the two major streets utilized in serving this site. Southwest Canterbury has the required right-of-way, but lacks adequate improvements (street paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk). Southwest Canterbury is a City owned street. Southwest 103rd is a county street lacking five feet of required right-of-way width and insufficient street improvements. II. Conclusionary Findings: 1. The proposed use is a conditional use of the R-7 zone and is to be located on an existing public service facility site. 2. Adequate transportation circulation and sanitation service is possible with some improvements. 0 STAN'' REPORT AGENDA 5.6 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Mauch 6, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 3.~ There exists a public desire to identify points of interest and historical preservation throughout this community V(14. A minor land partition is required to divide the property Y into two (2) tax lots. III. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions.- 1. That the approval of the conditional use be subject to the approval of the minor land partition:. 2. That the site have two ingress/egress accesses, one off S.W. Canterbury and one off S.W. 103rd of not less than 30 foot wide curb cuts. 3: That half street improvements be made along S.W. Canterbury Lane to city local street standards prior to final building inspection. 4. mat five feet of right-of-way be dedicated with half street improvements to City standards along S.W. 103rd prior to final building inspection. 5. That all utilities be subsurface and street lights provided. 6. That sewer and other utilities be installed prior to final building inspection. 7. That the Fire Marshall approve site and building prior to final" .building inspection. 8. That construction and drainage plans be submitted and approved by the City's building and engineering departments with necessary bonds prior to final building inspection. 9. That landscaping plan and emplacement be approved prior to final building inspection. 10. That the parking area have no less than 15 spaces. 11. That restrooms, curbs, entry ways and parking spaces be constructed and designed to facilitate handicap occupancy. Report prepared by: Ken Se Reviewed by: i Howard Associate City Planner P1 i Director February 28, 1979 Feb r 28, 1979 Tigard Plannii'ng Commission 12420 SO-W.Main .St Tigard, :Oregon 97223 Dear Members of.the Planning Commission: Re: John Tigard House The purpose.of .the .Tigard-Area Historical and Preservation Association is to retain historical,-cultural and educational identity for the communiii®s of 'Eastern Washington County:and Southwest Multnomah County,,Okegon including the.commuhities of Tigard, Tualatin, Durham, Sherwood,: Metzger and Garden Home. T.A.H.aP.A._':has.been given an historial home which was built and originally occupied by John Tigard, son of the founder of the City of Tigard. Since the.home was located in the path of a highway inter- change expansion,-it recently was moved to a temporary location do- nated by Calvin Presbyterian Church, Tigard, Oregon. T.A.H.4P.A. is applying for a conditional use permit from the City of Tigard in order to'permanently locate this historical house on property to be leased fr'om`the Tigard Water District. Tax map and tax lot description listed on enclosed application. The John Tigard House will be restored to its original state during the period of 18,92 per qualifications of the National Register. The funds for the restoration of the house are being provided by private foundation grants, donations of time and materials and a federal grant thru the State Preservation office. This historic house would be open to the public for scheduled tours, and on a.volunteer basis. Dr. Charles Kingston is planning educational benefit programs for Tigard School District 23 J. Being listed on the National Historical Register, the John Tigard House would provide a history of the founding of Tigard for tourists as well as citizens of the domminuty. The purposed location is the original donation land claim of the Wilson Tigard family. The Wilson McClendon Tigard family came to o.~~ Oregon across the plains in 1852. A site,,plan is enclosed with the application. Sincerely yours, La 4Verne B. S arp 4f ec:. R.R. 'Barker:,, 'City A"ini''stretor T :geed: City Council-,_.Mft erg J t__1 D G" _ a lil! Jzi I 0 • i I 'o ~ ~za I o,i 1 i L7 a j_------- At. II 1 i~ I( i ~ C ~I . 1 - - - - - _ _ ~ ~ ~ Ali i• { - { I 1 I I 1 / 'bg4Sf.~ ?t.oPC r I ~ ~ Y ~i _ S _ t PVOd106' rEbJ-F1.IFJD'' ' I , rs . .77 r 1 ~ ' ' • • CUP2003-00010 _ ` tt ; VAR2003-00094 WCCA 911 TOWER I y. i ! W ~1'j Z~a~o vp r -W""'OW, R.- ol w V pl ♦ 1 h' r i 6 ~ ~ tic ~ f i ~ 1 & l _ i r R 7a„ s i d t s ! s i . , 0 fi • y e- " 9 Y r~ k i _ _ ' i • • V,.tm. ?aA,06t C u P 40, 00,3 ooo/ o g~ Bd~GO~ k?9o S. W. f, -r16AAb, 4 (soa) G 3 9- >R V7~{ ow jj i 0 -rg 6SCO D • ..s . Water District Property • 0 There are a number of things converging on this piece of property. Those are: the tower; the plan for the removal of the dead and dying trees; and the planned extension of Murdock Street. As to our expectations: First, we want to stop the tower being placed inside a residual area. Second, we want an overall plan for this piece of property and lastly we want the right of way for Murdock to become part of the park to provide a buffer for our neighborhood. The following list includes the items that we would like to see the City consider imposing upon the conditional use permit if our first expectation above cannot be achieved: o Limit the height of the tower! (With the suggested removal of the trees, the tower probably doesn't have to be that tall) o Restrict the tower only for the use of 911 communications! (No other vendor - cell or microwave or whatever) o Provide a better buffer for us! (Replant larger trees in the area tall enough to really provide a buffer from our view) o Limit future uses of the Water District property! (This facility seems to be used for everything) o Provide us with an overall plan for the entire acreage! (What is the Master Plan for the area outside of the chain link fence and in what time frame) o Answer the question about a light on top or not! (Ask FAA now) o Answer the question of how they will deal with the trees! (Would like to know exactly how they plan to remove the dead trees, what equipment will be used, how many will be taken to the ground or could they top them, and what the time frame is - deal with the hazardous ones now or are they going to eliminate all their potential problems) o Incorporate the Murdock right of way into the park! (If this doesn't happen, all the trees that currently provide a buffer for our neighborhood will be removed and we will have an unobstructed view of the entire complex from top to bottom!) s • • We went to look at the "comparable tower in a comparable neighborhood" that John Hartsock had recommended in Milwaukie. While we are biased, the match does not seem as good a fit to our situation as John had lead us to believe. Southeast View Acres Road runs east and west and is a paved road approximately 20 feet in width with no curbs or sidewalks. It is bordered on the north and south by mature fir and cedar trees. The neighborhood is a mixture of older homes (built in the thirties and forties) with a few newer homes and is about 10 percent vacant land. Most homes do not appear to be kept in as good a repair as those in our neighborhood. The land on which the tower sits is owned by the Oak Grove Water District and is bordered on the north and south by very large mature fir trees. The tower is located to the rear of the property and is • screened in front by two huge water tanks approximately fifty feet in diameter and sixty to seventy feet in height. The view of the tower from View Acres Road is mostly through breaks in the trees and the vacant land. A new assisted living facility, Oatfield Estates, (approximately 200 to 300 units), has been built at the southern border of the Water District property approximately 20 feet from the base of the tower. The fence at the southern boundary of the Water District property is approximately four feet in height and there is not any secondary fence around the tower and associated equipment. A relatively newer development is to the south of Oatfield Estates, however, the to is mainly not visible because of the terrain falling off. All in all, the tower is a very large "stick". The height is probably around the proposed height of the Canterbury tower but the microwave dishes are at a much lower level then those purposed here. 0 TI GARD THI NGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: © a~-k -(314 GRIEENSTREET • • City of Tigard Land Use Application for an Emergency Communications Facility located at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane 41 P.O. BOX 82125 PORTLAND, OR 97282 • T: 503 231 8737 • F: 503 235 5875 Jan 12 04 01:44p Gregegnstreet 506235-5875 p.2 WCCCA 9-1-1 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CANTERBURY LANE, TIGARD OREGON Impact Analysis Chapter 18390.040: TYPE II PROCEDURE A. Preapplication conference. B. Application requirements. 1. Application forms. 2. Submittal information. C. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users. Transportation system: Site access exists. The proposed facility is not an occupied structure, and is not to be accessed by the public. The radio equipment will be maintained monthly, generating one vehicle trip per month. Pedestrian and bicycle access is not required. Drainage system: The small amount of impermeable surface added to this site, which includes a large amount of naturalized landscape, will be negligible. An engineer's analysis and design for the site drainage is included in the submittal package. Parks system: This unoccupied facility will have no impact on the park system. Water system: There is no water requirement for this unoccupied facility. Sewer system: There is no sewer requirement for this unoccupied facility. Noise impacts: The mechanical equipment for the facility includes two cooling units for the equipment building and a propane-powered emergency generator. The generator will be run during business hours once each month for 29 minutes for maintenance testing, or in case of power failure. The generator model selected is equipped with a silencing enclosure and an exhaust silencer; it produces 66 dBA at a point 7 meters from the unit. The cooling units will operate one at a time, and produce only 52 dBA at approximately 7 meters. According to the Noise Center of the League of the Hard of Hearing, those levels are typical of residential air conditioners. With the distance between the proposed facility and the nearest residence, the units should have a minimal impact that is within the requirements of the City. • • • Table of Contents Section One: • Application • General Project Information/Narrative • Drawings • Photographs Section Two: • Radio Coverage Maps • Water Quality Calculations • Arborist Report • Availability of Electrical Service Letter • Site Assessment Letter, CWS • Title Report • Section Three: • Pre-application Notes • Affidavit of Mailing/Posting • Adjacent Cell Tower Data 0 • • Section One: • Application • General Project Information/Narrative • Drawings • • Photographs • • PRE-APP. HELD BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 503.639.4171/503.684.7297 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION File ZAx33 -oc~ lv Other Case # IZ - 1.033 - O`So3? - Date U By L Receipt # O 3 ' ~i City Urb 1:1 Date Complete 0 TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR E Adjustment/Variance (I or II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, II or III) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV) Historic Overlay (II or III) ❑ Site Development Review (II) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) (Address i available) (0-2210 s w e,*PJ rb--rJ-P3 vP L AN E 2Slt I gG 200 ~.2 .AC-"S t R - 3- S 7 IZt~N 571zEET ~GI-}~'T~?vP-~ LGG n o aox B Z I Z 1 Pop-11,4►0,00- 9 7 z$ ~z FIFIDNE NO. ro3. Z-1 3-7, FAX NO. 503. z3S• S~"l s . PRIMARY GUNIACT PERSON P. *W D ti ?OMl G 1-HUNL NO. S o 3.2771. fs"77y-7 PROPERTTOWNERX)ELL) HOLDER ac is i more an one G111-1 OF Tl AAP-P 13 1 Z S S W How bL- Tdkrl~-~, q, zz3-11 ~ ej IJHUNt NO. 5v3. U3~ . q'1~1 FAA NO. So3 . Z9-7 'When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be purchaser of record Or a lessee IF] possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. TheLoWners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or Submit a written authorization with this application. I N G W n 9: A / c e, m O /V D PD t, r. i v, x so s GOM IN V si i ewrio Ai r APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. is, WCCCA 9-1-1 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CANTERBURY LANE, TIGARD OREGON General Project Information Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency operates and maintains a radio system for the use of fire, law enforcement and emergency medical response agencies throughout the County. The radio system is supported by the partner communities within Washington County. The system allows direct communication between police, fire and other agencies, as well as communication with agencies in adjacent cities and counties. The radio coverage of the existing system reaches only parts of the county, and WCCCA has secured the funding to add four new radio antenna towers to the network to improve system coverage. A lack of adequate radio coverage can mean that precious seconds are lost in an emergency when a police officer or EMT cannot make radio contact. With growing public safety concerns as well as growing and expanding communities, the addition of these towers is important. Site Selection Process The radio tower sites for WCCCA are carefully selected through extensive engineering studies conducted by Motorola, the manufacturer of the 800 MHz system. Motorola begins by establishing the boundaries of the jurisdiction and what type of radio system is to be used. Using a complex modeling program, they compare the topography of the area against the characteristics of the radio system, taking issues such as fading and loss of • signal strength into consideration. Existing radio sites are identified and reviewed. Using the collected information, they identify several desirable sites based on the best radio coverage pattern using the fewest towers. Preference is given to existing radio sites. Next, the selected sites are visited to verify that adequate site access exists. Any undocumented existing radio sites discovered in the vicinity of the proposed sites are mapped. This new data is then added to the modeling program to determine how the viable sites relate to the required radio coverage areas. Antenna patterns and radio tower heights are fine-tuned in the modeling program for optimal coverage. The best locations are modeled and presented to the client. The new WCCCA sites have been selected to integrate with the existing antenna coverage, provide more uniform coverage and critical penetration into the growing communities in central and eastern Washington County. The Canterbury site will provide coverage in Tigard and Tualatin that will be lost when a radio facility at Council Crest is closed. The new facility at Canterbury Lane will improve penetration into the growing communities nearby, such as King City, Durham and Scholls. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is 5.65 acres zoned R-3.5. It is within a historic overlay that is associated with the John Tigard House, which is situated on the northeast corner of the property. Water tanks and other City of Tigard facilities are in place on the northwest corner. The radio facility is to be located on the western half of the property, adjacent to concrete bins used to store gravel. A 16,580 sq. ft. single-family residential lot is located near the midpoint of the project site along the north property line, between WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 1 • • • the water tanks and the historic house. Adjacent uses include a church to the north, multi-family residential development to the west and single-family residential development to the south and east. The proposed facility consists primarily of a 152 ft. monopole radio tower and a prefabricated 10 x 20 ft. equipment building within a fenced enclosure. The 30 x 40 ft. enclosure also includes an electrical transformer, a generator and a 500-gallon propane tank. Area is included within the enclosure to park one vehicle. The proposed facility will add a small amount of impermeable surface to the site, creating little overall change to drainage. The tower will be painted green below the tree line and gray above to allow it to blend into its environment as effectively as possible. The tower will not be lighted unless lighting is required by the FAA. The equipment building is to be tan stucco with a brown metal roof. Chapter 18.330: CONDITIONAL USE Sections: 18.330.010 Purpose 18.330.020 Approval Process 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval 18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types i 18.330.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses, which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities, require a case-by-case review and analysis. 