Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/04/1997 c)~`~~. t CITY OF TIGARD ~ ~ LLB OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING i SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 i COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED i:ladmljo\ccpktl.doc t I I t 1 f t i L~ i I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 i I J 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 6:30 PM , TIGARD CITY MALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. ~ I TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and j should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the I Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: J • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and _ I • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i i j COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 1 i j _ AGENDA j CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 ' 6:30 p.m. i 1. BUSINESS MEETING i 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board i 1.2 Roll Call f, 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-0004 AT ex T MONOPOLE TOWER. City j Council Review of the Hearing's Officer Approval of Wireless ! j Communication Facilities - t- " The applicant is requesting approval to develop a 50-foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and related equipment structure. { Location: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges - C. Staff Report: Community Development Department 4 d. Public Testimony (Applicants, Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation I . h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-3 ~ I I 3. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive j Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 5. ADJOURNMENT J 1:\adm\cathy\cca\970904.doc i f ~ . 1 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 2 Agenda Item No. y. l Meeting of I of I~ i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. 1. BUSINESS MEETING Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board j Mayor Nicoli called the special business meeting to order at 6:42 p.m. I • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None . j • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97- 0004 AT & T MONOPOLE TOWER. City Council Review of the Hearing's Officer Approval of Wireless Communication Facilities The applicant is requesting approval to develop a 50-foot cellular communications `t monopole tower and related equipment structure. Location: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00 400. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges I± Councilor Moore, Councilor Scheckla, and Mayor Nicoli each declared that they had visited the site. Mayor Nicoli said that he has also been contacted by many neighbors. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He mentioned that at their August 12, 1997, meeting Council called up this decision of the Hearings Officer for review. He reviewed the conditions of approval imposed by the Hearings Officer. These I ' included one parking space; a fence on three sides of the ground-mounted equipment; a lighting plan; a 25-foot buffer between the facility and parking spaces; allowance collocation only if tower height was not increased; and removal of the tower within 90 l days if use terminated. i j Mr. Bewersdorff said that the Hearings Officer, in response to testimony at the hearing, noted the lack of guidance in the Code regarding how much impact would render a site unsuitable. Also Mr. Epstein concluded that the availability of alternative sites with fewer impacts was irrelevant as the Code required only that this site be suitable. Regarding the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE I } i would eliminate its adverse effects while the slimline design of the pole at a minimum height would not create visual impacts different from other poles, lighting standards, or structures on the site. Mr. Bewersdorff referenced the memo from staff planner Mark Roberts that addressed the issues raised by the neighbors regarding compliance of the retail center. While these issues were not relevant to this application, the code enforcement officer did investigate the complaints and found violations of the noise ordinance. Staff has initiated the process to enforce compliance with the Code. r Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval of the application according to the Hearings Officer's findings. - d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearings procedures and criteria. { APPLICANT > Kirk Gibson, 222 SW Columbia, #1800, Portland, telecommunications regulatory attorney, said that this application met the provisions of the City's new ordinance, even though it was not subject to it. He mentioned a survey done at the site in order to determine the accurate heights of the structures and trees. > Mike Birndorf, W&H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, land use planning consultant, f reviewed the background of AT&T as one of the original licensed cellular providers in the Portland area. He pointed out that the consumer demand and technology have changed over the past 12 years. Their intent for a pole at this site was to provide improved cellular coverage. C Mr. Birndorf reviewed the changes AT&T made to their plan to address the visual impact concerns of the neighborhood. These included flipping the site plan to move the pole away from the residential area and using an low impact design (50 foot slimline monopole with flush mounted antennas). He presented a series of photos and photosimulations to demonstrate various views of the pole from the residential area, and how the pole would be screened. He i pointed out the many trees greater than 50 feet in height that would screen the pole from the majority of residences. He noted the utility poles on Highway 99W and Fairhaven Way that were visible from backyards. Councilor Scheckla said that none of these photos were taken from residents' backyards. Mr. Birndorf said that they were taken from publicly accessible areas. Mr. Birndorf said that they reduced the noise by flipping the site plan away from the residences, i and by using low-noise air conditioning units. He referenced the drawing as evidence that there was adequate access and maneuvering room between the facility and the parking spaces. He mentioned the memo from the Deputy Fire Marshall to Mark Roberts (May 21) that approved the plans as submitted with regard to the Fire District requirements. Mr. Birndorf said that the planning staff confirmed that the existing development exceeded the minimum parking requirements (51 spaces) with 93 spaces. He said that they accepted the staff 1 findings and recommendations. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 2 t. y Y !1 1 i > Chris Matthews, 222 SW Columbia, #1800, Portland, land use attorney, reviewed how their application met the provisions of the new Tigard telecommunications ordinance (18.152.050), even though their application was not subject to the new ordinance. He pointed out that under the new ordinance, this application would not be a conditional use application but a Type 2 review with the decision made by the Planning Director. Mr. Matthews explained how this facility and site plan met the aesthetic, setback, tower spacing, 1 tower height, fencing, security, landscaping, screening, noise, collocation, and abandonment requirements of the new ordinance. He mentioned that the fence was a view obscurant fence. The accessory building electronically would be monitored constantly. He pointed out that this site was located within a project that already had landscaping and screening because it was on the edge of commercial and residential zones. He said that if the Council wanted them to put in additional planting in the gaps in the existing landscaping, they would do so. Mr. Matthews referenced a report on noise prepared by Clayton Engineering, noting that the background noise levels from Highway 99W were higher than the standards. Engineers calculated the impact of the equipment on the noise levels at the property line at a 0.8 to 1.1 decibel increase. He stated that they complied with all applicable state and federal regulations. Mr. Matthews said that they did not comply with the collocation protocol in the new ordinance t because it did not exist at the time of their application. However, upon review, their engineers concluded that collocation for this facility would not be technologically feasible. He mentioned the Hearings Officer's condition requiring the pole to come down if not in use. He held that this f J was a minimal pole, only 15 to 20 feet higher than the existing buildings on site. Mayor Nicoli asked about the noise requirements. Mr. Gibson said that the new code requirements were 50 by day and 40 by night while the current code requirements were 60 by ' day, 40 by night. l Councilor Moore asked if other users might collocate on this tower. Mr. Matthews said that the Hearings Officer imposed a condition that collocation could occur only if the tower height was not raised. He commented that it was unlikely that there would be collocation at this facility because users liked to be at different heights on a tower, and this tower's height could not be increased. Councilor Moore asked if the retail center had existing air-conditioning units on the roof. Mr. Bewersdorff said yes. Councilor Moore asked if staff agreed with Mr. Matthews' comparison of their application to the new ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff said that it was accurate. Mr. Matthews reiterated that they had met all provisions of the new code. Mr. Bimdorf commented that the Tigard code was a fair and excellent Code. Mr. Gibson clarified that the application would not meet the new Code noise allowances of 40 decibels at night. They were at 45 decibels at the property line but he contended that the f difference would not be discernible to the human ear because of the high background noise generated by Highway 99W. i i Councilor Scheckla asked about the technology used. Mr. Bimdorf said that they provided ? digital cellular service, using AT&T's most recent technology. i J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 3 f I 1 U Councilor Scheckla asked if AT&T considered alternative sites that might be better locations. 1 Mr. Bimdorf said that the site testing demonstrated that this site met their technical objectives. To move the site further to the north would interfere with other site, and with the spacing requirements. Mr. Gibson said the Engineer Carol Frizz, could answer the technical questions. Mr. Gibson said that he checked the actual noise levels given in the Tigard Code, and they were r 50 by day and 40 by night. He offered to baffle the air-conditioning units to reduce the noise generated to below 40 decibels at the property line. Mr. Matthews said that they would baffle 1 the air conditioners if the Council deemed it necessary to do so, but with the background noise levels from Highway 99W, he was not sure it was needed. Mr. Matthews said that most residences would not see the monopole because of existing buffering and screening requirements between commercial and residential zones and because of j trees planted for privacy reasons. Those areas that did see the monopole would not see anything ] more obtrusive than the utility poles already visible. > Carol Frizz, 1600 SW Fourth, Portland, AT&T Wireless Design Manager, spoke to the issue of why they could not move this facility to the top of the hill near Bull Mountain Road. This area was currently covered by several monopole sites but did not have one predominant server. If they moved the pole from this site to the top of the hill, they would increase the coverage problems. Councilor Scheckla asked if they looked at a non-residential site on Highway 99W between the Safeway shopping center and the Canterbury Apartments. Mr. Birndorf explained how a pole at j the subject site enabled them to cover McDonald Road and to concentrate the level of coverage along Highway 99W. Ms. Frizz said that they tested other sites, but the signal was