18.330.020 Approval Process 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval A. Approval standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The size and shape are adequate to accommodate the facility. The tower exceeds the setback requirements. 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The size, location and topography of the site are the reasons this location was selected. The impacts of the facility are minimal. Site access exists, and only one automobile trip will be generated per month. The area of the facility is small, which means that little excavation will be required. No trees will have to be cut to accommodate the facility, although dead trees will have to be removed to ensure the safety of the community, • the workers on site and the proposed facility. WCCCA 9-1 -1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 2 0 • • • • 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; Power is available (see letter). Sewer and water are not required. The traffic impact is very low and transit is not required. Schools and other social services are not impacted. The proposed site will serve the public safety agencies, helping to ensure that police, fire and emergency medical providers will have adequate capacity to serve other new developments. 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; The requirements of the zoning district are addressed in the appropriate development code sections below. 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and See the appropriate section below. 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. The proposed facility is to be located deep within a larger site occupied by the City of Tigard. There is ample space on the site to accommodate the proposed facility, as shown in the Site Plan. The setbacks provided exceed those required. Access to the facility will be provided via the existing drive entrance. The existing site access is more than adequate for the use of the proposed facility, which will generate one trip per month for maintenance and testing. Power for the facility is available. B. Conditions of approval. C. Exemptions. 18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements A. Additional submission requirements. In addition to the submission requirements required in Chapter 18.390, Decision-Making Procedures, an application for conditional use approval must include the following additional information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of the specific information to be included in each of the following: 1. Existing site conditions; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. Architectural elevations of all structures; 6. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. See drawings See drawings Minimal grading, see drawings See drawings See drawings See title report 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types A. Concurrent variance application(s). A conditional use permit shall not grant variances to the regulations otherwise prescribed by this title. A variance application(s) may be filed in conjunction with the conditional use application and both applications may be heard at the same hearing. B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for conditional use are as follows: Wireless communications facilities not included in list. See Chapter 18.798 below. Additional comments: The 800 MHz radio communications system is based on line-of-sight connections. The antennas must be able to "see" other antennas to receive or transmit to them. The elevation of the transmitting and receiving equipment is critical. Tall towers allow broader coverage, and better coverage by making it possible for remote units to WCCCA 9-1-1 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DECEMBER 2003 PAGE 3 0 • • "see" the antennas from valleys and at greater distances. The proposed tower height also ensures that the transmitting and receiving equipment can be mounted above tree height. Obstructions such as hills, trees and buildings can obstruct signals. The site survey identified a few trees that are more than 130 ft, and most of the trees measured by the surveyor are more than 115 ft. high. At 152 ft, the proposed tower height will ensure that the antennas can be mounted above the treetops. Chapter 18.370: VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS Sections: 18.370.010 Variances 18.370.020 Adjustments 18.370.010 Variances A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from the applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the applicable zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances shall be granted. B. Applicability of provisions. 1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only. C. Approval process and standards. 1. Variances shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure 2. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or • vicinity; The proposed variance is for the placement of a wireless communications facility in a Historic Overlay District. This intrinsically modern structure cannot meet the standards of a historic district. It will not, however, materially alter the character of the district. The John Tigard House is not original to this site at Canterbury Lane. Rather, it was moved to this site in the 1970s to allow development of the original home site. The Canterbury Lane site is primarily used by the water district. The historic overlay designation was placed on the site in response to the relocation of the John Tigard house on this large, government-owned lot. It is not the site that is historic, but the structure. The historic value of the John Tigard House is in the structure itself. The proposed radio tower will have no effect on that value. The historic overlay district covers this site only, and the Tigard house is the only historic feature in the district. Water tanks, maintenance facilities and other utilitarian structures occupy the western half of the site. The historic house was set on the northeast corner of the property, separated from the water district buildings and the proposed radio tower by a grove of mature fir trees and a single-family residence that is situated on a lot at the center of the northern portion of the property. Photographs included in this submittal show that there will be no direct visual connection between the proposed radio facility and the John Tigard House. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not • applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; WCCCA 9-1 -1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 4 0 • • "These facilities and uses have a direct effect on the public health, safety and welfare. They must be located in a manner which maximizes the net gains to the Public and relates to the service area." -Tigard Comprehensive Plan Section 12.4 Community Utilities and Facilities The elevation and size of the selected site are uniquely suited to the proposed use. The size allows the proper setbacks for the tower. The elevation and location within Washington County-within the emergency radio communications network of Washington County-make this hilltop the ideal location for the proposed facility. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; The required utilities are available. Traffic will not be noticeably affected. At 30 ft. by 40 ft, the area covered by the proposed facility is small, and access drives are already in place. The small amount of impermeable surface added to this site, which includes a large amount of naturalized landscape, will be negligible. An engineer's analysis and design for the site drainage is included in the submittal package. • e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The proposed 500 MHZ radio facility is not a function that can be located on just any site in the County. The effectiveness of this radio communication system is dependent on the altitude of the transmitters and receivers to provide adequate radio coverage for the County and on the placement of towers in appropriate areas to provide radio coverage to populated areas. This site is in the right area of the County to expand coverage to an under-served area, and it provides the necessary elevation to allow the most consistent coverage. Other sites on the hill do not have the appropriate area or configuration to support the facility. Other hills will not allow the signal to reach the target area. 3. The Director shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an application for a subdivision variance subject to the criteria set forth in Section 18.370.010.C. 18.370.020 Adjustments • WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 5 • Chapter 18.510: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18.510.010 Purpose 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.510.030 Uses 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities 18.510.050 Development Standards 18.510.060 Accessory Structures 18.510.010 Purpose A. Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible non-residential development-schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services - at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. B. Encourage construction of affordable housing. Another purpose of these regulations is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This can be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts C. R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also • permitted conditionally. 18.510.030 Uses A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter, there are four kinds of use: 1. A permitted (P) use 2. A restricted (R) use 3. A conditional use (C) is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapters 18.310 and 18.320. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230; 4. A prohibited (N) use B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. TABLE 18.510.1 USE TABLE USE CATEGORY R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 N N N Cemeteries N N C C C N N N Detention Facilities N N N N N N N N Heliports N N N N N N N N Mining N N N N N N N N Wireless Communication Facilities P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 Rail Lines/Utility Corridors C C C C C C C C P=Permitted R=Restricted C =Conditional Use N=Not Permitt ed . 7 See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication F acilities , for requirements for permitted and restricted facilities. WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 6 0 0 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities 18.510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance required. B. Development Standards. 18.510.060 Accessory Structures Development Standards In Residential Development Zone 3.5 MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DETACHED UNIT 10,000 SQ. FT. . . 250,513 SQ. FT. AVERAGE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR DETACHED UNIT LOTS 65 FT NIA MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE - - MINIMUM SETBACKS (The tower is set 156 ft. from the nearest property line) FRONT YARD 20 FT 311 FT. SIDE FACING STREET ON CORNER & THROUGH LOTS 20 FT 347 FT. SIDE YARD 5 FT 1 69 FT. REAR YARD 15 FT 1 34 FT. SIDE OR REAR YARD ABUTTING MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT N/A NIA DISTANCE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND FRONT OF GARAGE 20 FT N/A MAXIMUM HEIGHT (IN ZONE) .30 FT 152 FT. MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT - - Chapter 18.705: ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION • Sections: 18.705.010 Purpose 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.705.030 General Provisions 18.705.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. Change or enlargement of use. C. When site design review is not required.. D. Conflict with subdivision requirements.. 18.705.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of property owner. B. Access plan requirements. See site plan. C. Joint access. D. Public street access. E. Curb cuts. F. Required walkway location. G. Inadequate or hazardous access. H. • I. Access Management Minimum access requirements for residential use. J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use. VVCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 7 0 0 • K. One-way vehicular access points. L. Director's authority to restrict access. Access to the facility will be provided via the existing drive entrance on Canterbury Lane. The existing site access is more than adequate for the use of the proposed facility, which will generate one trip per month for maintenance and testing. Chapter 18.740: HISTORIC OVERLAY Sections: 18.740.010 Purpose 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.740.030 General Provisions 18.740.040 Approval Process 18.740.050 Application Submission Requirements 18.740.010 Purpose A. Purposes. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; 2. Enhance any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; 3. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; 4. Strengthen the economy of the City; 5. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City; and • 6. Implement the applicable provisions of LCD Goal 5 and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions A. Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: 1. Historic sites and areas; 2. Cultural sites and areas; and 3. Landmarks. B. Designated activities. The provisions of this chapter apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; 2. The exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. 18.740.030 General Provisions A. Approval of exterior alterations. B. Approval of demolition. C. Exemptions. D. Condition of approval. 18.740.040 Approval Process D. Criteria for construction of new structures. Approval for exterior alterations of structures in an historic overlay district shall be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, by the Director using the following criteria: 1. The purpose of the historic overlay district as set forth in Section 18.740.010; The proposed facility cannot fulfill the purposes of the historic overlay district. See Section 18.730. • It should be noted that the historic district was established on this site alone in response to the relocation of the John Tigard House to this site. The fact that the house was not WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 8 0 • built on this site, and that this site was and remains in use by the local water district, indicates that the historic value of the district is based on the historic value of the building alone. 2. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; The historic district in question is one large lot. The historic overlay was established because of the John Tigard House that occupies the northeast corner of the lot. The house is the only historic feature in the district. The property is use primarily by the water district, and is developed with water storage tanks, several small buildings and concrete unit bins for storage of gravel and sand. Given the general character of the district, the economic effect of the proposed tower on the historic value of the district is considered negligible. 3. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; The proposed facility is similar in its utilitarian use and form to the greater part of the existing site development within this historic overlay district. Therefore, it is in reasonable conformance with the overall architectural character of the district. To minimize the tower's visual impact on adjacent lots and in the vicinity, the proposed facility has been located to take advantage of the visual screening provided by existing trees on the property. In addition, the enclosure will be screened with dense evergreen shrubs as required by the zoning code. A photograph included in this submittal shows that there will not be a direct visual link from the historic house to the tower. In fact, in order to see the test balloon that illustrates the tower height in the photograph, the photographer had to cross the street to a lot that is, incidentally, • outside the historic overlay district. 4. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure; and The proposed facility is not compatible in a historic sense. See Section 18.730. 18.740.050 Application Submission Requirements Chapter 18.745: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Sections: 18.745.010 Purpose 18.745.020 Applicability 18.745.030 General Provisions 18.745.040 Street Trees 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 18.745.060 Re-vegetation The provisions of this section (i.e. the buffer matrix) do not address wireless communications facilities. Specific landscaping and buffering requirements are provided in section 18.798.060. See that section for landscape information. Chapter 18.765: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS • Sections: 18.765.010 Purpose WCCCA 9-1 -1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 9 • 0 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.765.030 General Provisions 18.765.040 General Design Standards 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 18.765.060 Parking Structure Design Standards 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements 18 A. • B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. B. Expansion of existing use. C. Change of use. D. When site design review is not required. E. Building permit conditions. The provision and maintenance of off-street vehicle parking and loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner: .765.030 General Provisions Vehicle parking plan requirements. Location of vehicle parking. Joint parking. Parking in mixed-use projects. Visitor parking in multi-family residential developments. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking. Disabled-accessible parking. DEQ indirect source construction permit. 18.765.040 General Design Standards 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 18.765.060 Parking Structure Design Standards 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements A. Parking requirements for unlisted uses. B. Choice of parking requirements. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. H. Specific requirements. (See Table 18.765.2) Per table 18.765.2, there are no parking requirements for a wireless communications facility. One parking space has been provided within the facility • enclosure for maintenance access. WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 10 a • • 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements A. Off-street loading spaces. B. Off-street loading dimensions. Chapter 18.790: TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; • 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. See drawings and arborist's report. B. Plan requirements. See drawings and arborist's report. C. Subsequent tree removal. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. B. Effective date of permit. C. Extension: D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. is E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A2., excluding B.4 above, is not permitted. WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 1 1 • • • 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal Chapter 18.798: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 18.798.010 Purpose 18.798.020 Definitions 18.798.030 Exemptions 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright 18.798.050 Uses Subject to Site Development Review 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review 18.798.070 Submission Requirements 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities 18.798.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner which 1) minimizes visual impacts; 2) promotes universal service to all customers; 3) encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities required; 4) ensures structural safety; 5) ensures all providers are fairly treated; and 6) protects neighborhood liveability. 18.798.020 Definitions A. De finitions. The following definitions apply to facilities regulated by this chapter: 1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for • transmitting or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or building. 2. "Collocation" means the placement of two of more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a tower, building, water tank or utility pole. 3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. 4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. 5. "Provider" means a person or company in business of designing, installing, marketing and servicing wireless communication services including cellular telephone, personal communications services (PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile telephones and commercial paging services. 6. "Wireless communication facility" means an unmanned facility for the transmission or radio frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 7. "Wireless communication facility, attached" means a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, utility or light pole, which does not include additional wireless communication support structure. 8. "Wireless communication transmissions towers" means new structure, tower, pole or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of these regulations, such a support structure will be referred to as a "tower". Support structure types include: a. "Guyed tower" means a tower which is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which are permanently anchored; b. "Lattice tower" means a tower characterized by an open framework of lateral cross members which stabilize the tower; c. "Monopole" means a single uptight pole, engineered to be self-supporting and requiring guy wires or lateral cross-supports. • 18.798.030 Exemptions WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 12 • • • 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright 18.798.050 Uses Permitted Subject to Site Development Review 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review A. Uses permitted. The Hearings Officer shall review the uses subject conditional use review, by means of a Type 11IA procedure, as regulated by 18.390.050 using approval criteria contained in Section B below. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any residential zone; The project site is zoned R3.5. 2. Towers within areas with historic overlay designation. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in areas with historic overlay designation; There is an historic overlay on the site. 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user and 125 feet for multiple users. The proposed tower is to be 152 feet. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to review per Section A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. Protection of points of visual interest: a. Views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility to the following points of visual interest shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: • (1) Mountains; (2) Significant public open spaces; (3) Historic structures. b. The following standards, and only the following standards, shall be used to protect the above identified points of visual interest to the greatest practical extent if views from a residential structure located within 250 feet from a proposed wireless communication facility to a point of visual interest specifically identified above is significantly affected. Where the proposed facility stands between residences and the historic John Tigard House, a grove of existing trees obscures the view from the residences to the historic structure. 2. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar color as the supporting structure to make the antennas and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; The monopole tower will be painted green below the treeline and gray above to allow it to blend into its environment as effectively as possible. The tower will not be lighted unless lighting is required by the FAA. The equipment building is to be tan stucco with a brown metal roof. 3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. A Type II adjustment may be obtained to reduce this setback, subject to criteria of approval contained in Section 18.370.020 C8a; The 152-foot tower is to be set back 156 feet from the nearest property line. • 4. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 13 • • existing tower. If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.798.080 without success, the provider will be required to build a tower less than the distances specified above, it will be required to obtain a Type I adjustment governed by 18.370.020 C8b; There are no towers within 2000 feet of the site. 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; No lighting is proposed. Lighting will be provided only as required by the FAA. 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six-foot fence; The facility is to be fenced. See Site Plan. 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. See landscape plan. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. See landscape plan and arborist's report. • 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. The mechanical equipment for the facility includes two cooling units for the equipment building and a propane-powered emergency generator. The generator will be run once each month for 29 minutes during maintenance testing. The testing will occur during standard business hours. The generator model selected is equipped with a silencing enclosure and an exhaust silencer; it produces 66 dBA at a point 7 meters from the unit. Without consideration for natural sound barriers such as vegetation, the generator noise will drop to 50dBA at the south property line, 134 ft. from the facility enclosure. The cooling units will operate one at a time, and produce only 52 dBA at approximately 7 meters, and will fade at a similar rate. C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. Requirements are understood. 18.798.070 Submission Requirements A. Submission requirements. All applications for Site Development Review or Conditional Use, shall be made on forms provided by the Director. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about specific submission requirements. • 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 14 0 • A. • Purpose. The purpose of this requirement is to create a process that will allow providers to equitable share publicly-available, non-proprietary information among themselves, with interested persons and agencies, and with the City, at the time the provider schedules a pre-application conference with the approval authority. This collocation protocol is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for collocation have been investigated and the appropriate information has been shared among providers. B. Applicability. Requirements for the collocation protocol apply only to new towers subject to Site Development Review or Conditional Use. C. Pre-application requirement. A pre-application conference is required for all proposed free-standing towers except those in the I-L and I-H zones, which are permitted outright. D. Collocation request letter requirement. At the time a pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed to all other wireless communication providers licensed to provide service within the City's boundaries: E. Applicant's obligation to analyze feasibility of collocation. If a response to a collocation request letter is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for collocation on an existing tower of another provider, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the feasibility of collocation. F. Result of collocation feasibility analysis. Collocation request letters were mailed as required. No positive responses were received. Copies of the collocation letter and post office receipts are included in this submittal. 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities Requirements are understood. • • WCCCA 9-1-1 DECEMBER 2003 CANTERBURY LANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 15 • • • S.W. • CANTERBURY • LANE S 893751• W fro a nuE [o-.6..)• wauxB.)95r aroN 9 a 5,1E iRlA1 IB TAX LOT 2700 ,AV a as APo N 893751' E 176.66 Taax'm wwxo-x9,e' it 10-000 i rw a 1e' u.vL[ I EL•.>b e' Ns oVVi wwxo•>e>.s rt19¢ I ~ ~ j 4J 10G a ]b' u.VIE CE•.Se.e' wLUxD•]Bfi.B' f 1 ,maw' FiR n si0 e' • . I wwxo•wes n a~lwl a, n ra aw'nR 1 El•N53' wawD.w>.7 M i ! Arz r sr ,co a 14' Fq N j , ' I woux0•wza r ~I I ft' 3-W ra- `ia a 21' FR EL•50).9' w0ux0-w1.r'\ 1a a v'rw ' At? ~.ovv, Ewl•s09 s s.~ 01rt+o•w1,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ,ro a u' F. ' nR ,vu,_ s or I6 . 90.2 3l nsrz5. f~ IF ,u If ra a nR 90.8' ' ' l n•5lt f 1) 6 I6 LBW ~Ii,~fIR ' a OF 14 ' sp L•vgs' ll-Lv enMp•w1,6' I 1 12' 15' r, a Mw'm I wWlO•]w.9' / a f9i tw a b' FiR M ' la a lC xR EL u•slav ; EL.vl.o ' ' n•war cwnm.)a.r h ~ c. wauro-wl.r/ / wa v.]91s ttP a tB' FIF .V' ~ , n OL.D n•StgS' fie[ wwx0-]91.5. 1E F~ M,n` 1.3 rP -e ,w a ma -1 EL•.1]f' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR: GREENSTREET ARCHITECTS BEING A PORTION OF TAX LOT 2600 TAX MAP 2S 1 11BC IN THE NW 1/4 SEC. 11, T.2S., RAW., W.M. CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON MAY 29, 2003 Ws:}maW(e'rx0 NODES' WO xoi Peilnm 1. ELEVATIONS ARE ON CITY OF TIGARD DATUM FROM CITY BENCH NARK NO. ❑ 214 A BRASS DISK 100 FEET EASTERLY OF SW 106TH AK ON THE SOUTH SIDE SIDE OF CANTERBURY LANE WTH AN ELEVATION OF 396.20 FEET. 2 THE BOUNDARIES AS SHOWN CN THIS MAP ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THIS MAP DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY TO BE RECORDED. BUT WAS DONE FOR 97E/TO) INFGRMATION ONLY. 3 THIS SURVEY IS MADE FOR THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SURVEY ONLY. ANDY PARIS k ASSOCIATES. INC, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR INFORMA TION SHOWN HEREOW TO ANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY. 4. SURVEY IS VAUD ONLY IF PRINT HAS SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF SURVEYOR. S NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY TO OBTAIN CAR SHOW DATA CONCERNING EASIENCE. 92E OEFTH CONDITION, CAPACITY, OR LOCATION OF ANY UTILITY OR MUNIOPAL/PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THESE UTILITIES OR FACILITIES PLEASE CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES 6. THE LOCA TON AND OR EXISTENCE OF UTILITY SERVICE LINES TD THE PROPERTY SURVEYED ARE UNKNOWN AND ARE NOT SHOW.. 7. SUBSURFACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONOTACNS WERE NOT EXAMINED OR CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY. NO STATEMENT IS MADE CONCERNING THE E)OSTENCE O' UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD CONTAINERS OR FACIU77ES THAT MAY AFFECT THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THUS TRACE 8. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SURVEYOR. THERE MAY EXIST EASEMENTS, CONDITIOVN$ OR RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD AFFECT THE TIRE OF THIS PROPERTY. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS SURVEY TO SHOW SUCH MATTERS THAT MAY AFFECT TITLE. WGIEND: 0 FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD MIN RED-PLASTIC CAP STAMPED 'CENTERLINE CONCEPTS INC.' PER SURVEY NO. 28817, WASINGFON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS ❑ STORM DRAIN CATOI BASIN (SDCB) ® STORY DRAIN MANHOLE (SDMH) pxioaeox GROUND SNOT - SPOT ELEVATION Om[ac+ TOP O' ASPHALT - SPOT ELEVA770M EKna>:9cx EDGE OF ASPHALT - SPOT ELEVATION REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL [LAND SURVEYOR GRAPHIC SCALE 0 a A b W 100 ( IN 784£ ) 1 Ixh - 40 R OREGON 1NNNa 15. IW7 HAROLg7P SALO 64 j EXP : X14E 7004 SURVEYED BY: ANDY PAM AM ASSOMTM NC. 16057 BOONES FERRY ROAD LANE OSWEGO. OREGON 97035 PH: 503-636-3341 pROECT.' 03078 DRA6WO' a3O787P1.DKV DRAFFEO RRO52903 m N N " e7 0 N LL M W W " 0 F m %A P 0 Z ZZ Q W 0 W r • n x m 0 PROJECT: WCCCA 9-1-1 800 MHz RADIO FACILITY 10310 Canterbury Tigard, Oregon DRAWING: Site Survey DATE/REVISION: 22-AUG-03 . PROJECT N0: 2002.02 PR)NT SCALE: 1/1 • SW CANTERBURY LANE EXISTING WATER TANK I TOP OF TANK = 409.75' I EXISTING SHOP I PEAK = 417.4' I I o aER the 1 'I I ui3lsi. EW a EDC£ OF A5PHAL7 0- 5 70P OF i I .I UTILITY TRENCH FOR POIUER Q TELEPHONE EXISTING SHED PEAK=794.5' I TAX LOT I I TAX LOT 2S111BCO2600 IW 2700 II 8 II - `EDGE OF II I z 1 AA,9PHALT \Y L TOP OF IRON ROD EL • 309.4' N89'37'5I'E- - MATER TANK I ,oP a su• Na w;~ a 4K= 410.21' I II I a N DKI5TING &'-0'I I ~ CHAIN LINK FENCE -IE EL~bI I Q 4 ,cv a ss~ naRE I II I e r ~~.,Etd' bo II ' I i 1' I ~I d o Yr rja l RIM391.48' -P IE (5)-304D8'JB• PVC) II E. (IE)•38250'(8' PVC) II ••IE HE N.AS YLANIAL GATE TO f(Y OPENIOX 5E FL j OF WATER I p~rjCH INLET rpP a w FIP;: BOi. GRATE we Ilier ~ ECGE OF ~ 6 Ei•3B451' i, A5PW71T rp+a ]f NP . r 1 ~ wi..we' I j,pLl ~I;, mT E3bc 9D(:B IO;li fi IT I' I u RInti39036' °n"' B. PWC IE lFl•3B8.C6' (B' FNC) Uri; i; ''I.I IE•306.%' LONCF{EIE D II1i ii. B' PIPE EXIRIDED IE•308AB' C11F~ 'i.ii; ' STORAGE HUNS : y1, ~ 6 I i E gLTRA eL4CK WALLS i 360- 11 7 EL I ~ oa a It' Fia wt: Ib1 I ~L•E I Q u - anruq.E , s • / a FEe I- EL-111.1 ~ ' opal. a+ ' +rg ~ iw o]a Pla I , g~ u Tot ~ 1' i :~R'd 9'Fl•.N4Ta I fLP OF • I »r.a rTt yy I IP dda•eI~F i : ~ ~ 1 9' n ,d OF ]e' iIR a.50e.Y F 9 ]lY 6 . {k d Fd n bi ~sms ui''°sirlP i E of P PRORD5ED BOO WC RADIO I I; I FACILITY WITH 152 FT. TOWER E' I Q IO42 FT. PRE-FAt3RILATED L J EQUIPMENT BUILDING / 51LT FENCE J r+ 19-01 69 J' E%I5T1 6'9' CHAIN LINK FENCE GROVE AT 5OUTRIE5T CORNER OF 517E CONTAINS FIR TREE5 FRLAI 15' TO 24' IN DIAMETER SW MURDOCK STREET r------------ AF TE LOCATION OF I I LOCAATION OF THE I I JOHN TIGARD HOME I L ------------J 1 I I I I I I I i LU D Z LL Q 0 Cie M O r V/ SITE PLAN I` = 60'-0" • nm A i N6 22nd St I I N 1911f St I ;z m Na 16th St iW AX-- a 'D m T u~L~n~FE,n To~nannno~ VICINITY MAP COURTESY MAPOUEST.COM Iwo W W I! H Z W W r C O M lV 0 n dl: O Z Z Q n 6 m 0 O a a 2 v Q d v a 0 0 O PROJECT: WCCCA 9-1-1 800 MHz RADIO FACILITY 10310 Canterbury Lane Tigard, Oregon DRAWING: Site Plan DATEIREVISION: 22•AUG•03 . PROJECT NO: 2002.02 PRINT SCALE: 1/1 RANDY R. TOMIC 7'PO" AND, OREGON OF O 2 • • • • • FACILITY PLAN CG ' IL " W " P a ' U Z Q a W 6 ~ m W ° " / X- O 0 TOP OF 25" MAPLE - G Q EL=418.0 d HT: 81.2' i TOP OF 20" FIR ' EL =502.6' ' HT~ 111.5' TOP OF 20" FIR EL=511.0' HT: 119.2' TREES SHOWN ARE EXISTING. SEE Af; EsORIST'S REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION ON LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. TOP OF MAPLE TWIN 15" S 15" EL=485.11 HP 93.8' TOP OF 20' FIR EL=511.0' HT: 119.9' 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: WCCCA 9-1-1 800 MHz RADIO FACILITY 0 10310 Canterbury Ore on Ti ard g , g DRAWING: Facility Plan DATEIREVISION: 22-AUG-03 . 