blocked by the hill. Councilor Scheckla asked if AT&T would ask for more towers even if this request was granted. Mr. Bimdorf said that while they did not have any proposals for additional sites at this time, they did provide a service in which the technology and the consumer demands were changing. ` OPPONENTS i { j > David Hammes, 10740 SW Fairhaven Way, thanked the Council for agreeing to hear the neighbors' case regarding the AT&T monopole. He mentioned the issues raised at the July meeting with the land use attorney. These included health hazard, interference with appliances, effect on property values, lighting, noise, and visual impact. He asked who would they contact if they had appliance problems. He stated that two realtors told him that it would be harder for him to sell his home with the tower in his backyard. { Mr. Hammes said that the neighbors originally agreed to the existing retail center with the understanding that there would be no physical work creating noise at night or on Sundays. He cited numerous incidents of loud activities at the center during non-business hours, such as garbage pickups at 4 a.m. He spoke against adding one more air-conditioning unit to an already unacceptable situation. i Mr. Hammes emphasized that the neighbors did not want to see a 50-foot tower from their properties. He said that he had suggested alternative locations. He pointed out that apartment dwellers or commercial businesses could move easily and quickly if they did not like their I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 4 I DD i . 7 ~ 7 - 1 situation but home owners purchased for the long term and would have to sell their homes before they could move. He clarified that the trees in Picture #4 (shown by Mr. Bimdorf) were deciduous. Mr. Hammes contended that in this situation AT&T won by getting its pole, the landlord won by getting rent, and the neighborhood lost because they had to live with the pole in their backyards. He said that the neighbors had wanted to work with AT&T and had hoped that they might consider other options. He asked the Council to deny the request. i > Vickie Hammes, 10740 SW Fairhaven Way, quoted several sentences from the Hearings ' Officer's findings. She said that this was not an issue about need, but an issue about conflict. She contended that it was the duty of the Council to do whatever it could to reduce the impact of t the pole on her property, not to provide AT&T with the means of obtaining better coverage. She i questioned the AT&T engineer's statement at the original hearing that this location was the only viable site that would meet their engineering requirements. i Mrs. Hammes said that she was insulted by Mr. Bimdorf s comment at the hearing that the location of cellular facilities was a complicated process. She cited the design engineer's comments at the hearing as evidence that this pole was only a "bandaid" that would not fix the problems AT&T was having in providing coverage for this area. She noted that at the hearing { the land-use attorney had advised that the pole could not be placed in the landscaped area because it would violate landscaping requirements. She contended that her rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness were being violated because looking at this pole from her backyard would not make her happy. Her house could not be moved, and even if the view impact was lessened with distance, her view still be affected. I ~ C I Mrs. Hammes said that she wanted proof that the pole had to be on this site and could not be moved elsewhere. She contended that landscaping requirements set up by the City could be changed by the City. She asked for denial of this request. k > Jean Rich, 10830 SW Fairhaven Way, expressed concern about the night time noise level for the residents abutting the retail center. She asked if the tower could not be put closer to Highway 99W. She said that while daytime noise levels from the highway have increased, at night this was a quiet neighborhood because they were buffered by the commercial buildings. > John Chamberlain, 10710 S`.V Fairhaven Way, said that he was the neighbor most impacted by this application. He explained that the neighbors allowed the retail center to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 5 feet because they were trying to be good neighbors. However the property owner has not participated in these meetings for this particfular request. He said that AT&T was working to minimize the visual impact according to AT&T's standards, not to the neighbor's standards. Mr. Chamberlain mentioned that the many of the trees intended to screen his property from the retail center have died or blown down. He said that the shops directly behind the residential area were auto shops with loud tools and machines being used beyond the hours of operation agreed to by the neighbors. He stated that the neighborhood had naively believed that the verbal agreements made during the negotiations on the retail center would be honored, but the City paperwork showed that they were not. For this reason, the neighborhood was doubly cautious in this situation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 5 i r B ! Mr. Chamberlain expressed concern on the potential health hazards of the monopole. He reiterated the question of to whom did the neighbors go if the monopole interfered with their appliances. He said that he felt that with its clout and numerous experts, AT&T could do more to find a solution to this problem, and find another site that did not impact the neighbors as much as they were now. 1 i Mr. Chamberlain raised the issue of the existing complex. He said that he found discrepancies in the decision on the retail center that he would like reviewed. He noted that only two buildings were mentioned in the decision and questioned where the third one came from. He asked if the 53 required parking spaces were based on two or three buildings. He asked if the existing complex could be brought into compliance before they dealt with the issue of the pole. Mr. Chamberlain said that the aisleway between Building B and his property was only 21-feet wide when it was supposed to be 25-feet wide. He asked for review of the dumpster locations. He said that the neighbors' wishes regarding the business hours and noise levels were not i incorporated in the decision. i i i Mayor Nicoli relayed a question from a Councilor to the City Attorney. Were the existing site conditions prior to this application relevant to this application? Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, said no, they were not. She said that she understood that the Council was granting Mr. Chamberlain the courtesy of listening to his concerns, and could respond with code enforcement measures. However, these factors were not relevant to the conditional use criteria applicable to this application. Mr. Bewersdorfl'said that staff was in the process of code enforcement measures. They have u sent a letter of enforcement to the responsible parties regarding the noise. He concurred that the ! 21 foot aisleway was nonconforming but stated that this facility would have to meet the 25-foot requirement. Mr. Chamberlain submitted the City's letter to the tune-up shop regarding the noise. He stated ' that their inability to contact the property owner regarding the noise issue concerned the neighbors. The neighbors had tried to be good neighbors by giving the owner the five-foot buffer but they did not feel that he was returning the favor. Neither did they think that AT&T was trying to help them in the monopole situation. Mr. Chamberlain cited further examples of noise related conflicts between the neighbors and the retail center businesses. i Mr. Chamberlain distributed a letter to the Council. He reviewed a list of potential conditions to minimize the visual impact of the AT&T tower. These included a masonry fence two feet taller than the accessory building with the proper building clearances around the accessory building and the tower in order to minimize the noise, to provide greater safety, and to reduce the visual impact. Also he suggested installation of the quietest kind of air conditioning unit possible, installation of trees (both fast and slow growing) to reduce the of impact of the tower from a 10' to 50' foot range with the agreement of a neighborhood subcommittee, and specific wording in the decision to disallow collocation at this site. He asked the Council to consider changing the 1 monopole ordinance to address the impact of the building and the pole. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Chamberlain knew what the cost impact would be to bring in the larger trees. Mr. Chamberlain said that based upon his research a 12-foot tree cost about $200 while the larger trees (20 feet tall) could cost up to $1000. He submitted photos showing the s CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 6 1 i i i 1 I views from the neighborhood but said that photos did not adequately tell the story about how the monopole visually impacted the neighbors' backyards. Mayor Nicoli reference the drawing of the existing landscaping. Mr. Chamberlain said he had seen a similar drawing. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the existing shrubbery would obscure the j first 15' to 20' feet of the pole. Mr. Chamberlain commented that the neighbors never got the continuous hedge they requested. He reiterated his request for a masonry fence to baffle the noise, contending that trees and shrubs were useless as noise barrier. He mentioned that the j 1 retail centers overhead doors situated along his back property line were supposed to stay closed but were often open in the summer when it was hot. He asked that the existing retail center be i brought into compliance with the Code before adding another problem. > Debbie Chamberlain, 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, distributed copies of her notes. She challenged AT&T to find a way to hide the pole from their backyard instead of "minimizing" it. j She stated that Mike Birndorf did take pictures from her backyard and asked where those photos 4 were now. She said that she could not see the utility poles on Highway 99W from her yard. She argued against allowing collocation, contending that more equipment would increase the visual impact. She asked why install the pole at this location if it was not tall enough for collocation if the intent was to decrease the number of poles installed. Mrs. Chamberlain referenced the AT&T comment that this was an excellent Code, questioning for whom was it an excellent Code. She expressed her frustration that the new ordinance would allow installation of this pole. Mrs. Chamberlain mentioned the noise issues of the retail center, including running motors, honking, telephones, power tools, obnoxious yelling, and profanity. She cited several instances of unacceptable noise levels, such as hearing profanity from the center inside her house, early J morning garbage pickups, and loud music from cars. She reiterated that the property owner said businesses would operate only during normal working hours. Mrs. Chamberlain said that the existing row of arbor vitae did not meet her definition of a "hedge" (an impenetrable barrier for privacy) since after 7 years the plants were still a foot apart and several were missing. She stated that the existing landscaping was not maintained, and that the neighbors did not have adequate privacy. She asked why the residents of Garden Park Place j were not notified of this proposal. She presented several photos to illustrate the lack of maintenance of the landscaping and various views from around the neighborhood. Mrs. Chamberlain asked why Tigard Motors, a used car lot, was not listed as a tenant on the paperwork. She stated that the retail center did not comply with the handicapped parking requirements, and that a white truck continuously sat in one of the poorly marked spaces. Mrs. Chamberlain contended that the commercial property owners should show consideration for the residential neighbors instead of the residential property owners putting up with the commercial noise level. She asked that the Council enforce the Code regulations with regard to the existing center. She asked that AT&T work with the neighbors to find a compromise to j address the visual impacts of the pole. > Kaye Chung, 10730 SW Fairhaven Street, said that as a customer of AT&T Cellular, she has never had a dropped call in the Tigard area except during the windstorm. She said that she did not see why they needed the pole. She pointed out that while the utility poles were very tall, they were not located directly behind people's houses nor were they standing in the middle of nothing t like this pole would be. She suggested putting the pole out near the street. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 7 i i i > Allen Zandonatti,10680 SW Fairhaven Way, supported moving the pole closer to the road. He spoke to spending more time planning these locations and not placing the poles in people's backyards. He asked for a brick wall or stone hedge (10 feet high along the back property line) as a replacement for the fence and shrubbery in order to block noise. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 8:36 p.m. > Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. REBUTTAL Mr. Birndorf apologized for any offense he may have caused the neighbors. Mr. Matthews expressed AT&T's appreciation for the neighbors' input and concerns. He said that they were sorry that the existing situation was so frustrating for the neighbors but pointed out that the Council had to consider their application separate from that situation. He said that AT&T devoted much time and energy to strategic design and site location. They tried to balance 333 all the factors, and neighbors' concerns was an important factor. Mr. Matthews said that they felt their proposal for a low, slim pole responded to the competing j interests in this situation. He said that as a good neighbor, AT&T would propose additional conditions of approval to address the neighbors' concerns. He said that two of these three conditions required the landlord's approval, although they did not know why the landlord would .-y not agree to the request. AT&T would baffle the air conditioning units regardless of the background noise levels. With the landlord's permission, they would fill in the existing landscaping and screening where plants were missing (allowing a view of the pole) to the 95% opaque standards in the new Code. With the landlord's permission and a certified arborist's assistance, they would plant a tree on the landlord's side of the property in the gap behind the Chamberlains' yard. j Mrs. Hammes reiterated that the neighbors were saying don't put a pole in our backyard. She asked why AT&T could not place the pole in the existing landscaping at the front of the retail 1 center. 1 e. Council Questions = - Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that if the landlord refused his permission, Caen AT&T did not have to do anything at all. Mr. Matthews reiterated that he did not know why the landlord would not agree to let AT&T fix his landscaping problem for him. However he could not legally advise his client to agree to something that was outside of his control. i Ms. Beery said that legally the City could not enforce conditions on property that the applicant " did not own. She said that in this instance, the Council could impose these conditions with the understanding that the City Council recognizes that if the landlord did not agree, then the ! conditions could not be met. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, mentioned that the Council did have the review authority to impose conditions to mitigate the impact of the tower. He said that the J Council could find that specific issues had to be done to meet the criteria. He cited examples i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 8 1 III is of requiring AT&T to meet the noise standards or requiring them to take steps to screen the pole to some degree. y Mr. Matthews said that as a general rule, AT&T did not want to locate its improvements on someone else's property (such as a neighbor's) but that it would be acceptable under the landlord relationship. He said that they would agree to the conditions as not subject to the landlord's approval. If they could not get his approval, they would apply for a modification of ! their conditional use permit. I Councilor Scheckla asked if AT&T would move their pole if they did not get the landlord's approval. Mr. Matthews said that that was a decision for the engineers but as he understood it, the engineers considered this site as the right location for a variety of reasons and would probably want to work with the neighbors to install it here. ` Councilor Scheckla asked what AT&T would do if the Council denied this application. Mr. ; . Matthews reviewed the options available, including appeal and re-application under the new ordinance. He commented that this was a fairly attractive and positive attempt to compromise. ; Ms. Beery concurred with Mr. Matthews' assessment of AT&T's options. E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. g. Staff Recommendation i Mr. Bewersdorff recommend approval of the application subject to the additional conditions f approved by Council. h. Council Deliberation I Mayor Nicoli said that he disagreed with Ms. Beery's interpretation that the larger context of the retail center problems was not relevant to this specific application. They were dealing with y one owner and a potential tenant. He argued that the City would not allow a tenant in one of the rental spaces to bring additional non-conforming problems to the site. I Ms. Beery agreed that they would not allow someone to increase the nonconformity of the site but that was not this situation. Here they had a new use entitled to review under their Code and a set of code enforcement problems on the property unrelated to that use. She said that even if the existing property owner applied to put a pole on the site, they would not raise the existing conditions as an issue. She stated that holding up AT&T was not one of the tools the