0 PROJECT NO: 2002-02 PRINT SCALE: 1/1 RANDY R. TOMIC r ( PO AND, OREGON OF OR 3 ~v,l I.JJN EXISTING 6'-O" ~OP~ OF MAPLE TWIN GRAIN LINK FENCE 15" EL=488.4' HT: 95.9' 77 . o • • • GREEN PAINT TO 100 FT. 0 N EQUIPMENT BUILDING TOWER ELEVATION I" = 201-0^ EQUIPMENT BUILDING ELEVATIONS (PRE-FABRICATED BUILDING) 1/4= 1'-0" 4 • • W~~ Tigard )une 2003 0 ~ n s 34, nydrant- ,trance to facility 30' wide. 1. E hydrant. - arlcin9 lot at summer north Safeway P IWORW 3. tool( Field. -2„ LOOKin9 Souu " • - entrance. 4. 1-00Kin9 we5". • • Tigard June 2003 wcr 1. I"urch parking lot. 6. Looking NW from 1203rd/Murciock. • '.7 -777 µ 103rd and Canterbury Lane. g, Lool(M gW from • -'e,ard Ilene 10. 1.001(ing 'a= 1 0 • • • Section Two: • Radio Coverage Maps • Water Quality Calculations • Arborist Report • Availability of Electrical Service Letter • Site Assessment Letter, CWS 9 Title Report a Washington County -70- - - - - ' _ i I I / I i i ' I. A 1-7- i d a T- A" s r+~_' 1N i. 7y Y 2 76 5 52 ml inch = 2 7-6 mikes 1 5040 c ~q T~v i ` l 70A AREA. PORTABLE SYS, cMVV1 E CUTjj+~+J ~0 CV~R +v" J Lx~ Projection Worid Mercator Center Point 45 3228 02N 122 40 3.1 44 tv 0 - - Wash+ngton County n • 610 t I ~ . ~7+a, ;~~d u tti ' .•i~c F~ a ~ ~,r ~ N ~ _ ~ 4 ~4 r d w , t °fa p ` 4 •v .fit:,/ ;r'k.' -:..'..,14:. # S - •,ey fir ~'i ~ 5 - f 1 ~c M SM,• ' ~3 Ot p •f:X ~ « Lt ' i}4 't o a ist F.5 . b ,i:=f t N Y fi N I ,i y a 1M1 a 3 q~ fi T rr l rF •Y r ~y, ~ u ! r ry ! tt 0. 0:' ~'t} • Q , ~L7.. .(1l~ `4"i~-e rf• r-S'r ,j,::U ~ .I YSS' _ 'v r 4 I : V 754 ov 0 • T NiW1DE OUTBOUND OVE lA - TABLE S 5 E 97%, AREA POR ~ _ t~ ~r~ ec•,ion 1Nc^e Mercator 02 N 5 2 lies Washington Coun b ~•~S ti '~~.~'s ee *rz-~ati x:. ~ R a ~ b :I. r - i ` ~ - _ C4 4~r s.; t :l W"kl. 6p 9 v 16 •6 x;, zee r ,~1` 4 Y, ~ p ~ x P b, Li- P, o` jtn •$.~~.3 1.~ Y.} 7 'K, L L I° C11•-YL o U 1 Ilk 0, 14, wl~ -4141 • ~ 1~^. d y~y~'~ 9:rC V(~. ~t . ~`H1,j k ~ ji' 'Fy/S T' ' r '~3 ~f~rLNrt..r4'~~ _t 1t~ yyt,- ~Y,,~ 'T 5 ' y r` FK i• ,~4 R,y91 t i 7 ~~'74., j Lb ~.~f ~ ~ - r1 't`i ~U t tT. iY .1 F -.F•. - S /Jl g i O s kw5 tw ? a: n, o fiJ., 4 y f yp i s-. jyYS'jt~ , r t , b 'n t OFB Y Ifni` a' p oo ~k:xF. ~t^ 6 "-I 97"x, AREA PORTABLE SYSTEMWIDE OUTBOUND OVERLAY •oreCacn Worc Mefcaic~ • c 5 nr .enter Pont :1= 10 59 t'4 inc,-, = [ 79 -isles !fy 0 o d ~ b s ~ + o a • . G a c ,~'Qnter pp;r,; . 7 • • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS) ABOUT THE SAFETY OF RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) AND MICROWAVE EMISSIONS FROM TRANSMITTERS AND FACILITIES REGULATED BY THE FCC For further information on these (and other) topics please refer to OET Bulletin 56. You may also contact the FCC's RF Safety Program at rfsafety@fcc.gov or 202418-2464 WHAT IS "RADIOFREQUENCY" AND MICROWAVE RADIATION? Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light. Taken together, all forms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum." Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation. Often the term "electromagnetic field" or "radiofrequency field" may be used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy. The RF waves emanating from an antenna are generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength is the distance covered by one complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second. The frequency of an RF signal is usually expressed in terms of a unit called the "hertz" (abbreviated "Hz"). One Hz equals one cycle per second. One megahertz ("MHz") equals one million cycles per second. Different forms of electromagnetic energy are categorized by their wavelengths and frequencies. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as that part of the spectrum where electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kilohertz (3 kHz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz). Microwaves are a specific category of radio waves that can be defined as radiofrequency energy where frequencies range from several hundred MHz to several GHz. HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION MEASURED? An RF electromagnetic wave or RF "field" has both an electric and a magnetic component (electric field and magnetic field), and it is often convenient to express the intensity of the RF environment at a given location in terms of units specific for each component. For example, the unit "volts per meter" (V/m) is used to measure the strength of the electric field (electric "field strength"), and the unit "amperes per meter" (A/m) is used to express the strength of the magnetic field (magnetic "field strength"). Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "power density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from an antenna to be located in what is commonly referred to as the "far-field" zone of the antenna. Power density is defined as power per unit area. For example, power density can be expressed in terms of milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) or microwatts per square centimeter (W/cm2). One mW equals 0.001 watt of power, and one W equals 0.000001 watt. With respect to frequencies in the microwave range and higher, power density is usually used to express intensity. The quantity used to measure how much RF energy is actually absorbed in a body is called the "Specific Absorption Rate" or "SAR." It is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g). In the case of exposure of the whole body, a standing human adult can absorb RF energy at a maximum rate when the frequency of the RF radiation is in the range of about 80 and 100 MHz. This means that the "whole-body" SAR is at a maximum under these conditions. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon, RF safety standards are generally Page 1 • i • most restrictive for these frequencies. For exposure of parts of the body, such as the exposure from hand-held mobile phones, SAR is also used to measure absorption or RF energy (see later questions on mobile phones). WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY? Biological effects can result from animal or human exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects have sometimes been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. Several years ago research reports began appearing in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of low-level biological effects. However, in many cases further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health: WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY? Exposure standards for radiofrequency energy have been developed by various organizations and countries. These • standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the FCC has adopted and used recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental exposure since 1985. Federal health and safety agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have also been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate appropriate margins of safety. In adopting the most recent RF exposure guidelines, the FCC consulted with the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH, and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is now using. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Committee on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends somewhat different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure due to such devices as hand-held cellular telephones. One of the goals of the WHO EMF Project (see above) is to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF safety standards. The NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP exposure guidelines identify the same threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, and the values for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) recommended for electric and magnetic field strength and power density in both documents are based on this threshold level. The threshold level is a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for the whole body of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg). In addition, the NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines are different for different transmitting frequencies. This is due to the findings (discussed above) that whole-body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body • absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the whole body is exposed. For devices that only expose part of the body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified (see below). Page 2 • .r • The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at this Web site (OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65), see listing for "OET Safety Bulletins." ARE CELLULAR AND PCS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SAFE? Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. A cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are becoming less common in urban areas. In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers now more commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in dimension, typically mounted on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to mobile units (car phones or hand-held phones), and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from mobile units. At a given cell or PCS site, the total RF power that could be transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter. Typically, for a cellular base station, a maximum of 21 channels per sector (depending on the system) could be used. Thus, for a typical cell site utilizing sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters per site. When omni-directional antennas are used, up to 96 transmitters could be implemented at a cell site, but this would be very unusual. Furthermore, while a typical base • station could have as many as 63 transmitters, not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate simultaneously thus reducing overall emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations, fewer transmitters are normally required due to the relatively greater number of base stations. The signals from a cellular or PCS base station antenna are essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. The radiation pattern for an omni- directional antenna might be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake centered around the antenna while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than exposures that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower- mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. In fact, in order to be exposed to levels at or near the FCC limits for cellular or PCS frequencies an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at the height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these guidelines due to cellular or PCS base station transmitters. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that ambient RF levels could be greater than those typically encountered on the ground. However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to or directly in front of the antennas. For sector- type antennas RF levels to the side and in back of these antennas are insignificant. ARE CELLULAR AND OTHER RADIO TOWERS LOCATED NEAR HOMES OR SCHOOLS SAFE FOR RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS? As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for wireless transmissions such as cellular and • PCS signals result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times less than safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed Page 3 • by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students. Other antennas, such as those used for radio and television broadcast transmissions, use power levels that are generally higher than those used for cellular and PCS antennas. Therefore, in some cases there could be a potential for higher levels of exposure on the ground. However, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate compliance with FCC safety guidelines, and ambient exposures to nearby persons from such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits. HOW SAFE ARE RADIO ANTENNAS USED FOR PAGING AND "TWO- WAY" COMMUNICATIONS? WHAT ABOUT "PUSH-TO-TALK" RADIOS SUCH AS "WALKIE-TALKIES?" "Land-mobile" communications include a variety of communications systems which require the use of portable and mobile RF transmitting sources. These systems operate in narrow frequency bands between about 30 and 1000 MHz. Radio systems used by the police and fire departments, radio paging services and business radio are a few examples of these communications systems. They have the advantage of providing communications links between various fixed and mobile locations. There are essentially three types of RF transmitters associated with land-mobile systems: base-station transmitters, vehicle-mounted transmitters, and hand-held transmitters. The antennas used for these various transmitters are adapted for their specific purpose. For example, a base-station antenna must radiate its signal to a relatively large area, and, therefore, its transmitter generally has to use higher power levels than a vehicle-mounted or hand-held radio transmitter. Although these base-station antennas usually operate with higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, they are normally inaccessible to the public since they must be mounted at significant heights above ground to provide for adequate signal coverage. Also, many of these antennas transmit only intermittently. For these reasons, such base-station antennas have generally not been of concern with regard to possible hazardous exposure of the public to RF radiation. Studies at rooftop locations have indicated that high-powered paging • antennas may increase the potential for exposure to workers or others with access to such sites, e.g., maintenance personnel. This could be a concern especially when multiple transmitters are present. In such cases, restriction of access or other corrective actions may be necessary. Transmitting power levels for vehicle-mounted land-mobile antennas are generally less than those used by base- station antennas but higher than those used for hand-held units. Some manufacturers recommend that users and other nearby individuals maintain a minimum distance (e.g., 1 to 2 feet) from a vehicle-mounted antenna during transmission or mount the antenna in such a way as to provide maximum shielding for vehicle occupants. Studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution, particularly when the percentage of time an antenna is actually radiating is considered. Unlike cellular telephones, which transmit continuously throughout a call, two-way radios normally transmit only when the "press-to-talk" button is depressed. This significantly reduces exposure, and there is no evidence that there would be a safety hazard associated with exposure from vehicle-mounted, two-way antennas when the manufacturer's recommendations are followed. Hand-held "two-way" portable radios such as walkie-talkies are low-powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used, the intermittency of these transmissions ("push-to-talk"), and due to the fact that these radios are held away from the head, they should not expose users to RF energy in excess of safe limits. Therefore, the FCC does not require routine documentation of compliance with safety limits for push-to-talk two-way radios as it does for cellular and PCS phones (which transmit contirlpously during use and which are held against the head). is Page 4 • Dec 05 03 01:00p Sisul Engineering 5036575779 • 0 WCCCA 9-1-I 80OMHz RADIO FACILITY December 5, 2003 • WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS SISUL ENGINEERING A Division of Simi Enterprises, Inc 375 Portland Ave. Gladstone, OR 97027 phone: (503) 657-0188 fax: (503) 657-5779 P.3 0 Dec 05 03 01:00p 0 SUMMARY: • Sisul Engineering 0 5036575779 • The total site area affected by this project is 1,500 square feet. Upon completion of construction, 324 square feet of that area will be impervious surface, and the remaining 1,176 square feet will be a gravel pad. As a conservative measure, the entire 1,500 square feet will be assumed to be impervious. The entire 1,500 square foot site will be graded to drain to a ditch at the east edge of the gravel pad. This ditch will flow to a Stormwater Management Stormfilter Catchbasin unit, and then to the existing stormwater pond at the east edge of the property. WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: This storm system uses a single cartridge Stormwater Management Stormfilter Catchbasin unit to satisfy the water quality requirements. Water quality flow: The water quality flow was calculated by taking 0.36 inches of precipitation over 100116 of the new impervious area. 0.36(in)xArea (sf ) Water Quality Flow(cfs) _ 12 (in/ ft)(4hr)60(min/hr)60(sec/min) Water Quality Flow(cfs) = 0.36(in)xl, 500(sf) = 0.003 cfs 12 (in/ ft)(4hr)60(min/hr)60(secl min) A single cartridge Stormfilter Catchbasin can treat up to 0.034 cfs of flow, so this unit is more than enough to treat the runoff from this site. p.4 0 Dec 05 03 01:00p • • 0 A L 5036575779 0 P.5 DIMENSIONS OF A STANDARD SINGLE CARTRIDGE UNIT Sisul Engineering 0 B STORMFILTER OUTLET CARTRIDGE 7 . . O0e '00000000 O 0 *0000000 0 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6' 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 A L.0. B V\-TRAFFIC BEARING COVER TRAFFIC BEARING GRATE CATCH BASIN STORMFILTER - PLAN SCALE: N.T.S. v.e. rwrnrr xe. s,en,sao. xo. Oea•,ate. wxD ONHBA VA AND;0l=GN PAM" 34=MD ~2'-s 112' FILTER CHAMBER Q INLET 7 - 2 314' -J T I BAFFLE ~I OVERFLOW l BYPASS WEIR CORROSION RISISTANT ' 1'- 6' INLET CHAMBER FILTER CHAMBER COATING, FILTER EXTERIOR OUTLET 2'-4 3/4' 2' 81NTERIOR CATCH BASIN STORMFILTER - SECTION A - A SECTION R - B SCALE: N.T.S. SCALE: N.T.S. 4'- 10 1/2' OVERFLOW . BYPASS WEIR 10 GA. STL. 3'-8 3(4' (TYP) SIDES S BOTTOM i N Q in 1 • In CD m O In c d a C C W N 1n Q O O O m O U7 O U Q1 A SDMH / RIM-391.48' GRAVEL I E (S)-384 08'4" PVC / . . . I.E. (NE)-382.58' (8" PVC) M.E. NE HAS.MANUAL GATE TO ' OPEN/CLOSE FLOW OF WATER ; < DITCH INLET < EDGE OF~~ BOT. GRATE. ASPHALT O Ei ' ' I J 8' PVC I 12' PVC , i I.E.