City had the legal authority to use to get the property owner to improve the management and conditions of the retail center. Bill Monahan, City Manager, commented that the City did not have a prohibition in the Code that said no applicant shall be accepted from any property that is not in full compliance with all the laws of the City of Tigard. Ms. Beery concurred and commented that adding such i - a provision to the Code would require careful thought. j Councilor Scheckla asked if Tigard had other monopoles located in residential areas. Staff said that there were, mentioning Pfaftle Street and North Dakota in particular. Councilor Scheckla asked why was this the first time this many neighbors turned out on this issue. He commented 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 9 i i i 1 that he thought AT&T would have found out how the neighbors felt before they considered the site. Councilor Hunt expressed empathy for the neighbors, comparing this situation to the increased traffic noise in his neighborhood. He said that legally he could see no reason to deny this application. He supported a condition to baffle the air conditioning units to bring the facility l I into compliance with the Code. He said that he did not agree with the decision but reiterated that they had to approve this request because the application was in compliance with the code j requirements and laws. i Councilor Moore expressed his distaste for these types of situations. He said that he would like to have heard about the retail center's problems sooner, and spoke to staff making sure the code regulations were enforced. He concurred with Councilor Hunt that they had no legal j reason to deny an application when it met the applicable Code requirements. He supported E AT&T's offer to baffle the air conditioning units and to add to the landscaping, applauding it as an effort to help solve the situation. He said that he has never read or heard anything ' suggesting that these poles posed a health hazard or interfered with appliances. He said that he wished he could deny the application but could not find a reasonable cause under their Code to deny. 1 Councilor Scheckla spoke against the application because the visual impact detracted from the i attractiveness of the neighborhood and the City. He questioned why they could regulate PGE and other utilities but not this monopole. Councilor Moore commented that the visual impact of this 50-foot monopole was minimal r~ compared to the visual impact of the big 100 foot poles. ' 1 Mayor Nicoli agreed that they could not deny the application but disagreed with the conditions as developed by staff and the Hearings Officer. He spoke to applying landscaping requirements I j aggressively in situations related to visual impact, especially in established neighborhoods. He suggested adding both fast- and slow-growing trees to the existing landscaping. He expressed j concern that adding any more noise to a site that already was in violation of City code would only make the situation worse. Ms. Beery reiterated that they could not evaluate this application based on what else was occurring on the property. While the surrounding businesses were in violation of the Code, _ baffling the air-conditioning units would bring this use into compliance with the Code. The Council must weigh the evidence in the record on the noise issue in making their decision. Councilor Hunt asked if, under the new code, the Council could require landscaping to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Bewersdorff said that he would have to check on this. Councilor Hunt suggested considering that issue during Code review. Mayor Nicoli said that he concurred with the Hearings Officer's finding that "the proposed tower did not have such significant unmitigated adverse visual impacts that the application should be denied." He pointed out that the Hearings Officer struggled with this decision, and spoke to applying a higher standard in residential situations. He said that AT&T did nothing to mitigate the visual impact. He said there was sufficient visual impact to require the planting of trees. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 10 i i i i I 1 1 it i 4 Mayor Nicoli commented that the landlord has not cooperated in good faith in maintaining the f landscaping nor kept his agreement with the City. He suggested that additional land be set ! aside to be under AT&T's control on which they would plant large trees in close proximity to the tower on the residential side. The City would hold AT&T directly accountable for the maintenance of those trees. He contended that since AT&T was creating the visual impact problem, they should address it. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion to place responsibility for the care of the trees directly on the applicant. Councilor Hunt questioned whether or not they could hold AT&T responsible for trees not planted on their leased property. Ms. Beery said that if Council made it a condition of approval, and AT&T planted trees offsite, then AT&T would have to solve the problem. She noted that AT&T has indicated willingness to take that risk. The Council discussed where to locate the trees to mask the pole most effectively, either close to the pole or along the property line. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that fewer trees were needed closer to the pole which reduced the cost impact on AT&T. He reiterated that if the Council r t required landscaping, then AT&T had to find a way to comply with the condition. i The Council discussed which conditions to impose. Councilor Moore noted that they agreed on baffling the air-conditioning units. Mayor Nicoli proposed that the applicant submit to the staff a landscaping plan showing trees that were at least 15 feet in height to screen the pole adequately. The staff and applicant could decide where to place the trees. In addition, the applicant was responsible to maintain the trees, and the staff would have final approval. .1 Mayor Nicoli asked if a staff decision on the trees being adequate or not was appealable. Ms. 4 Beery said that was difficult to answer; however, staff would probably handle this as an administrative decision without notice. Mr. Hendryx asked for clear direction from Council regarding their intention. Mayor Nicoli j said that he wanted large, well-established trees, (3 to 4 inch caliper, 30-40 feet at full height, and both fast and slow growing), planted in sufficient numbers to partially shield the adjacent i homes, whether on the property line or up close to the pole. Councilors Moore and Hunt did not want poplars planted. F Ms. Beery indicated that there was sufficient detail in the Council direction that she would view the staff as having the authority to carry out the condition, and the issue would not return to Council. Motion by Councilor Hunt to implement the Council direction. There was no second. Ms. Beery noted the need to include the other conditions approved by the Hearings Officer and suggested by the Council. She pointed out that the Council direction that the applicant prepare a landscaping plan for submittal to staff essentially replaced the second and third conditions j proposed by AT&T. Mr. Matthews asked to clarify their understanding of the Council's intentions. > Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE I 1 i i I i I i Mr. Matthews said that AT&T did not object to the Council imposition of a condition that was broader than what they had suggested. He expressed concern that this not become a land use decision that could be appealed. He suggested that he and Ms. Beery work out the exact wording of the condition to make it sufficiently objective yet inclusive of all the conditions wanted by the Council. - I Ms. Beery concurred. She proposed a recess during which she and Mr. Matthews would work this out, and then present their proposal in the public hearing format. Mr. Chamberlain asked about citizen involvement in this discussion of the conditions of approval. Ms. Beery explained that she and the AT&T attorney would work out a condition that specified the type of landscaping the Council wanted to help screen the pole. Mayor Nicoli said that the neighbors could comment on the condition. Mr. Chamberlain asked why a masonry fence did not make sense in this situation. Mayor i Nicoli said that they would deal with the noise issue after the visual impact issue. t ' > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:46 p.m. > Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 10:02 p.m. 1 Ms. Beery presented the proposed condition, pointing out that it was only one among many conditions. A number of trees (within a range proposed by the Council) were to be planted within the area bounded by the property lines of the three lots abutting the center. The exact location of the trees to be approved by an arborist. The plan was subject to review by the staff. I Tree location was to maximize screening of the view of the pole from the adjoining residential i properties. The trees were to include species growing with varying speeds. The applicant was f responsible for maintenance of the trees. The certified arborist was to be selected by the applicant. The Council's intent was that the staff review was not a land use decision. E Ms. Beery said that they thought it best to leave it to the Council to choose a minimum and f maximum number of trees to be planted. They hoped that an arborist would select trees and a i location to insure tree survival to the greatest degree possible. Mayor Nicoli noted that j Council was not stating that the trees had to be planted within the existing landscaping area. j Mr. Chamberlain asked why the applicant rather than the City chose the arborist. Ms. Beery said that the City would approve the arborist who had to be certified, according to Code. Mayor Nicoli asked to direct staff to collect input from the two closest property owners. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that such direction made this a land use decision. Ms. Beery pointed out that nothing in the condition precluded the applicant from talking to the neighbors on his own and getting their input. She agreed with keeping such direction out of the condition. Mr. Hendryx said that the critical aspect of this condition was to give the arborist and staff a goal to work towards. In this case, to partially screen the tower from specific properties. Mr. Chamberlain asked if the arborist could put in more trees than the number range allowed. Mayor Nicoli said yes, if he found it necessary to do so. He explained that he wanted a minimum number. 1 Mr. Hammes supported planting trees closer to the pole where AT&T could maintain them. ~j He noted that the landscaping area was only 4' to 5' feet wide, a narrow strip for trees. Ms. P CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 12 l a i 1 - Beery said that the condition required the applicant to maintain the trees. She suggested leaving it to the arborist to decide what types of trees could survive in the landscaping area. Mr. Hammes said that the neighbors would like to work with AT&T to resolve the visual impact problem. Ms. Beery reiterated that the applicant and neighbors could discuss this issue outside of the Council action but Council should avoid implementing another public- involvement process that would turn this into a land use decision. Mr. Matthews asked that the condition specify the three property owners abutting the back edge of the center. He spoke to the professionalism of certified arborists with whom he has } worked, and expressed his confidence that any certified arborist would select trees and a location to insure likelihood of survival. He commented that he was certain that there were 1 areas where the landlord would not allow the planting of trees, and asked to constrain the j arborist to consider only the existing landscaped area along the back edge or within the leased k area. Mayor Nicoli said that while he did not object to Mr. Matthews' request, he did question whether or not the leased area was large enough to include room for trees. He said that he hoped