=384.19' I I f i 1I.E.-386.47' ~ , : I III 1 I ` ! ~~~ji' , GRAPHIC SCALE ' I 0 10 20 I 40 1 1 \ 1 0 PVC i I I ~ I I i i r l l SDCB ' I.E.=386.96' `i I h FEET ) If ~ RIM~390.36' J I I I j ~ ! ( I.E (E)-388.08' (8' jVC) I I 8" CONC. PIPE LE -388 08' I . 20 1 n !L I I f I ''I . . 1 I i I i ) i t EX. PON4 I I' I CONCRETE I I 1` 1 EXTRUDED 1 CURB III!I' i I !O UTILITY TRENCH FOR I 1 i 1 POWER do LEPHONE I: 11 j ` I I` Ia ' EXISTIN ONCREt. U A BLOCK I S 389' 4 4" PVCO j I.E.=387 0 NEW 5 FT. ALL ARBOR VIT E r ° I ' ; ,Ry OWE , 4,, PVC Ld40.Y s X0546 1 ra ' STORMWATER MAnNAGEMENT / 3' x x 6• PARKING Jai wZ STORMFILTER CATCHBASIN 0 CON1. PAD RIM 391.50 v ~v BUILDING ? 4" IE 389.E -i 1' DEEP DITCH ACROSS, ' 9 ND OF GRAVEL PAD r. i,' 0 DIRECT; DRAINAGE I I NEW 5' 0' TO CB. i CHAIN TNK FENCE E f 41r ? ri' ' PAD TO BE GRADED TO ' r DRAIN TO DITCH AT O PROPOSED 800 MHz RADIO UTILITY EAST EDGE' I FACILITY!WITH 152 FT. TOWER TRANSF.£ SILT FENCE do 10x20 FT. PRE-FABRICATED EQUIPMENT BUILDING STORM DRAIN PLAN EXISTING 6'-0• . - 0 r~ CHAIN LINK FENCE / u i T o' I ~ NML Qm c UV t ODC • •.-y..... , vvv ,u. c.rive var,u wncr tw.q o:uc-u,w IAMB 1. NUTER, gensaldne Arborist wegistered Consnldng Araerlst # 408 Certified Arborist 4 PN-1068A CCB 8 119845 3406 NW Tluddwr Road Forest Grove, Oregon 97116-7507 Phone 503-357-4344 Fax 503-992-0169 Email ddhunterarborist@aol.oom August 13, 2003 • Randy Tomic, Architect RE: Greenstreet Architecture LLC PO Box 82125 Portland, Oregon 97282 503-231-8737 503-235-5875 fax Dear Randy Tomic, WCCCA 911 8o0 MHz RADIO FACILITY 10310 SW Canterbury Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 Good to walk your project and discuss your arborist needs for this project with you today. Looking at your site plan for the tower and the building, I only saw one conflict with a Douglas fir tree, but as you discussed, the building can be shifted over 15' which will more than clear the Douglas fir tree drip line. Other than some smaller planted trees, there is minimal conflicts with trees for the site. I do have recommendations for adjacent trees which will have concerns when the tower is constructed, due to their poor condition and location. When I walked the site, I flagged the smaller trees with white flagging with blue dots, that are inside the arcs of the construction activity zone. These trees, Western red cedar and a sumac, could be moved and used as screening placement to the south of the construction area. As for planting requirements for the Landscaping and screening requirements, the area to the east has an adjacent City of Tigard park These trees are tall and evergreen and meet the requirement 7b. There is also similar large trees to the west, also on City of Tigard property and they meet and exceed 7b. The area to the north is the City of Tigard water tower, large parldng area, and across the street is non-residential uses. There are no proper areas to plant tress or shrubs even 250' away. The area to the south has space to plant three to five trees as per 7b, but several of the moved trees could be used for this requirement. The south side of the project area also has the greatest arboricultttral concern for me. On this south side of the project, l have flagged with red ribbon, trees of great concern to me due to safety of people and property. If your building and tower is placed as planned, they will be "targets" of these concern trees. Also of great concern for me is the area is also used as a hiking trial for access to the park. This is immediate hazard issue that the City of Tigard should address immediately since people and their property are "targets" of these dead and dying trees. Exhibit 1 is a rough placement of the hazard trees I found, and brief field notes. 1 recommend immedWe removal oftlre dead mgp a tree and Aaacrnt dead Douglas jrr The other dead fir trees and maple with the red ribbon, should also be removed as soon as possible Questions about tree preservation plans for this site, if there is a need for a tree invento,-y, or g€ne;,,; questions about this arborist letter / report, please give my office a call. Sincerely, i David D. Hunter • DDIV03-177 WCCCA 911 RADIO Facility Project weanesaay, August ia, tuua iu./-a rm udvwu nurncl kaua) utm-u Iva David D -Hunter Registered Consulting Arborist# 408 2 Project Name: WCCCA 911 RADIO FACILITY August 13, 2003 10310 SW Canterbury Lane Tigard, Oregon major portions of a root system. Any grade changes proposed should be approved by an ISA Certified Arborist or a registered member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists before construction begins, and precautions taken to mitigate potential injuries to trees attempting to preserve. 6. Damages: Any damages or injuries should be reported to the project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. 7. Preventative Measures: Before construction begins, fertilization of the affected trees is recommended to improve tree vigor and health. Soil analysis testing should be completed to assure fertilization with the appropriate fertilizer products. Pruning of the tree canopies and branches should be done at the direction of the project arborist to remove any dead or broken branches, and to provide the necessary clearance for the construction equipment. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership's to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible.; however, the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5. Loss or alternation of any of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser--particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any installed designation, conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualification. • DDIV03-177 0 • 0 July 23, 2003 Randy Tomic Greenstreet LLC rt@greenstreetllc.com Availability of Electric Service This will verify that electric service is available and of sufficient capacity by Portland General Electric Company for the proposed new commercial project (Washington County 911 tower) located • at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane, Tigard Oregon This electric service is available under PGE's filed tariff, contact a PGE representative for available voltages. The cost or obligation to the developer for the installation of this electric service are also covered under PGE's filed tariff. All tariffs, including those that govern installation cost and monthly charges, are filed with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. These tariffs, when approved by the Public Utility Commission, are subject to change without notice. If you have any questions, please call me at 503-570-4406. Sincerely, Brian Moore Supervisor Service Design & Construction Wilsonville Line Center UV/U0/u4 14:10 PAA OU4040i.7 C]eanWaher Serv Our commitment is clear. Jurisdiction 6 1'TY D Map & Tax Lot - - Site Address tosia L1.KAlV WA77SK 51MVlcrsS • tgoaz 1 ~ lJ 15 l! U ~ FleNumber 3yo M SEP U A" Owner Pre-Screening Site Assessment t ~qp. p _ nA, contact Proposed Activity III jSdV10 7V PJ Address FOAL W.G.G.GA_ 411 Phone 9.3.0, !em oP T/A RANVY TOM1G f.0. Sox Azar Pd&n- go 7282 53.23 i .6-117 Offal use only below this fine Y N NA Y N NA ❑ ❑ Map # Sensitive 15 f Corpposite A Map ❑ ❑ Stormwatgr cture maps QS# Locally adopted studies or maps Other ❑ ❑ ❑ Specify ❑ ❑ ❑ Specify Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 03-11: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT • MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. N Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas S they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: Reviewed By: Date: Returned to Applicant Mail x F Counter_ Date D Bye UT • 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: (503) 846-8621 9 Fax: (503) 846-3525 0 . VVW.deanM1CMeMW, nre Sent.by: CHICAGO TITLE 5036537853; 11/11/03 11:31AM;)21EA #835; Page 1/5 .n. oil I-~1 n Chl*ca 9 o Prepared for GREENSTREET ARCHITECTURE CHRISTY Prepared by: CANDY 11/11/2003 'y Fax: 235-5975 Re: 10310 SW CANTERBURY 1~. IFS Title Property Profile 'I Date l; la l=. I< i 'I l s, Profile prepared by Chicago Title Insurance _i 10001 S.E. Sunnyside Road Clackamas, OR 97015 Customer Service:•(503) 786-3940 Main Office: (503) 653-7300 i Early Bird: (503) 786-3940 i. ai Fax: (503) 653-7833 u~ Prepared Company This title information has been furnished. without charge, in conformance with tho ouldeilnea appro cci by the Stati, of arogon lnburarrce i i mrmnianivnot. Troy Information is limited to reWrd, provided by The Assessment 8 Taxation Deparlmen% of Multnomah, Clackamas and ~ Washington Cauntles. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this servleo is designed to bonoiit the 6ltirhpt0 inliurf3d8 inaiscnminato use only 17611ififiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discon/lnued. No liability is aaeumed for any errors in this report. F Sent;by:'CHICAGO TITLE 5036537853; 11/11/03 11 :32AM;JmffjuL-#835; Page 2/5 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10001 SE Sunnyside Road • Clackamas, OR 97015 ® Phone (503) 786-3940 Fax (503) 653-7833 =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) Reference Parcel # Parcel Number Owner CoOwner Site Address Mail Address Telephone • Transferred Document # Sale Price Deed Type % Owned Market Land Market Structure Market Other Market Total 02-03 Taxes Assessed Total Map Grid Census IVbrhdCd SublP/at Land Use Legal OWNERSHIP POORMATION 2SIIIBC 02600 80502423 RTSQ: 01W -02S -11 -NW Tigard Water District 10310 SW Canterbury Ln Tigard 97224 8777 SW Surnham.St Tigard Or 97223 Otswr: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION. Loan Amount :2760659 Lender Loan Type Interest Rate Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Exempt Amount Exempt Type Exempt %lmproved Levy Code :02374 Millage Rate :16.6576 School Dist : Tigard PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 655 D6 Class Code Tract: 308.01 Block:3 : 4TIG MillRate 7lgardville Heights 9252 Misc,Watcr District : TIGAIWVILLE HEIGHTS, LOT 6-71 PT :5, ACRES 5.05, NON-ASSESSABLE PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS • Bedrooms Lot Acres : 5.05 Year Built Bathrooms : Lot SgFt : 219,978 FffYear BIt Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover ; Pool BsmVnfenSF: Foundation : Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFi Roof Mad Mood Fan Intplrsgr'1 InlertorAdw 'c Deck UpperFISF Paving Mail Garage Type: Porch SgFt Const Type : Garage SF Aitic SgFI Fxt Fin+sh Deck SgFt The lnforwation Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guanaweed. Sent by: CHICAGO TITLE 5036537853; 11/11/03 11:32AM;j~tEsx #835; Page 3/5 7s dy I _ wo eoo Tao I I'r A2 At 17 r~~ Il cJ1 1600 9 / 1.. 3021 b--i„~ In. 114 AC R + • " SW INEZ f'1 • 47f0,Q O 2100 I I^ ` I CC 1900 + 20 MAC lL1,d BB AC loam% SW Q X462 0 CANTE I AWE ---~--2 74 1k 7 - - t►..---~ •000 N.N' Y1M .''.,,...~p 1 2700 6 aYAt- a 2809 n 19° iBi r' I k c 2302 Cr is 94 At 21 3 C13 M AC i 6+% 3! 4600 - - 46200 auee~r:- f1 1 23 J l J 1607 1; III U) 1600 240 44 AC j 7 1 .73 Ac 47 AC ~ MtipWW :'.sa+ Cum. ,a. . ' ' ' r''~ aalae • LIJ AC p'4 :frog ! •aeiiiq' '3' ~~.n 0 N W *E S CHICAGO TITLE • This plat is for your aid in locating your land with reference to streets and other parcels. While this plat is believed to be correct, the company assumes no liability for any loss occurring by reason of reliance thereon. Map No. 2S1110C 02600 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10007 S.E. SUNNYBIDE ROAD CLACKAMAS, OREGON 97015 Sent by: CHICAGO TITLE i Pt . 5036537053; 11/11/03 )ea&A #835;Hage 4/5 C•_ • Y ..e: '.R:'yrr~:~i\'•,'.~',,)~;.saS >i+ .•,,,~:,:`~6:~-.• ~.'.::~.~iii:,.~,%r•%•^~ ' `p w,~„~' :"p ~1.~d..>~ a'J.r.. : :;°':%j.:! 'q.:; i~ • YAO~ eta 4 , .~f~ .a),, ,.TIDeta~eeoo\•.~YV 'Yr~r` Y.. _ 7°E•7d..vj.-v-.:r. .rli::~: 1'Ct): r\.: \\Y V•fi -1'.is •L.~~~ °IL'°v~~:.~i~~,'~R~nA;M:¢f;ovJ, }t&S•A.::< ~i"DS%by;i.•;~;:a't':~.:i ~ ' •p'•;:-'-~ Big 60 a~• R~b.s®~:•~~::~ mg :~~SD •'%agA cri@4i oR~"•.. omwww' ems: • ::o 'dg~i•~D- ,•K3D B P~ -bb.Ctt. ~.VTC7AN~dy Q~16P~20 - ~ ~o ice:: gS~s: :®p'~& So•. es45€~& t ~g~a'e~Reg': erI Q.t. • ~E3 ;cam f$~'~~'~ ~ r~@~ caR~i9~O ~~~C~r~ Oa ~3[E~p.'•Q.AOaeO• ' a • o, - • • ilad ~i' D' Y~I .L: _ '.•r. - °'°Y"'?...r..r-mow - •c5. 8 : • ' ~ €~_i.'a1~_ a `~9 l• lD'. ~ 1.. FEW' .s .,~.s1;V.. rri aI: : a+ . ~ "•"~,*3~~,~::~ 4 „e~;~ 'ice : fv1 ~,r, ` is 5 . l.. .S 'v'im ,'~iP.PG+~.ti2,7ti-• 1';'"IT°'e~,!~S'>_f .~~!~®~nc %~i5;~! j,• Iy~~f~ :•4VT.5'i~~^-v:,e<~:~.11:wi ~i: Sent,by: CHICAGO 111Lt JIM - Y ; ff y e ~ o . r, Too n AL al ,p V ' - .A' ' vv~ i 6` .ice. - o:a v' I'~l'R\••b a/ .t N o• s D.~ a L • fir', '~•'`w„:,i~'v, bU3bb3 /8b3; 9'= v y"'~' is jam,.-~.,_: r F ►i'f/'~~3[~•Ot+ i Lil 11/11/U3 11:33AM;J N83b;Hage b/b I • yr ~n T D. r• t- : r a rr' L'.. :x:• 'r: IV- ce :5.' `a 67,^7~r- .~.iC•`•~^~ G'>>~1 • o~~~~..~:.e ~~~~j. D?. •y.' e: a ,.;r' ~ , 66~ r 9 R y xr l ro e 6 Qe~7dt t•a:Te3't t W r q::_~+eJY.~.``_ •'r,: $:'r , ~a:; rJ:~ ~ t•r f:,• ~rz .i: •;4fl . r.Y• A"I y."';d~.~d+:.,.~a i'°ro~fa'•~'a •`~•/{':.~d.i..Id}\--~r'•,~:rrt~... •t, t: pr.try . ~ s ,r,Y .4~~ {sue ~~,Y''~, +a aVup b Y u - • 0 • r Section Three: • Pre-application Notes • Affidavit of Mailing/Posting 9 Adjacent Cell Tower Data • • NON-RESIDENTIAL a;W. Mc ow S11 S/o3 SWNfiE-1 R APPLICANT: Rcuti a f" I (I AGENT: Phone: ZS I 8 3 Phone: PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: TAX W(WLOT #(S): NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZS it 1 ,Ig& 02600 152 f-44JI 9-1-1 ?i2mgrr,Lu !C-QM n0"1(a4-ion h2.j&r pLt/~SI'►~/ ~O~tt~✓1Pft1 ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: `R- S C~~51bn~~s~Y1c,~ DA.44 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: S~v T~ ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS tRefer to Code Section 18.51 MINIMUM LOT SIZE:1DC00 sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 6-5 ft. Max. building height: 30 ft. Setbacks Front ZO ft. Side ft. Rear /5 ft. Comer Za ft.'from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Beier to the Neighborhood Meeting HandouO THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 8 NOWT E ide U AppSmoonPW"ng Division Section • 0 NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review -the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY Meier to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18705 and 181651 &w,s tnk sk_ -Dri ve,f yk ww wt Jay ,VUL'., 5c. i o~ w/,„ 15' Minimum number. of accesses: Minimum access width: r~ ~u Minimum pavement width: 2u' All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18305.0301 WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and • industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. ❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. ❑ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.010BJ BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: ➢ A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ➢ • All actual building setbacks will be at least half of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. (r BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal • plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON4%esidwU AppScatioruR nreng oivisioa section The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. • feet along south boundary. feet along"west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING-IS REQUIRED ALONG: Q LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public -right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. ❑ RECYCLING (Beier to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a dear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny. Hing is the ,contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18365.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use:, • Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x-16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included *as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: ➢ All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ➢ BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18365.0801 Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NDN-ResWwW AppGcaGailPWriW Division Secbon • • ❑ RICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL • DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ❑ SENSITIVE tANBS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the Are- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely hiPntifv sensitive land areas. and their boundaries. is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715.080.01 When STEEP SLOPES ' exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.0. Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds 25 feet <25% 50 feet • Streams with intermittent flow draining: > 25% 0 10 to <50 acres 30 feet 0 > 50 to < 100 acres 50 feet Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring Ajftundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 t within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement SVegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 'The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Apprication Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 wmN esidenfial Appkafim PonriN Division Se6m • • Restrictions in the V etate Corridor. NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract • from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of V etated Corridor. IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter. PR40R TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required- E] SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE'OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.190.030.0 A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: Identification of the location,' size and species of all existing trees including trees designated • as significant by the City; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.13 according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping; streets and parking lots: # Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; # Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; 0 Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; # Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. MITIGATION (Refer to Code Section 18790.060JO i F ciAy 47,.tz& c4,r~ 4 6, 1"e*wvee . REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: • ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NONAmWedal AW5m6wfflWnr&g D vWm sedw If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: • f The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed .or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, .private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. ❑ CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 183951 The Ci requires that CLEAR 'VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN- THREE (3) AND EIGHT 8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required dear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the dear vision area. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15' feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. • The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'12 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1 % times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHUMS 18.330 (Condi<ianal use) 18.340 (D"aecbfs tntenpneta6on) 18:350 (Planned oevdwmenQ 18.360 (sae Devebpawt Review) 18.370 (vwunceslAdjustments) 18.380 (zoning Maprrext Amendments) 18.385 (tY waaneous Pem&) 18.390 (Decision Making Psooedures ,d Study) _ 18.410 (t. une aatusunents) 18.420 panel Pamms) 18.430 (subdivisions) 18.510 (Residential zoning Districts) 18.520 (core nenaal Zoning Districts) _ 18.530 (WusbW zoning Districts) 18.620 (Tigard Triavie Design standards) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) " 18.705 (AomssEgmsslCaarl m) 18.710 (Accessory Rgwenu units) . 18.715 pen* cornputatims) 18.720 (Design CompaUty standards) 18.725 (Enmorunental Pertormanoe standards) 18.730 (Exceptions ToDevebprnentstandards) 18.740 (Kook overtay) 18.742 piome ocarpason Pwnb) 18.745 (Landscaping & saeenang standards) 18.750 putanuboxw Vbbd Home Reguiations) 18.755 (Muted sow wastelRegcwv storage) 18.760 (Nonoonfwring situations) x 18.765 (ofsaeet ParkinylLoa(bv Requnernents) 18.775 (sensaive Lands Review) - 18.780 (signs) 18.785 (Temporary use Permits) 18.790 (tree Rernav ) _ 18.795 (voni clearance Areas) L 18.798 (wniess comnu iimflon Facues) 18.810 (street & U ft tavroverrnent Standards) • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Apprication Conference Notes NONR.es"bal Awkgonftn ring Division Section Page 6 of 8 0 AOOMONAL CONCERNS 08 COMMENTS. -fit C • vn L1,,(4 (4k!: &4 WWI 1 l~ n Gtt~~,S~1 '~'D ~ Sda.~c~s o !Q•~~8- c96D • 3.3 4,1- ltieu.ui PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. held by the City Council. with the Commission making a An additional public hearing shall be APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NON4ResidwW Appka5oan mi M Di mw Sedon U.AA Gl~~le,~;[or,~~~„,u avi~, C~rEkr~u (18.-19N-Db~1.~~G•) The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. • 0 The administrative decision or public hearing will pically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the~_Ianning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period foliovys all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard G I Na~oyn c'e 1 A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process i available from the. Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the pnmary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR 'BUILDING -AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes 'do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or - modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first buildin permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY E DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). cover all uoae requlremenl of Your site plan. Failure I It is recommended mat a prospective applicant eltner obtain and read tie uommuntry uevelopment Uode orII ! ask anv auestions of City staff relative to Code requirements L)dor to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL' BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: I "t0"rw 1 ~~~M, /~sSoua~ 0TY Of TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAff PERSON HOtDING'PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 6394171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL- (scabs w aamel@d6gard_orus TITLE 18 py of TIGARD'S (OMMUNRT DEVELOPMENT (ODE) INTERNET ADDRESS- tlHWWAAgard.or us 6ffMastersIPre-App Notes Commeraal.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 neering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGMD Pre-Apprication Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NONAesidenW AW=AaJPWming DvWw Section uoizoizuU4 10:90 rAA 0viovoluou UTY UY 1,16AxU L00U3/U05 • MAILING: 1, M14PY 7 OM 16 _,being duly sworn, depose and say that on the Z9 day of AU4 V5'r , 20j22L I caused to have mailed to each of the arsons on the attach list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 10 3 l D 'AP4 T t: SU PY L. A14 a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at SELL WOOft~ with postage prepaid thereon. Signature n the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I. FLRwDH $41 G do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed' MMIINIG/J)MJ F"IL--I '1 affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) current) registered) /0 31 D &A"T61PA RY LAN F and did on the day of %TuitlE 200 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed fora 60N17I T I 0 USE- application, and the tune. date and place of a neighborhood meeting to • discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at Tit ' F NN1 t4wr6 w4 4 THE N 0 I-TH P-9y r!P_W L, I N E (state location you posted notice on property) aot Signature (I the presence of a Notary. Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARVE) STATE OF d If r W-3 am ) County of Wesht•~s{ de.) 55. Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the day of _ &-,S+ 20. OFFICIAL SEAL Kph L NOGUCHI NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMItiIBION NO. A358251 L(OUT OOIYbE>RE3;IULY 7.2000 NOTARY PUBLIC OF ORE Applicant, please complete-the information below: • NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DI TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject P Subject Property Tax Map(s) and lot #(s) 200 AFFIDAVIT .OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE GREENSTREET • June 5, 2003 RE: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATION AGENCY Dear Interested Party: Greenstreet Architecture LLC, representing Washington County 9-1-1, Tigard Police, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and the balance of the public safety providers in the County is proposing anew communications facility on the property located at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane. This property is owned by the City of Tigard and is presently being used by the Tigard Water District. The proposed facility is considered to be a conditional use per Tigard Zoning Ordinance. This facility would be used exclusively for emergency communications. The 30 x 40 ft. fenced enclosure would be located adjacent to a grove of mature fir trees • approximately 250 ft. south of Canterbury Lane. The project as proposed includes a 150 ft. monopole tower, a 10 x 20 ft. equipment building and miscellaneous support equipment. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: June 26, 2003 CALVIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 10445 Canterbury Lane 7:00 PM Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503.231.8737 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Randy R. Tomic Architect • Greenstreet Architecture, LLC P.O. BOX 82125 PORTLAND, OR 97282 • T: 503 231 8737 9 F: 503 235 5875 .win(lw~nnwe~rne~Il< ~ww+ Meeting Date Time Location Z~~ Zook 7:00 FM o4m45 ~ ~~lrEl". 7y ~ ~ ol~zso.J PROPOSED PROJECT: FMW46-0" "rAM0NIG-4r,,v VS F.4G1tirj,&j jA~ej VD1r44; Fer4GCp Go ^t Po vNP 150' Mo Nopo44F 1 D `x ZO' coM M.vNI e.A-ri oNS CHIM.17m *No Ml Sc . S vPPblzr &,v vt P - T, (SIGNS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PU*IASE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (IONTER AT THE PRICE OF $2.00 EACH.) MINUTES OF THE CANTERBURY LAND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING • June 26, 2003 Communications Tower Proposal City of Tigard Water Facility Date: June 26, 2003, 7:00 p.m. Location: Calvin Presbyterian Church Tigard, Oregon Purpose of the Meeting: • Provide information on the proposed public safety radio tower and communications building to be located at the City of Tigard water facility located on Canterbury Lane. • Provide an overview of the project and respond to questions that the attendees may have. Introductions: Randy Tomic, Project Architect, called the meeting to order and restated the above purpose. He also presented the information as required by the Planning Department. He introduced John Hartsock, Project Manager Critical Need For Radio System Improvements: John Hartsock presented an overview of the current public safety radio system serving the City of • Tigard. His presentation included the following information. • The current public safety radio system serving the City, was installed 9 years ago a part of a public safety levy to improve public safety communications Countywide. • The current system does not provide complete coverage for the City of Tigard especially along highway 217. • Dead spots - the dispatch center cannot always be contacted by an officer needing information or backup because of "dead" spots in the radio coverage. Many radio messages are poor quality or unintelligible due to poor coverage. Some significant areas include Washington Square, and Bonita Apartments, as well as other areas. • To Fire, EMS and Law Enforcement this means reducing the ability to serve the citizens of the City and putting the citizens and officers at risk. • To address these issues the Police and Fire/EMS users of the system requested system enhancements to resolve these coverage problems. That solution is the addition of three sites and relocation of another site in eastern portion of Washington County. One of those sites being the Canterbury Lane site. • Washington County asked the voters in November of 2001 for approval of a serial levy for Public Safety in general and with specific funds for communications upgrades. The voters approved the levy of which this project is a part. Overview of System/Tower Site: John Hartsock presented an overview of the countywide public safety radio system enhancements being built by WCCCA. This includes the addition of.three sites and the Canterbury Lane Neighborhood Meeting Page 1 June 26, 2003 relocation of one in the east and central County area and the addition of three sites in the • western portion of the County. It also includes upgrades to the existing equipment. It was noted that the Washington County system has recently been expanded to cover Clackams County in a partnership to be more cost effective in development of these system and to insure interoperability. Site selection was by Motorola the system engineer and vendor. Motorola utilizes a comprehensive computer program to model the radio coverage and towers necessary to cover the areas involved. Coverage inside buildings is a significant issue and current coverage must be upgraded for the safety of providers and citizens. The proposed tower placement would provide this needed coverage and was Motorola's first choice as it provided the best possible radio coverage. Many other locations were studied but none provided the level of coverage as did the Canterbury site in this area. Mr. Hartsock stated that cellular tower systems are a different design in that they utilize more towers, smaller towers, and placed lower in the geography. They generally have triangular mounts at the top and have numerous panel antennas. Public Safety radio towers are taller, placed on mountains and buttes where possible, and are fewer in number. Mr. Tomic defined the location of the proposed installation as the South East corner of the water facility yard behind the storage bends. He provided sketches of the building and tower and explained that the site would have an emergency generator and related propane tank and be fenced. • . Response to Questions Presented: Is the site on City property with a response of yes. What noise will be generated, Mr Tomic advised that site emits noise from the air conditioner utilized to cool the facility and the generator which is tested on a weekday and will run only during a power outage. It was question if there was a 100' height limitation and if so how do you get around it. It was responded that there was but that was why we were requesting a variance. In response to a question on radiation safety the proposed radios do not increase the level of radiation from the ambient radiation from broadcast waves in the air at all times of radio and television broadcast. A report done by an OHSU scientist and physician, Dr. Burton, was discussed and stated that the report confirmed there is no known health risk to having the proposed tower in or near a residential area. The number of radio devices used in daily life were pointed out most of which provide a higher risk of radiation than this proposed site. Mr. Hartsock described the radiation patterns which for the microwave is a very narrow beam directly to the other microwave dish it is pointing at and once outside of the beam there is little emission. The two way radio antennas are an omni directional type with a pattern that has the energy directed at the ground about five miles away. The energy dissipates from the • antenna at the inverse of the square of the distance or for each mile of distance the energy is 4 times less. Canterbury Lane Neighborhood Meeting Page 2 June 26, 2003 • • It was asked and there was considerable concern about the removal of trees. Mr. Tomic advised that no trees would be removed for this installation. Concerns were raised about failure of the tower in either windstorms or earthquake. Mr. Hartsock responded that the tower is designed as an essential facility and in his research he could find not towers in this height range (120' to 175') either monopole or lattice that had failed after construction. It was stated that the real estate values would be decreased. Mr. Hartsock responded that there was no proof of this issue that in fact in other locations in the metro area where these sites are located values had not decreased from adjacent like properties. It was pointed out the areas like Suncrest water tank, Mt. Scott, Council Crest, and Petes Mt have had homes in excess of $800,000 built and sold long after the public facilities such as radio towers and water tanks were built. Concerning the addition of antennas or other facilities on the site, WCCCA would have to revisit this same permit process if any changes were needed to be made at the site after it is in place. The only changes that are allowed without specific City approval would be replacing or repairing an existing piece of equipment. It was asked if the tower would be rented for additional facilities or sold and then additional facilities added. Mr. Hartsock responded that it was the current direction of WCCCA and its users whom own the system to not allow other users, specifically private users to utilize the site. There are no plans to nor has it been the history for public safety to sell these sites to "vertical" real estate companies. It was asked what the application process is. Mr. Tomic responded that the process is to hold this public meeting first, then file the application for conditional use and variance, and then a hearing at the Planning Commission. If approved at the Planning Commission then a permit is issued; if not approved it is appealed to the City Council. The City Council decision may be appealed to LUBA and then to the Court of Appeals It was asked what the age of this technology was and what other technologies there were. Mr. Hartsock advised that the 800MHz technology being utilized was 26 years old, and that the next generation is 700MHz digital which requires more sites and is more expensive. The next generation will probably be in approximately 10 years. It was asked why this neighborhood was singled out in the overall project, which would effect their property values and livability. Mr. Hartsock responded that they were not singled out but the. site was chosen, as were all the others, based on engineering. it was also pointed out that the other sites namely Burntwood, Which Hazel, Parrett Mtn, and Pumpkin Ridge are . all adjacent to or in residential areas, some with significant real estate values. It was asked the timing for construction which was defined as 90 to 120 days after issuance of the permit. • ATTACHMENTS: • List of Citizens attending the June 26, 2003 Neighborhood Meeting • Letter from Craig and Julie Smelter Canterbury Lane Neighborhood Meeting Page 3 June 26, 2003 • Craigand Julie Smelter 1.4900 SW 103'd Ave Tigard, OR 97224 06/24/03 Dear City ofTigard, I write this letter as our family's "voice" in the matter of the proposed installation of the communications tower at the water property. We are unable to attend the meeting, but we are very concerned about the proposal of such a structure in an established neighborhood. There must be other places available around commercial buildings or empty land that will impact far fewer people. PLEASE continue to search. We have several concerns and strongly desire not to have this potentially harmful apparatus so close to homes and children. My first-concern is about • the-emission of unknown harmful rays of energy. My family has been fighting cancer of various kinds in. several of our members for many years. I am• quite sure that much of it has to do with exposure to unknown avoidable elements. I believe that if only these people had received the. proper information and were able to make informed decisions about their health.and: future quality of life, daily living would be (have been) much different for them. We live with and around enough elements. that may, take years of our lives away from us without.even knowing it!. PLEASE DON'T ADD ANOTHER! We love our neighborhood and would not want to move out! Another issue is the fact of the size of the tower. It may be seen for quite some distance and be in view from many of our houses. The safety concern of potential' buyers. of our =homes may effect our property values!!! Many of us have made the decision to improve our homes by remodeling (because we love the area), that we would loose money by moving! The other problem that I have on this note is the fact that the sight of something so industrial looking just does not belong in a residential • Canterbury Lane Neighborhood Meeting Page 5 June 26, 2003 • neighborhood. The city would NEVER allow any of us to put such a thing in OUR YARDS! Please don't railroad such a scary eyesore into a wonderful neighborhood. PLEASE reconsider and. find another location. Regards, Craig and Julie Smelter • • Canterbury Lane Neighborhood Meeting June 26, 2003 Page 6 0 00 • rA qv d4MA n Q. C yYs 5 w Ar~- 5 7 J ah Cry rz-, ;7 43 f ovo Sly j~74 _ ~a 7svj /D b G, z-4 to_631 ~ 29 w 141W - D L.17 H2 ~ O~ SLR ~ v 3 / , L~kz. j~Q~-~ • • BULL MOUNTAIN W. ~o -City of Tigard OCR Geogrephlc Informetlon Syetam O VV TAYLO ' FERRY.' ` '~~C Legend Z VD Cell Towers L~ J 500' Cell Tower Buffer ST I ~u O Tigard City Limits Neighboring City's -.Mein Roads fiAFFLE ST Urban Service Area REF "77 HeG 3 o ' 4 DURHAM :.E3{l cZO M1 ~Q 1,400 Sao 0 1400 No RD 13ImeWH.p&vdTpWrORer727(603)67014111 on the web of 19WIWWmd.ti arda.ue Yd w 0 ~Ny Tea mklCnOm1 O10d~ma9 g41EmM0emlr aaMatl lWMIO. . Tim Oby d nOVti mmy r % roan. _ ~ ~t' aRNYIeM, m "mom tl aawrc4ay, 0nafem NM N os as ~ ramuAS nmrw W m tiWCa0. Mudrp wrrnda d Drna M 4 Parb+W Ompaaa. a marWrVaYdy aac ba b. ppa p' Ll.' • pMUm. Mawvar neYM1aa0on d arty rral WI ~ppnWM. • l l 3s • 0 • • • CELL I CELL NAME TLID SITEADDR SITECITY ZIPCODE APPROVED EXISTING FILE HEIGHT 1 PfafBe St Monopole 1S135DA01100 8540 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 94-00003 100 2 Cascade Monopole 1S135BB00300 10185 SW BEAVERTON TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES BUP 96-00191 100 3 Western PCS Monopole 1S1360002100 11744 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 96-00006 130 4 US West Monopole Tower 1S134B000600 12390 SW SCHOLLS FERR TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 97-00002 80 5 AT&T Cellular Monopole 1 S134B0007 0 12655 SW NORTH DAKO TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 95-00004 55 6 Airtouch Cellular Monopole 2S102BD02600 12955 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES -CUP 96-00009 80 7 Nextel Communications Monopole 2S102DB00200 9275 SW HILL ST TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES SDR 98-00010 100 8 Sprint Monopole 2S102AD02000 8777 SW BURNHAM ST TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 96-00004 100 9 Cin ular Monopole 2S114AA00300 16295 SW 85TH AVEN TIGARD OR 97224 YES NO SDR 2002-00010 ? 10 i AT&T Wireless Mono Tower 1S136AD06300 10955 SW 65TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES SDR 2000-00022 120 ll Western PCS Co Monopole - 25101 DD00800 14410 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES CUP 96-00001 100 12 SDS Wireless Monopole 1S1260001107 9400 SW WASHINGTON SQ TIGARD OR 97223 YES YES SDR 99-00012 75 13 Nextel Monopole Tower 1 S135BA03300 10585 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD OR 97223 YES NO SDR 2002-00003 ? 14 Pac H Monopole 11 2S11OD000300 15700 SW PACIFIC TIGARD OR 97224 YES NO SDR 2002-00007 ? 15 Verizon Monopole 18134D000600 11355 SW TIGARD ST TIGARD OR 97223 YES NO CUP 2002-00004 ? • 1 0 • • • 'r-.A1 ram a" v4 FSrept-i Pe-4 veFA 1 worW oN s votaE sroevi ) s Qu %7 + /Pro (id-d • 0 GRIENSTREET 0 March 21, 2003 Verizon Wireless 3350 161st Avenue; SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Pursuant to the requirements of 18.798.080 City of Tigard, Oregon, Zoning ...Ordinance, Washington County Consolidated Communication Agency is hereby providing you with notice of our intent to meet with representatives of the City of Tigard, in a pre-application conference to discuss the location of a new freestanding wireless communication facility that would be located at Canterbury Lane and 104th Avenue. In general, we plan to construct a monopole of 152 feet in height for the purpose of providing emergency communication service. Please inform us whether your company has any existing or pending wireless facilities located within 2,000 feet of the proposed facility that may be available for possible collocation opportunities. Please provide us with this information within 10 business days after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Randy R. Tomic Greenstreet Architecture, LLC • P.O. BOX 82125 PORTLAND, OR 97282 • T: 503 231 8737 0 f: 503 235 5875 info@greenstreetllc.com ).S. postal Service "ERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT Ln co • (Domestic Only; Ln .o L /y Ell r~ 04 A 0 fll co DE~ERr~'CO ~80~2 A I L rL cc - .>r. t CIE! .37 UNIT ID: 0002 0.37 UNIT ID: 0002 postage $ O Postage $ a 030 Certified Fee 4. C33 Certified Fee 2.30 t3 p Return Recalpt Fee Indorsement Required) restricted Delivery Fes :ndorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees I $ r PO Box 'ity, State, Postmark Here Clerk: KX8TNP z.bJ 103/24/03 C ,v~l A G' ~ b0 • r.=,'> a 0 PMTLAE A ?201 ! ~ ' Postage $ 0.37 UNIT ID' 0002 Certified Fee 1 2.30 Postmark Here Clerk: KXBTNP F Postmark C3 Return Receipt Fee O ee Return Receipt Here (Endorsement Required) .D (Endorsement Required) Clerk' KX8TNP cU Restricted Delivery Fee ICO O Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) O (Endorsement Required) 2.67 03/24/03 T .sr Postage & Fees A t1J Total Postage & Fees $ t1l C O O ant o W T O AL PA..-faW-115; 1 IA~ Street, Apt. No.; A C or PO Box No. City,.Sfete, ZIP+ 4 t> PS Form 3800, April 2002 See Reverse for Instructions 2.67 1 03/24/03 en o Apr w ( S Street Apt. No.; or PO Box No. l_.(.QO 2 SP.1~1N-- . DtL City, State, ZIP+ 4 45,12-01 PS Form 3800, April 2002 See Reverse for Instructions U.S.- Service ice U.S. Postal Service ru Postal Serv Only CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL i-. • No Insurance Coverage Provided) (Dorn • Only; • No Insurance Coverage Provided) / • Only; • Insurance Coverage Provided) (Dom SO Mail e -Oi ill BELLEVUL, W X8006 ' _ ca A NT& C4 3 12 1 ~ L. U S F. TU1IC,AT , 0 7462 t L , Postage $ 0.37 UNIT ID: 0002 0.37 UNIT ID: 0002 _r Postage $ 0.37 UNIT ID: 0002 Postage $ C3 0 2.30 C3 Certified Fee 2.30 p Certified Fee 2.30 Certified Fee M Postmark Return Receipt Fee Here M Return Receipt Fee Postmark C3 Return Receipt Fee Postmark (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) Here .D (Endorsement Required) Here Clerk: KX8TNF Clerk: KXBTNP Clerk: KXBTNP Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Requked) (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ 2.67 03/24/03 lU Total Postage & Fee. $ 03/24/03 ti total Postage & Fees $ 2.67 03/24/03 C3 ° ant To O -sent u ant pas N t. W I (Z,~~sS Street Apt o.• - Street, Apt. No or No. o PO Box N or PO Box N orrPO Box No. M 1 1. vE _rj.017E..'~..... , _ ro N r, ~ cx 1'`~ ~9'!~f - - 30 Stat CItY, , State, ZI r Q e City, state, ZIP+ 4~ Ctty 3 D L* 07 & %0 V rr :tr r~ I • • 5 M L'T:T C4 Coil m U m mE 9099 4299 +000 0990 20 04 v~TED srAM 3~1S~ SEl~VlCE WELCOME TO SELLWOOD/MORELAND STA PORTLAND, OR 97202-9998 03/24/03 01:38PM ore USPS Trans 60 kstn sys5003 Cashier KX8TNP ashier's Name ERVIN ock Unit Id WINERVIN Phone Number 800-275-8777 PS # 4057870002 S . First Class 2.67 1 Destination: 97062 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276592 . First Class 2.67 2 Destination: 20191 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276608 . First Class 2.67 3 Destination: 98006 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276646 4. First Class 2.67 Destination: 30342 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276554 5. First Class 2.67 Destination: 97201 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020660000488276578 5. First Class 2.67 Destination: 80202 Weight: 0.40oz Postage Type: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276585 7. First Class 2.67 Destination: 98006 Weight: 0.40oz Postage T pe: PVI Total Cost: 2.67 Base Rate: 0.37 SERVICES Certified Mail 2.30 70020860000488276653 St C St P0 U c s s ComStudy Phace II Region _ fide with WCCCA PI - - -123-15 l-123-00 Trenholm - 123 30 ' C I bia Ci Vmemaple ® ,a,. ,>Y{r ~ n, :i ~`i`1y,~4at: tas~,,at to k,' n7 t i~~c'1 n4 ~§e!,'f t`I' u~{ ,Si'~ ~ :LL~° '"T'~tA~i§ M.42F `ti,~. S[~ r~~ ~ , s~~ '~"4dz ~f~.d ~y r a ~ +uPx a f ~mmq 9; Po e Comer ~ r, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ w, ,,r , ~,,=°u; ,~;F,.~t ~i~~ p 'il'~~ .~7+~rvlHt. - i; : ~ b',"i";,< w 4'~~.. ,s',t~i~; . r, p~'~,. si ~ i yam, i ~ d ° `td <~y"t lntu E'F ' 4 M~~L-i r 1 1111 "P, `d~ p~ ~.~{,x y ~ ~atA. ~ '~7~}~&'txfi,y .r^µ y ~ ryk ~ti(r1~1~~1 d~ V~ I d, ~ p';~ ,4' , ta, i., 'C"' A, x~ k t:~y tTd gt l," !ndd P% r-r~ ¢ ..4 n. 'w i, ."au'~ a. ,(ra~~: y~~~,~~~Si~,,j `+ib~9L,~~; a a'h`.~ ~w;t;,2E'~ ~~,.a~ ~:',}k~ "'yi; ~i' :.!i3, t4 f kd e~;mr"u~. d ~r' .a ~ Sa r~ r~",,a rrr{''~r'~q..,"t, „ri'' '~'y' ~':t.r{;~'',,.".y~~,'r~ .S f ~~~i[`' •f~~,' v;~=,, .tr1~„uGi~,.~"R~, ~f(*..+d: Fn.., Iki', i':"3P x« ! y ~,3'. ~1. sry14uF'idlka~„ i..,~4=adl § ~ t~ rRL i + .yt, , r~ ti`It , ~ l Kease ~ qq~~t~~ ~ r~ . K § ~ ~ a~, ~ , . ~ r ~ ~ u yr, acv:~ ~ e.4 ,~`~r~~": 'aK~,'x~k _ lV. 4 R ~ r ,4 , ~Ye$~a. e ell Junco n :AVe ~ ~ r ,G~ ,t>r.p,,,:~d'~, u;~ ral"^A,z,,,, W~s~„ amf+'~e~e, ,r ; ~la¢'d+:=•,z e' ~ $ t , ti ~ v ~ } , n, n c t d c - - f ;fit%f ''E~G 4' s ~ Z -:1) l ~ ' ~ r°' x , Rd 1*' K °.d,~ ~ 1 ss I = ~ ~ir; 4j °,rr, ~,«,t 7~ .5t,~i ,ivr !ti! ~i` '~i' ~ I ~r~U=;a+ ° ~'3'~ ale Q y k a,,. ~N. B': a ! , "ys+ ~ Lt ° ~ f$5, k r;r: .b n J r<5'+ rr+, V~~ ' ~~~=Sk'n' :$:o;-Ca» ~i'. 'i. , . x!; ~'^1, '+Y~'r1dh ,v r' ,k ~ il,:l„~, ';,'r~i ,,d`>:. ^ r~~ , i. i°: ~ ~2 ~ 3'"t ~ ~ J M.; `t4 ~ ; " ,fir,, rt.~i^1 ~e , ~ r t{~ ~ 1~ $aQ~'= k9 f ~ Y t J t 6 r F"i x¢!. RRjj ~u 5r , ~e I z, ~ 4 YJ ~ up e f ~ w ~;_''s ~ A, a '1;' t ° t i ?,~'~,r' , ° r ~ r = r~19.y ~ ' t+ k% §I s y11,§ a ~iaat i~ ~~,wrw ~ ,7 fy r ~§r ~ ~ ! ; ,k, N' ~.I ,NM ` ^ h :.°j' " ~r,F!• ~Y~i 4 ,d 1«r r~ "~3'~rv`~ ~ yi r h ,A, ~ i" ,t kf :ql Ij 1 yr' ltpt t .9~"n "~Y ~ r~ ~,S ,''~h~w+, t" ~,:y +4'~f,t. ;,,~<a oA,rt.,„,~ i~,=',~ e u rep, l,3~ ant k r, F s~ai ~w~h ,~`k . ~ ^J bui. elti =t+N - 4 { y,•, ~k'• ~ ~ ,n ,L Q4 y hi ' k4i'S~'~,+,C k tR~ 4 %k'f } 7 ? YY f.'r ! t ' ~ J ~ 't $ ,..d~'i5 e f ~ s .,ti uy=,°,~i°1t„' 1 1 s ~ ~ i tx*,@~la 't~!~''+~~`~ t a r ,!~.d~% ~ tPS~~++ ~7~ "3,. b~; -s,rtt'.v"?^,. r~+ait>•e -rr ~ ia,~ v C.~r ,t"#, ~I " tp:{rr," e, 'I M1. ab °p+v'~ 1' ' a~y.y 4'u. ~ ~ 7ir. s ~~v ' '~~~k•GSCn „SiPw°P, f.. .i+ a'¢xi.~ ' y u n, ~ ~y , ~',q4°, . N~~,ro w 'tt~~ ~ ~r~,x,M1~;e~ 14.u„ ~ ~ , ~ ni ,Z . i , ' a ~ ® :y e . r i ~~ur-c. I~,hi~ ~ a e. >d .ca ~ €`„`s~ Lukarilla ~,r° ~r,", ~I,~R~,a,~ +e~ ,u' ~,~i<• ;a51 ~ Cha man Sp'rtZ'~be~~~,~~1~ ~„'~'~~rb~~~ k~~ ~ Y="t~@}, l^t, r, i'•~<, i, ~"9 f h, ~o ~~l aRF `„~1~ .~;~a -1 1rf ~+t ! p 'Y1~+ ,gyp P S,, *~°suR ~ v'kis..".,. i wta~dr•~8,~ si' '''I ,J~". `'b'n = .ti ^§„d'>V;,, ;rR,i°;: ~''z,(c?a,r! A~,, .n °ro*: k¢r~ ~v r,.'' ,'~'r:°,: .3, i 1i' r6 " "~~y !h ~'`.d WJ$ ~y J,v.l ~1~~J~..1 ~r L,, ,Y "V{o 4,.. (A ~;t,~~f~ ~'1k" § ~M 'T',° If ~'LF'1•"1 '`I` Yt~t }~~i{~%4l ~r~1 .1 :~I' 0.A ~ ~ J , `M" ~'4, g~~Y ' '"dye ~ ' ! .i4,t n1= °y,~ , n1 1tl i,'~~! y k.d ~1, 1' I~ aSw IM) r<, ,I:~d ~ n„„„ , ~ ~ u d. "„a 'l„~ + ',L ~ c'. ~ ,1 a;, tub i ~ a~ a « , ,ts3 ~1 , „~`t °rtr~l, r ~ ~ ',"~'"k fa ~ ~~~",'~'f,uflt ~+~~'~`as,. ~t^- ,~d ~J;:4~a. l.'~ r .a. , k".~, ,tiF°,~,'J,rtY( ° ~~d }~,~AZ i ~ ~ ' ~R~~ m°'~~' ~ {d ~.Cr~4 x°' °l7?4.°a` l' : ~ k.~i~a _rw,~ 'r,,_G ",~frya"+k ~u; , ~:k~t `+j+~ 1 ¢ I'Z ~'~y; 4 i~' ar Lr~ir.7~~ii ,vi,t'+,.u a`C Stf ah q ~>{t, =~7 < kty.$Q' r f b y " + yt ~ ~ ® - iF,_ s M u r 9n,~t" y: 5 F ,ryx ~h~ibl °rJrt4. A t~+P +i i¢ ~G.k~,~ 1; r H„ n4,r "4J ` ` ~'~t ~ ; ru ~ r~' ~ ~~;c1,.. ~ ~la~,.' Iss,+,~,~ar~r ~ d°>M„ar~~ v sv~ .'d4~. fit. ~Il; r4! J,,:~'. p.: e.;,.,;'r~~k', M;a•!~ '~-0,~'n:;;;~l.i,^ A,t.°,.~t,. ,'~y: ~,.3s^ .~f ~n ;dN+;Cafi'~~ a+" 'v, ti~~ x'4+ a~ i ~At~;.x, ~ ;`n;^,. v{~, y ~ ie~'~' ~h`fdU` 'dtl` N, kN:'~'ze ~kr,~ ~ I iiP ;',kWd, !S„ I~pA ~t"In~ , N; ~'~✓t;' vy~~!"°,:. ~ ~ ~ ~ Ah 5~,1~{§~~ „ ~ ,~A~.~~ " ,l~.r, . ~y'1, 't5. ~ 'y ~rrl, i*';7r.y n J'~`4S"~ . J~v t~Y~ 1 s" wl4~y >~a~:,'r~?+P~, t P iii ~~"15.1,""., 4w. Sdti ''di, r ~~8a n d4 .+'sv~ ~ d~ i , I,f rd's N rr, a ~ ~ » ~j~` ~a', ~,'ik.r .krt .y: i a %4!' , I%r`4+~. ,,t,J r'. bf ,r.~ .=t"dA.:~ t ~i""~ ~ , ~ ~1 ~ , $r:,,t AyJr~ i"' ~ ~ ~4ti~~ M„~;,, ~1~it, .ko-r~',4~~~~,r~ _~~e`~,r{'~, ~ 'y`¢: ,1,'"y'~; 's e,. ~ ~'w: ' ,1 ~^;t S ^9~ YF I Y t C'y e' +\'~iy \ 1, , ~ ~ffi ! ~ fi 5 5 ° Yri'~ x4 r k~'~"j 6 ~~p i MV~%, ,r r ltrr~ +i m,A A ,i 7. k"~u ~I rb' 4a,€~J,i'', +d m t J k~a a{, ~r„- dYr + r~l~!' °~r +,u'.! .~e~ .q c v.t ~°"J J 6y, '~r tl,e= ~h .P. % .i}ke ,,5~.¢k$~ tF"~t.~, i V A n ~~~M r ,>v,~,~ ,t, Ntt,kt.,~~r, °;u~• s'~;r~., A'f.v`,°° ,~~~;><z~,~ s a u r, ~"~t'+C~4,~`~~c'~~".t. 'k~ ~~.rr~?, >hS"r~~ t ~ a! t zY"~ ''I + .+M^ :J ^r• i,''" i, t y , te~,d ~ a 5,v ~~Wt;.S,ub'ad~a S£^' s r'.,'~,'d,h& air„x, a, ,1, .~,;^ta i,~otpy„ yy :.~,?~~3 (w• ,4., r;"",,"k,n§. )qx,t;,! _ "'did yu,}~3's a=, ~1 ~ : "r a ~ 1 ~ x' n t a , ~h' x:Y :3.~ N Pe - i ) ~ °-,Yi S. 4. - .:~~.,~!SV A,y m .."1i ;19 ~r ~j '.1 4 ' _ ,Sl ~Sk+„-,y, y"~v ~ + =F~. ~k ~Pb i AT Y D'S ~~yy ~ `F~, ="+d' 4~t ...5" . rv ,i ~ a' . 4 + h ~ - ~8 ' P !q, d,~Fn ~i,~., a.ay °r . +a„ ~ a, ev vk ~ q § ~ r i ~ 4 A ~ _ 1'~',.w„ kJ,~~ Vii,, ax .4?~9 and Jam, -~1 ~ ;a= tM1. ,'xk~~}..iaa~~~~ ° ~ "~~'a~'., ~e'~`I',`~F ~''p~~. {,n ~'s''~Y'~v'<~"~r „r['Yiyt~,y`~ , rJ°" . ox § I, " 9' r '.5 n., t .'t~ 7d.~ i ,5 = it•'i>a~r , gt ~J 'k`t ~ '.;(4, +irF~r' ~ .,wTry i r . X'' y , P ~;r"U~',, ',~i l C5"A r y~.k Y ~ 5 JL", a r v ? r~ d; ~ t ti l ~ a. r V . ~§p~+. ~ ~ ~..r y u i~ ~ ~ v r,m, Y ~ a e r~, f i" J' 4dkF' 1^r',~ ..9 n W.. t.L , , I , d r, .S , 9~< s Y.k'9 i K „Fy r 3 ~ ! la~.~ :.1T7a"` P.4}, ~ d"° 1'.H ~tr,~' t ! r~. d46 ~ r1 °tt~- ~ a§ i V h ~m~~ fir. ~,yra° ~.,,e b~..rrR.t 4, r~ ~~""Klk~, lu" ,+kti' fin, ,..i'/r ,,b I,' „a,, 1+„yf,elt ,.r,ti ,~„~",,MS,yd,, -~p,'i, it gay, "t ,,p,~ v ty s f~ ~,~1, lb'i, h la.. % Pal.' ,Y.. `k~ Ri l~ i 1 I A a3 V'. .fe - r.,, &,""tl d~~`~ ..d,,,;I~;:~;3, . $ f,!r, ~u;+:^~~;7"~§~~ ~ :~':,~xi rn,$. ~r ; Jt'. z+,~ a , ~l•, ,r xf~' d+t„,t.k=tt . "k~`~;wt'~ ~ °a~.,..~ ~ i ~ .o-,"ft.,, n .~,t ~ ~',~i*,2.°F ~ f q~.,¢, r ''';Ir, iK`, e~~er °P~' .,1, , r~. ,A @ y+ y ~ Ir(~. 'y A,+ "t. _f',t Sr., d4~, ! 22,~+?~ .d i t"L,' y y ,3' ° ¢9$r, rt; rr , Av. °e A, ASP, ~ x,. .'z~ d'r'' 4"4v~ i ° 4, ~l` ~ ~ . +tJ, ~ i +r t ~ 1 ,er, ~ C S ~ rd' 9 i '4 z", X , t . 1~ Si3 ~ti+' § ~t '4, d p 6 '~t a,x? }d .A ° L ~,r : ?n tr~i~r~y~ Y+. 1,T~ ~ .=r:„.. ,~`k ..lS}:d`, °r, ,u"@~. >E r"a ~ ,m~i.~b," ..i,+' ; m'ifb« ~r >ry n i~ c' s v~ 'u, ~ -,r ",~'a%~Z,I,~, 'r r ~ ~ .~bdr,- ,1.' ~ ~;~r,'. s=~' !.:~y >,b,,r ~A ^~.~K,',yt,~af~r~, nl`~ +~a„~,t, ?i b `.'~G,7f, n,<P~~Sr~"'Ma~%; p.~j ma, u'ie,++d~l ?fl"a=. a ~,aa ~ ",F ''y~ d5~ 's ~ry;,~~ d,r{{ „ , tiS° -k ~`h°... ~Si`~, rpdp v, .d., ~Mr t fi 'al I '5,. , ¢ t~ ~b l A. ,~1: 4,;,~i n~ ~'r dd ~ ~,la" ~ ti <;~',; li°c "I' ~W:f ;;'g4i" '~~'Yz•~a ,r~. i~. ,i,~ h~s v a~jy~ ^r„~.h.l~.>;, gt3~'(d, '.Pr""v"dY~~ly"$. ~5~,; Vi' },rd, ~~~,y '~~r~t ,,;°uv p~~a= / 31, area - ~"fA:`. , .t5 ® .,.~y &t'N,jl1 SJ V,. Y ~ y~ , b ~i i ..1 ,it .rY. .i,, 4, ;Z."a ,0.F N Y' t ,i,n 4x f~! d i~,~~n,,,,, 'Hr -ir,Pi yr y ''K ,r, {,7,r e, . 1 r+ P d^ ~ , tll x i+n3 +'3, .,r ~E `4A"' . `An r ~ ~i r', TE r , t , up . , ~ ~ s ~ r q . y.+Vg' ^ ~ ;#k3i ~ 'n°a. ',ia,ay ;'4 a , i f t., rw ' I ~ r, t Z n,. r+<x -s, i # e5re. +r.?,,.,t!(°,d i n ~ S rP: c d..1o .,5;>r,a ~e, c ~.i4 R~'. ..~t?r•; , r lT~ `~f,:k~ ''r , ~ i ~~f „J ,°i,, 4, e~Y . 1'~ ti ,t, R}, a•r,;, ~ ,rep,, , ,e, ~ t r't tX51"r r i.;~J d; ; ,'fir ~ tAl4~ ~§'d i ~,:4~}, v'~y! ~„~x+.ry' r+;'.v'i°4 It' .;t W ~ d!,n+-.' 'I" 9 i„ , if ~r§ T~nMyJ= 't ~.u,.r.. ,n~ A 'u~ ✓rS~`0br y,°r. „ti i it. r,' 't,i '-slit ;t'. ,~",,.c~s{ ,u `G'C °~rit. '_(~~'a"vd'7Jt~ qj ~;Y` kr 4f`i~'i 5r ~'t ~~'+?hr~' ~F 5 ti+, ~~,;:~tir, ,1t,t.,,1r 1„~,,,t,,J 1t,; ~ „d!°;=~ ti=,. .4,: +°a~;.~ ,"i",. ;fir "=•~Aa~,Ytt ~iwww~`4, o~,o~,~~.h~,t.,~a~~+z~°'.>k;x _ " f, ran k d 1; ;°x u v r, e :H>r,. a ! ~ di r .A A X~+N T;a'+eb~ f ~CGt'.rwakgslY GV";"? wv~:f& .'kfi ` ar~;,y'~ , e"' ~(a ~ ;t <`#~t a '~'„~at, ; A t ~ +Fr ~ §x ~ ' ~~~k~ ;~rwe~ ' 1s',°~~+.'~~ ua y~ ~ ~ s, n, r° ,~s~~''„ ! ,ytt r I~>N' ~Si~'~:',r,h' b:';H' 'a' -0 ~ ~'.~g. 5~ ,i dt , t= ~ ~ e9d e. ~^r , ` t ~~r, iE ,Ai , v i r% ~v 41 ~ r„ '4+t~ rv~§~ t' s~:w rn. ,Her, Y~+~~!p `,j ',~f' e.3g, tiv ~,,,rv, :,t~ P.k~,d ~,Ao ,*y4:1" ,~~~ti,'~ ar.~i,"~ e.~~'t$ q, ~~"°;`ra~~ w w d'r lr". y!~C10!'~','it °.'ta~{i k`Ad'Vr~ ,rf y, tr { 1 A~~ . ® I 'xp„'fP ~ ~~'~~ji LF 1'{'e 'd~~'i el k' r, x ~4' . ^K~ ° r¢'ti ';~1Y" , u, )Fn, ry+a??r , _s ~,~.,4~3° s,`°?t"' M°1~I° r1`N tk,;w"i o;~~#~i t , ~ y, ~ ~ ~1~ r ~ fi ,1 0 ~6'"Y~'nt;'F, Yy J J m 1 tin,aXs~ M/!4 ~ t..l'Yi ~r,iS +~,1 S 11~ CiY ~'fs".., S,H ''U1 1 t a • ~ ~~n ~ N ,l ,r ~,„y~~'s~' "t~1,u,`"~b~ sf,,,ak.y,a~ , ~,'~,r.~~'.U`~A.~ ~ ~rt+, +rµa~i,a R~14's~F#~ ~ '~,r~ ~"v ~i,. LJ r '~-gp ~ ~1 ~.Pti', :o~aAC".nj ~~7,1 o.t .k,x ,:+I i^Sg ,,r~ ,ai h'1 g~ >3 ,.nrtn ' . 5x-, wMdJq :+y i ~^q,y. a j '°it''Vr, ,~;i' . . y`:, e ~;dJt' r,,~~ ~ ~ '~~d w .,"k~db $=3$;~ { .k t 'k ? Q : ~nt.V I' VJJ~ , I k, a~l~,. ,x p.y y74 4h~ $~y, g ~ U , . ~i 'a Nm 4n L.sr ~ .7~~4u. ,i , 3.~'i ~ W , .ws rc tti" , da a~" d~.' w~ ~ ~?r} ~t 4 t ~ # r F° ' al~~ ~ . i~"~, ZnC: d., `z~=°' ~ &d. tF° . S'""~+~<: gr~rlf, ay~t~, ~ ° ,t a F ~ o tier y"~ k '"tix~ ~ re.d,W% fi"k i„ W +~1~~ Y, y I~`. h~J 7r S~ rJiU3 1 Ykd'+~ rr +~~ri f`"~, s,~ `4` S ~ ¢e~xx,~M f x~ ia4+» - ~ .,^.'S4~ !~i ~ .P y,',.l, q,'h. A .eyy.. 4~a5~.F § ' y ,.J 5'r, I +:wl~ w t~ a e . d• i n "p ~ .'Sk+ ri ~`'r~~Ai,~it ~ Jt~d"~ R ~ ~1f ¢ `s,1'Y n i~ A Fk~wig~}^Yf'~, R„i7na I e,~,~. ~ "-~~t 9~, . A ~i:, h: M1Yy A.~ft Y~. IA ~+~J~V~'Y,~1~~i~' ''?~jyV~( S`! q k~ M° d; ''~~l "dd' ~r eldm fi' i{~yt~ ~ 8 ~,h+ ~ y ~ rci R§9pri tM i~~~x ~~11 ~ ~t'~~v p ~y !w" ~~n 7~+, +=.rv~~~"1~p. 4'~Iti^'C' ~~'`_s};'A qq '"„0xP '.C.ug +''~e ,,n~ $ 'g~, 1. . yl,~ f.i'1 'a dre wrw~l c~;~+g~,,ryry~ ~ 'q~.,~~ i~J d~. qn,, li q ~1; {y m ~ ~ hte3 >K 4'rta~ # x 5' s, ~ - °t ~ !;f p I''S h ~ $Y'i 1 ~ ' ~ri4 6'~ R+ ~n ~ dk,: ~ + ~ 1 ~ 'q~ , t~S` ! -y "!'~~i, 5~ Y4 '`~~,4 a~~YA nr;~, ~,",~}„y. i,.r; rr ~ '1~`~ sw~ J ~i. ,Y: 4. } Lr F,'y ,9,...' . y ~ 4~' ~ = 1~`, i r ti v a•~t'' ~N. ~~~:~'4'~ ~ -et ` Ay$, y s, rnd n.add r ~~~~5'' .t ~ . ,ti fin' $,'""h~<1 ~y ~ ^p,L , ~ , 1v,'d4~fif ytSkJ t"d~?a! ~ ,rr ,>ti6 ~ t~~ys`~` „any ik , ill ■ 4 ,':~Y. '7`~,!, ~ , it ,.7e:~ ,E. >c in •s., ,;4; yea,. s{.. J$",, , srt ^^4S: ?9,:Cfi ,..p~ vi E1ee, r s r , r` ~w ~a x ~ ~ 5 t~' ~ ~ ~°1s~ ~ w ,arm` ~t ~e ~ " 7=~ ,;SA ~r¢~" eat, ty~p'! (~t~yp'~ I}{,, "~`'~~~y~ ~~5~ '~r~~(p'x~ ~ M+ V b KF t ra~ .~P+, ~ j 'E ~ ~rW~"~'{., Ai ,~A 2C,x=` ' 9`y~ ° , ~ F.-~ ~ 'k ~ 5' ° e J~ ,~,t'rm4 ~ +p du„ s>e a1 r.4M1i xi ~'ti?a° k, f ` ,~ti., tip 'a,.n>,+ f~. ''i y ~ ~ ~=i `ir ~ k ~ , , <.t<, 17 ,i' y, :a ' ~ ;d'' "4~ ->~7 g ~'~i`, 4 ,e, . a 4 V . ,.~d; e~ W~~, n,~ ~ ~yl,sja.9n ~.y Iff h ~ 1 ~ I~~~¢~ ,~9~ts ,q 6~' ; dd 9 8 r , ,d ' r ~ J . ~ "'s ¢ ~s§,~;~r',, ,.~',y n C,1~, tiili tl ;a~i' S`y"~'yd~',~.,. F , .i. ix° :Ywt ~°1 .a r, ,s. i~Aa k'F'. :4'~7>~u'F.t~ . 'i:+ 4~' '~{t''., ° ¢ t;i 1 ; Vh ' e ~"i=E~f. :p~ '~~r"; °,3iE~'. i~ d u t g74T~" s ~ yr It %i~~.r t h, R t. ~ t uY = f2"' 1 ~a a~, a`S3t: `~'a# ~ e;t~',,y~~ly py !j, I ~ ~ q~ y "k:~ {Y, fk ~ ~'y ~,F•F+Ff.`~ !^s 93"hN ~ ~ trA M'1+r u,~' ; ~Dr,?F% r ~~'~'~~=ywp~`t,;i r'~,;;g ksa~ ~,t=:','_, i'n;: r n^, ~ k 3 a rau, f; ov, ,rlt ~ , + ~t i~J`8 ~+~~~;T~"d k~ ~ °~i~~' °v~l~~p'+i%'=,d° ~ v'~°' .>~,m r p y~~ s ~w~, « tiw' ' t ~ as ~t~ _ no- i/~ a'~ , ~w ~ ~+~`~,ft .r r~~t D U I U t~ o! P ~y{p"CRY. i~ 1 ,n. ii,~ .a. :I! rr .~,~y; l'i`r: f3@°, dT+,~°,~~v''~S ' 9 y y~~ ,1,+1 ,§,9" (b~e~, >~~ttA J~ ( ~ ~ ha~v~ dba: ~^~}Fj><y, ''Nix' r.ia, I. . o2Y ~ rc a~ r aW J t. h i k 1'Sb1t.14 ~{hi~d^~`y,,,, A^~~,,y vi n$ Y u,.. ,kr~~~,l .1 t7S865'~'4•' '"Aiy4, ~'"§7~9a1 @~!{r°, U. ~~r~}. t F, y ~k„¢" ,'h", W - i.~! 1 3y q 2w+..L N,, w;+~ ~~~,4s i~~r§„ ~",,,§.,f4~~".x~l a 'fk=, 1~'l+s~ `w ,;a'' <~i# q~ ;m ~~4xS~~~t ;~Y;4t:T1Y''-, dsx~'"i I.Yt~l°"h,x .n~':~~a~.~"xY`i ~'1f'm~ F ~~a A ,ti Rr,. Fy 'RA'F 1~'1, 4~ 3 ~ ~ '~uCrC~10 , t=~N . ~ 9 i~ ~s. °d~~, ~ f~ '~A,' ~t d h~° r 's •k' ~ 8~ ~ ~ ~ '>i i' Y' ~ ;r" d ~ , X11 ~~,[Jy7,'Vlrl'~'~~. ,~?sg lug .w° yd v'~ r j`iv ~f ~ § .P `rd ¢ ~ ~y Naw. d ' ,t±o-~' n g~r"~ ~FtF~a .rtw'~~"v,'er ~:;:~a~ri 1 ~ ~,yy ~,+y. - n n'+ 9~~`y ~ ° 4 ~ . 1~'4 ~ r Pfh' ' ~4 .d~. T~~~ d'w'~'N y~ e"~(4 }t7e ;~adt ~ .r? j t ~c'a 1~ 7+, r`; • P, g7, J' "~<"~~s u:~,x~ ; i. A, f, k~: «iTi '+f '""t '.d 'Vk °z.s,d ,,,i ~ olkenber u^ =~~+f ''~7f 'r4°'~.~ "a~+:z<,~.l: x..d ,,uui x ..°J, .4'S..n ,ItE, t!t ~~I~~ ,r'e+, `'+r 'h` ti ~ 1.'' ~°§G'~ ~ Yt' 'h' 4M1{~sy, ',f n>y'a,)' s J " r , i l ~ S ' MI , M1 R~4 R l . ~ .t++" a+k~ ~,,4~-x ~r'u '}'¢t .~i i ~ ',i •,x ~~xxqy ! E ,!a ~„'7e:•!;. ' ~,e (Yel ~A . IVI~I'i3N. ~tU+~ ~yy ~e't~ a WY { xlCYe ~ i ' R 4a ~ pd't v`s ~ V rA Ar d, e ~ % dr,, A's,Fi"h~~d~§ '~~~~ri`k x =t ' ~>J 1 . u i. ^,J •.a§v. o w ( . . ~'9 A . ~-v ~ s ~t t J~ ,M , k ,n..' ,~in 4 •Yt'~., ~';$.}?l. , 41~% Yt' i„"~°.. ,Jn ~j a aY!xr 1~',`S"a 4 ,e,°vY;kha~ ~':;W,ii~k9'.>R~ t rT_ ~ 1 ~ .r ~#1 , ¢ ~ ! ' § t ~e 1 '~1'sry ~ to 'IF~,~s+ck4~., ~ wfr~ "ai +?'"'C'~j'~~~"~ S` , ~",S i.' ,.t, 'Sk*r ~ + Y i y ,J ax z+ a~a'~? e`l.~n i w. ~t °1k«, i~t "~~irr Yt, e~lr,.}y Rd Jq ~~f ...P ~iW,i irt~' # ~'e z i ,~+i'~K,~ fi fit, ~ dF ~kt,~z rJ T`Y d"r" .2d`,~ "z~w tjl+.° r+ ~ a~ µft; ' t° ~ . ~71i -fY,xa ;"~ilr~'n`w~~~ „ nl~. . ti ~ e .r.,~ 7 xr f r ~ di ~ t r n a'~r", yxaF,ti `::W,,,,;,,,~ ' ! f,~ ~ r, _~'~}~tr~1 .~t h 1, t § ?Y ~"'a'~' n ,w +r ,~n', ~ r -ks; Sart tt o- s }~i$r t<irr f5 y, tatY 3s:r, ~5f,, '''F'H :f~ e r, ~ ~~;1t',~~$~'~n+'~d~ 4rWeWrd = ~ t ~ia. ~ 4 nl , .1 `-A, t J st `y ;V i;ti` "'r Y l4" t o-U~k`i'~-', - I a yyt.:s ~+r. ~ e i;3 .'fir, ,+,df J~{*,,~' 't'-' ? f'4 a~1,~#P§l"Q `~'A S~+~~ f S,l '1,~°i.a ~~'r ,'Y'I~i Y~~1 ~ .3f v'~ ~ ~ ae k}",aP„~,'i;"~"~y"~ .A w. ~ ~ ~y, U~f i A,~'~t ,{,w~d.,,A, ;..tr v.,p Llq~ ~'i f„I _ ' ~,rd'.x~+ N= a1F pr -v~', s"~,~~'tJ,F... P:~~`<~ .'r%~, v~~ _ ' +'>g ~ I,. 'rs~' °~rz ~ 'S' ph,. ',1' G-', G Rr -it ~L1 1~'j°Kr ~i ,,5.: ➢;,b~;<*r'.4'Y:1~R/~~y{~~}~y~, "4. 4~a~° i,,El:,,,;7'Y i,'~ ? .w - VGall l f.' 9 1 .4a ny~~ecn oiR= ~J~~~ i~ q. F ;`r, dy',i,i ~ a~;vi '~J,, 'y' .~ro•,.~ yp"." ,a ? ~`r, z'=~ 1 ~ .M ~ !'S~ a xi4~'~,`"°A'7~ t~~h4 k1 kJ y s~ 1 5. ~ur~~y, _ ( Yr r~aa'~ q'~ : ~ a `fa^r, °d,x 'a'.r''t",r' der ;r. .s , ti: <~~t~0. r a,ute ~ "..~y. i~ ~5~ ,.z,'' ~ t Gd' a;1 ~~t yr, , fn ~1 61 ~ -d, v :;w ~i~ ;'.rAGx , >»k~ 'a ~t} ~~k`cl-rfywlf,y~~ e ~sb a , J t ' ' ' + 'n ~ ~ a ~ ~ r , '~d , , of ,Y~~t'uk~ it~lk~',n.`71°' f r" o- `~`v"hryry+re a• s, •!"x+~aA » k,. 'ri e ~r x£ 3 ~ °p, .5,. ri .4 d, er fY .!..t y + aW h c 4. d'S~ ha~uII rSi,~ ' e>>,, y^' ,~r,~ . , +y '~d . S ~~..a~rx,+,x. ' rc,c}A ~~t~~,l~~,':4;~~:; ti v - ~'N.5''rfe~ , "(t4 ''t}a, ~,~7 Y°~% ° r~tl ,y ~rt.t1 ~:}.y^~+~ a 5,;n +;x~'`fi°=;°~>F'4r ' s a+ ~ '~~,tt%rew,. t s,}°; ,r~,~afi. ~p w" . , , G~„t1~ ~r m~~ s , r~z-,,'aK~?,r t.. w ~ ~ "r + ~ ~ ~,~`'Fnfi, , ~ :+~5r~ U,,~~ WGe t ~a ~ f °.I ~ 7 t~~~ ~~n%. "d"~ eM1 ~ $ 4 6: ~f~~~ ~,i f i' p y~.~r ' ~ S' A9 G ~~~yPa. 5 i1~' 8~ ll~,yt . ~y~. P,w„f„ 1 , a ~ y,~,~ 1 ;VV~ ~ ~ , 'A 1 ky ' x % !tins i~.re¢~j'~ ~ $u' r~"d ~ J ' ~ , tN rya i ,v,a t r ~ 1 ,r ~ k' ear }ySSk .k . vt / ' t'4" . , ;j~,~ L.. $a„ S. ~ y ~t F34 ~4 A, ;i o S, ~,a~,~a a a k . r ;F~ ~:ey~ ~ , ~ ~Y"~+' ~ +F :,ems i~'~~i t°,k a~G s ~ ~ _ , ,.,.a.~r '1:; .'I,~~lA~~ y3' drys ,ar,, ~ ~ r, II ~x~'.n, ! ~ry~i n, ;°'??y"~i.t .xa! ~~b ..v J +,4~t .it ,t 'I u0 ~~~s ,~c41 di ty«i~~,,:. r. td~ if h 7 i ~ .al, ~ih~l,Y I , , ,'t ~ ~ j'k~h ..fi. 'Y,n b P s.,,r'.i ® 4d „v,, s .5 +.x 'fw da`.,M1 ; fi ~yd 'V~11✓VYI"l,. + is~'r ~5 a}yp7 ',~y w~~'~" J~l'~y,p"~~ „y~ , p, P i A :N. t+ } A, J r k o dan ree uw ~ ~ "r ~ 4 • x rd , ;r., ,t .l 3 .t r`' k ' snp n:1,Y °f ,N § k4 .al ;yF,n ~ _ ~'y ~yeQ~ i1Nx srrd° r,"~ . .u,~~ ,1'1~ ,,y, n + ''3 hae d ~ t i ~ ! " , ~ Y ? ;t~l ~ 'b p r e( ° i ~ ~t4_fi 4,.rtY~: 'r ai 4 Y ~ ~ V S ! ) ~ ~u if ~ 4.~3 H1. `iy~ if ~ ~ -1 4 ~ ~44"'' vIV .F': i~ ~ ~ A'e °F Q' t,~, bk$ )r A+ i:•r,~ 'l, 2~ L 1" Trm + ~ x t t , ItT z ~ yWY~ ~ °,>i.~~.~,F ~ t~~~ ~,~lllf~~ar~ .O~'rt~~,. ;,r<,~ ~ 1 3~5 ~dW tyr~ .`+v, re J+, ra " s.. ~ 'w' d,.t; ~ j Y ~A~°~~g„ .ytit ~ 1' i`~4~~T4^"R ,41 ;;S +4 ~~~iYh~:~" S 'i~ _h fi .e~ ti5 ~ . ~ a Y ~ ~ r z.~. 1 s ~ °.d" << r ;r: ~y , ~05 d ~ a ~~j. y y ""jM ,r, ,*~rn rt '!F w ~ r✓5'3„ ~ ;lr.~ - ~i~ f,~ a r ~ a ~ 1.1~, x., 5- drnr~ e':~n; ~ FA Srv~';~5, < r 1 5 I> t t i e+ ~l r i i ~t ~ ~ ~q4"r'rat x"d;%y "Ym '~1>r~',,'.,''ai, ',P ~.A 't~41+;licls t ft ~,yc, : o . I ~:~"W~A~4P ~ ~'~3 Ly ~L1.%~r t.xS (h~+p~.,, i .tiy, k / ~nC tiwi, ~4 ~ y,, _ W `{t •n~T 'A .'i , e~1,kki~ ~ f ' r ~t .1 x '.Y , A V FI+~, 4,;' . its Y ~ ~~`~1 1 iA- ~,~~~f"' fi~i4° ,.e<W~ ~ r ~ >~1 -.fit ~ , ~ r ~ i~'~~.~r ¢ ~ ~r ~~¢+°~~1~ r .;!>at-e , s~i f t, a,' r . ~ ~ ~ ~'ih r t ~ t ~ t e" r,:a~~ ' °a'Y~,. t., ,~k~~ as 4J^w, ..r a'~~G~~// ,.5{@ ! ,',<t ~ ± -tta~ , ,d< ~ t tx+ r,.,im ~ ".'~:.~r ,,y~" i 'aw"iV" '.'Li~o~l°1;11 ! i, `"t . qi ' 4 as rhN"j~r4"x', ~ u~ • r°p ~ 'M1,r A r`~,;} x> ~ s' ~ a9 V; t t 's;t. ~::"4Aa ~t i., ~ -.4, t ~ h, r ~t "~'d r ,~y~;kp i" jsri ~ x~ ~ N.,, r d{ r- 5 ~b w ' ~ ~q~ .-tiy1.;, ~ 'S I: ~,.„'.~t~~,in,~a,a.='a: 5y41 tied a ~.4 ~ x r tr^t ~ ,~.x~.~ ~x~~.° ~!'rn.. ';?",cr> ~~°''"'"3"'+~ $""w'~~+~~sj~#~~13,'~s ~,alU '9, i ~r~~.s,~,y~ t t~~,`~,;v n p'~ x~IIS x ~ ia4' •,'`is hd;";~~, wx'~ .f "u3 i ! ~ d ,r!9tr~a f ~ ,r . 'd:x r^.... ' t M~~+f he.. x t, ,nS } ~ `r a'~' ~ df . ' r1 r 1 w a4 Zyii N;kr .:r,. ~t t 'n A~Y,Sr rir if ~4~M' r L~11 s'd` ~ r,%~' k ¢ ..~tM+t~ £r~ rviww! ~w 'E`x"~F'r. ~ ~f^R7>t da~~"~n1 ~''~'`dr`~ fi 6y~~i~ ~'.~i' k a t a : ; "''~i ,yss< A Ir Y~.P,`~,u5~'P~ ~ xrweitY ,-a , 7,F. ~«Y. A Y j;`! F' ~i h+ ~~~,q.N +r, ..,ix 17.,d*Jtrw' ~ ry,..[. ,:1 t~ ,.'~i. c~§$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I;1 ''_f4 ;ian' %^df .i ~ ~@.~ j ftr ' ^ .5 tdaq` 1~ /,t•IIIF ~ d'4 _ ro ~Yz>l~^,`! ~ , ~ r !;Y J, x`,y; :,•s ~ _y, Dye 7.1'`~'a~ .,f'a'd, „s A': 5 ~ f~' , 4 t ~~.q ' w rid ^ 5 , k~ ~ i d%r, ~ ql ~~'t n>"° 5t xr!: "r~*: d'-4k„~ 4 ~ --re-6. ! , yTy,k y,. + e ` f : , o l , c , 3~. . ~ w raaaeurx ,J;iP'~4+ar~'a ~ ~s"xdkd}~: ~ '~a{tdv~";, . 'FIY~},xY ~ l,L"'; ° t ~ ~'M` ~ •';:'.rr t lyh C 4 t 1 k th ~ I t - ti 't t.. , "ta@. ma, '~ii~iy~ttst '?$~"~P ~Y~"'"` "lit, ~ .,'a%l,,;ii'~ftn. t T..a ~ ~ "..a~ - tpy_kkf ~,xY ' ~''r'"7~+'+,r . y7 rm~dt~ ~s,~~ir~,t. s,,g+: ~ te~ r 'z r J ~ I d IRt r - 1.d n~ 1 0~ f~. ~ ,pX ~ ~ 1~ S 1 E,1 k ~ d ~ bM f A _ 1 ~tr ~ ,e `~F ,_Y 3' ~K**':~ "i. ~iF'~ z1~ § P t r ,Fd~ 1t 1 b 'F~ saq ~ t a , , V. it 5d` yr, , s , ! 1~~ i. 1 ~ sQy tii,z. 's,+'w,"yi e nt; 741 Y«~YJ ew~- + ~rt !`d', i. 3~ A J ,J !~r ~ ~ ,rle~d ;u~P:r1~~~~'~y -1~Sd .fie w r" ~ 'rw~ : S q. t - ~ ~ :,ta",~t slob ~rx _ , ~ A~ ~~x~y§ r~ q~~y , f~:' .a t _ ~ F~, ~ 45.. ru. "F r~,a,,h, .F l~ ~ii~'A r e~. ~s~'. e r' ~ u . . ilYiiii~~ J~ tus !q!M a1 ~75'~g 5 r '~~:1" 'J.: ~P52,+"+~'kR JJ d}~ ~ , I yr~-A v r 'V V~~{~,,. > '/'A F ~ r W6- ~ IfJ~ Wye "y f d f t, ~ ~ f i. 's~ ~ ! v;1i ~t, .~,~y, F - tz"" ~t~*~',i.'`iM. . y4~ .!r ~ n i~ , ~ y , i ~ ~ ~ ~M~sh ska,~s' yt.~., ~FVa ~ ~ " ~u.<•AA 6 ~ "5 3r y '~+k ^'"'~h~,~t'~°~`~`, ® Ah~;4 :a »f 5~; ~ y .C..xae ~Y4 , +.~`i s_ . is y~~ r ' ix:a'.rw, >S~;s. ~ tal ~~,yp~1 , I ! , - •~''~ww' i ~T i , , ~ . ,+t..!~+Ir ~ 'mow ; u~ckhea ~ ~J . ~ Pipe ~ A oaf .a „ , .>~~,M~~s~ ~ Orchard°~ ti " ~ ~ 1 . 9 ~35. dtW : :n p i'~ M*w~ww , . ♦ ~ wow a , yea ,w ~ f ~ "I~ w wee. 'i. ->,r. f=~.~ ~c. Fa'rrdale t . a a "a ~u-~ ~ry ~ M r d d ~ `lu~:I,~i y-, Ya>it1t~ V e{ ,n e ~ `Haar a,. f'.r. 7 ~:~i ~ ' ~ t f p ~ ~ ! ~ ~ as r,~ i T"M YIOAR77i1®f! ►YC\VAl.JEW21 FZM ~4 ~ 'f{, ?!~i€!Yk52 r VVEM ~R ^ III rJ Dundee La 4 ttte V$" pad I R s~ b V ~,'1 y ,,j"?W 1`' - "'n.- .;,,,.y,.= ~^','~c•(s?Yi~+`na""~'sr!" ^?f''y"w4. .f 4515 1M P ; La e ,F, ® h r eat j. ` 1 A 1 7_ L { a r ~ B Eota,Vt age y'a~. ta~a eSOn s nwa f eS La~dm '•;Br~ed~ve~~ 3 ~ Jafn~' fS'; , , k`fns Land - yl : a ipley Sh Ed tand~ nC r . T errand Ronde w ' r ~ Y. > a F rs+.~;t td..., rat m . `-rx~.',,. Ere a n~ ~ y „ 5' - k: -Sx' x-~ r. , L ~ - n"a q ~ `"x` ;kl, + ' F s'. w. , w,~-'1 a~ n' ; d r(„ r S,.c - y; ~t- :n~"':. .A' w :e^ ;rx ' M q.. ^a~ a ~ ,i x w , xyt~~, }L.. x , le z ~ t lsq, ~ i r, y w r ~ ~ ~ a a., w y+ ,'.4,. - .7, Y Yi tirt ~IF° Fir ~;a>~`,,,tf tYK, .aL,w ~ _ arm . a t, r R~~ k~ qd a~,~ t~ rk~ nJM~+~~~"+~ dry ...>~t_ v,~.. _ - r x s r t z+rp.'-. ter. . , k.,t+'.p. ` ~ ~ : d e. ~t ~ ~ :'t Goa r .~;?~~`~r ~ ° r t, a 'tiS x.. u. ~ tF. y ^ , ' , i Y ~ - I , r R Y r. ,:r ra~'~,~,~~ yr, yi }k _ ~`i ° • - ~ a m ' ~r ~ - - , w~ r~ I!F .T , r < 1 , ~L,II c T r1• .i 7•tx \ - _ 'v'e` %4 0.Y i+'. _'.2 y t'j~ y,~ 1. ~ a ~ y - , - _ a,~[ AF1 '~r_ r. . "SST k.-• f ~ ,1. 1'i i L a _ ~ y - - 1 ' : q .'4 . W F rsi , { # f A,,~ .a ~ A)t r. S i` as i.. ~r , 7 . a-, ~ 4. • . ~°pt • a a c ~ • , „ e;„ ~ y v ~ ; h - : S ~ 'R' fie, d:, s ~ - n'~, : ~ u" ~ ~'3 -~u~"~' 7 ,x^<+ ! ~ .;::;.y 'P~:^",,. : r. z d~, ~ a. ~ c 4..t .r~~, ~ ~<1. "n r, .IJ, a ,fin , ` k ~4, - .r - i P 4 ~i' s., ~ tv ~ ' 96 ` ~ it k ~`h , A:..•.~. . gy ~ ._r .~'y . k` ..'r•~`. ..'~,F. v y ~ ~:'ti a, ~ ,x.~ i~1R '„F~ '••^ir xa~'.~;~i' ,a; ~ ,tir: w:y, Ay, w ~ ,a. ~ . s'. ,'',,5.. 'k z ~ QTY r«, ':'ii ~ ::3rz a ~i ~a ~~s Via,.; ~ 5 _ ~ , ~ ' : n a : ~ k,. ~~%?9s - _ ~ , y:F ` 4ygf~~ ~'^u' ~ '"'~rzz,, ~ - _ ~ ~ - ; .i ~ d i+t~ a ~~`+`Ci remit ~ r.~A ~.~,e 6 ~ may' : w. Gl;~,. r„ . F - - r ~ - ,A,. - q' ~ ~r ~ • 4 F~k t:7~: ~ , F +Mb" aS i 'i 'it, ~ l , p .m ~ : M ,.a .t7nti M~ .>r _ ~ >r ~ _ ,~_~r - Q~ - -ti-.~ i ~Y f ,t, q4 ti +t ee.k _r,~"]'. a, yt~"" a'v+ y,q ~ „a,~ ti a nF' _ x*~ ~u " . y ~ ~xT; r,. Ki vr. X3.4 ~°v~ Nr~[+r ~r` ' ~ -~i ~ ~ 1, ~4 >D K F°~w* ~ Irv en's r' °,:u. . ,w _ i~ _ R a .r ~ - ~ , ~ ~ - : ~ - tlw,. - v - y.. < - ' s d'" + i.3hk ~ ~ ~~9:: t~.~,.. _ -t; .cam Po . ' , r ~ r ~q n ~ ~ ~ • µ ~y,, M • "~tY ~R.. ,r ~ "fit '+~AX '~'y i ±i': ~ "iC:.;~ ~ ~ 'tit}" 4: a , t i1 q, 'c§ • q .n , ~ r:'. CYO. Y ~ ~ r z ~ _ r. 1 n'- _ . , - +Y iaJ k fir.{'" p.. ~ ~ NpY'vns t " ~ T r y ~ . _ S 4_ t i, x fl, ~ x... - . t~ ~F~. • r ~ , ~ - _ - { i ~ ~ Nom, ~r r it ~~",?1" 'io ~ ,~'ys,* Y~ ~ , , _ C~ . `t1 wY 4 ~ ` r E ~ , • a' ~:x r f~ ~ ~ tY r : wt• .xn.k P ~ F „ e. - ,,1.+ a 4. ~ i °'~;nj. ~n g' ~ ~ 1 2..:~ ~ x y. i "Y^mr ~ : e~;~ `4r x v ~ T a: : .K S { 'rd i ~ ~ ~ , ~,~114 :,~~xl pi 1A Ki.?• :j` w ~~Y 'h'M .4.: j.7~~4Y: , ~ 3 r.~~ i 4. +e ~ ` v r ~S k :,a '.y L A ,~q { R V* 4Ay4'Y"~ i R 17 y ~ F 4 v. ~ 4 ~.ai~:. ~ ~ ~ G y4 + !N r 9.~ ~.""33IIii ' J. r t 7 ~i' ~y~ •~I v ~ - ~yy w,. F ire A'R 9< - (IT"_, ~ J , J ' . - ~C~ayY ~ ~0. ~ - a-0 i pay. . 4J k~~. . •~t~~ ~ F J y ~:,y 'r, ^ ' r o. a 'h ~ > • a r t. iq,. ~ nE, ~ . >t ' i ` r4 ~ ~ ~ r x Al r' ~.9. , x - _ . Y ~ r „ Rt5 ~ ~ ~ ~ h+i~ i r ' a -,i . ~ l,~a ~ rt ~ 1 . ;.e ; ' r e. r i . i ? 4t ~ - 'v~ d'e y.. ..`.~<`;~r=:i r. fir.. ~ Ydw irf, y. yr ~i~ ~ v ; ; ~F °4 'G ~ ~ + ~ ~1r ~ i c • ) },~M n ~ ,d.r~•: 'A ~~~t aP fiS~,~ '~5 kv"'''rt F 1~ ~'t -eg.. . ~Sn0. ¢ J~ i.. _ i `~$a,~~'~-. 'F v:~C-.~ ;,c~. f ,:rv 7b ~~~~a~ i ~t `Isd: fry... r`'Y„. r~,'w~ ~..y, ,._.F, r y[ .~q r< , X11 ',±~$1v n~ ;~'.r. ~~~~~.,I . `'yr r hp...-c x `ir` ~;'q,~js. - ~y, i;. ~~p ' m ' -'d y ;a a ~~~•c N+~.._F,:.w;-• x A,a;,Wgj~, ~~.kF rR i ~i~y •'H 2- r. >:^id t ~y'qi ~xr ~ .b: ( '"n T •ar' Q,, ~s~ " ti -i ' , t A .e• s y' r.:, f N.,,':;., ,y~ ti.. Yx . W a ;S}'ra k Lr s;- ' . r, a v~ - i, ~k} + t,v d" t ' 7' ~ ~ Z C" ~ ' • 9 `r4 'y. ~ . ~ x,q~~ b b r p, ~ F%.. ~ ,'f v 'tom r ' i ~ , ~ , a, v ' fi ~s~ d ~ zv ?,;,,'.n 'r. ~ - ~ , ,.,'-arc 1, ~r~,. ;p a'~a, if '~F'~' . i rr h'~ Y'" , i , k ~ ro e~~~ -,•i,a~t'rr''.,.~1'~lr, a - ~ !~s~x ~~dr?'~''~ z~,..~ '}~~'"Ci"~; r" `~M -,y.. ~ F ar'~ .M:. k '~a',.~+~~ av r,:''~'~' ~~"''wra*¢?a'ftK,`~-x"~t' t 1.x y ~j~ylN?~~../l ~ F - 'h T x i~UY.•~R .,~y' y~.. ~ , q 3~, ' ~ • y ,~9 tea' ~s - ~ . ^ ~ a rho, ;~y , ,~.f«wg ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ . t~~ s~ r J tf,; , a • r. ' ~ r... - - -x • ~ ki„xd. ,'x : ~ r . ~ ' , ~ , x~: a w.. a _ = • _ ^ M 1 , 'r, ~ ,rr.,:. ~ ~ ~ :a. . • ' uxr n' k ^ ~ ~f`~ii - , . • • pp,, ~ 3 S - .n ~ ~w..~~ ~ -s,~,~,>~,,, !a i k ~ . ~ 4'i ~M is i. ~ ~FY... ,.F ~ -'d ~ ~,rA. 4S, .5 '•~r ' ~ ~ T, ~4 '~j.. YM ri.~.K } t:f ~ ~ ~ 4 ~Hh `h~ t ~ ~ n ~ , , , Q~, _ i .~,w ~ v h LL, , > , \ A. , _ r . r, _ a,a. ~ , • ~ ~ , ~ ^~4 ~ a•., ~3 , , ~ ~ , " ~ , . ,.a ~ _ ::;arm : ~ . ~ r~ , ~ 1 ' IX i fi ~A"^' . a ~~,i. { 4 t 3 I~ y~~9~y#,N~1a S1c L~ ,.ri - ' ~'~1 ~ , ~ yr, ~ n m w ~~s,yY"~ y. n 4~e)', `a' X~.. 'Ni n ' ~ R' 1 I'.. 4 ' rww yl~.,. ~ c ~Y~ 'r, ~a• ~~~bB`~ rti,~~.~. fibs a w . ~`~S`:`+~,, ' ~F~'` s. u~; ~ ;.;~x ' ~ ~ r~>r ~ M wy~ , , .r r r. Y ~l. 4 , - - ' r :t k _ _ _ _ a mdR , , 7 r « i ' , lk, w, r c H a (I u4 ter. < l w y. uu w. ~ i , 1F' y r v ~f w L , A4 t, , K a , 4 Vim , i ,t..;. 'b~~•k ~~,1 fir, YJ"J 'K. t ~ 44 ~ f 4 i w i x x , v I u.s , 4 , y ^ c ) > rv , ' r , 17 , F D „ n1_~~~ ~~~,.•,I....nlL....i~n.a noon. -