AT&T would negotiate with the landlord if they needed 1 or 2 more feet for a landscaped area. Mr. Matthews cited AT&T's present negotiations on conditions they were not legally required to meet for approval as evidence of their willingness to work with the situation. Mr. Chamberlain commented that a tree in the buffer zone would overhang onto his property and the retail center's two-lane aisleway. He supported trees in the leased area. Mr. Matthaws J said that if the trees could not overhang Mr. Chamberlain's property, then they would not want to plant trees in the landscaping strip. He contended that this was unreasonable, and asked for specific language in the condition allowing the trees to overhang the property. He said that since they did not know the effect of the trees on the pole, they could not know whether or not they could plant the trees in the leased area. Councilor Moore said that if they could not plant trees in the buffer zone, they did not have enough flexibility to deal with the visual impacts and the discussion was moot. Councilor Hunt agreed. ! j > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. i > Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. Mr. Matthews reiterated that the engineers did not know if they could safely plant a tree of that size in the leased area. They needed the arborist's opinion in this situation. i > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. 1 i > Council discussion The Council discussed the number of trees to require in the condition. They agreed upon a range of 2 to 5 trees. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 13 i j k f' The Council discussed the noise issue. They agreed that the noise generated by the use would have to comply with the code requirements of 40/50. Ms. Beery restated the conditions of approval. They included the Hearings Officer's conditions 2A through 213, the addition of conditions 2E - "the noise generated by this use shall not exceed I the levels allowed by the Development Code" - and 2F - "the applicant shall plant two to five 3 to 4 inch caliper trees within the area bounded by the property lines of the three lots abutting the 1 northwest property line of the retail center. The exact location of the trees to be approved by a certified arborist. The plan to be subject to review by staff. Tree location is to maximize screening of the view of the pole from the adjoining residential properties, and to include trees that grow with varying speeds. 'Tree location will either be within the existing landscaped areas or the leased area but would not adversely affect the functioning of the facility. The applicant to be responsible for maintenance of the trees. The certified arborist is to be selected by the I applicant and approved by the City. The Council's intent was that the staff review was not a land use decision." j t I Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 97-36. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONCERNING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-0004, FILED BY AT&T TO DEVELOP A 50 FOOT CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 13707 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY, AS i _ AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ` Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors C Hunt and Moore, voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") f. 3. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mayor Nicoli directed staff to work aggressively with the retail center property owner to address the noise issue. Mr. Hendryx said that staff has already begun the code enforcement process. He reviewed the issues which staff could address but pointed out that they could not address the issue of the property owner as a "bad neighbor." He suggested asking the property owner and = the neighbors to use the mediation process to resolve the situation. > Councilor Hunt raised the issue of the goal setting process, stating that he did not like the process used last time. He spoke to Council discussion of the suggested goals while the Councilors proposed them, instead of simply listing the goals and everyone agreeing to them. After Council discussion, Mr. Monahan suggested holding a goal setting discussion on September 30 from 6 to 10 p.m. with a second session scheduled for the next Tuesday evening. The Council asked staff to bring that back in a proposal to the next meeting for review by the full Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 14 1 F > Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council as a whole wanted to endorse the Washington County Gas Tax funding package. The Council asked for more information prior to taking a position. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CANCELLED. 5. ADJOURNMENT: 10:36 p.m. I e. aa Attest: ! atherine Wheatley, City ecorder or, City o/fTigard I ate: I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 15 , COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal u - P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 919 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 F 1 Legal Notice Advertising IFECEIVED • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 561 Hall Blvd. SEP 02 1997 • Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit OF TIGARD *Accounts Payable • i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) J ' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising ` Director, or his principal clerk, of the ard-Tl1-a),a_tin-T4mes s a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 + and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the j Citv Council Special l1e_, tines 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: August 28,1997 j- I V Subscribed and sworn to fore me t/hi~s?8t/h/J~- daof Au ;ust,1997 Il9UG~ C ~`.GCt OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS Notary lic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT _ The fallowing eetfag highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171. _ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING September 4,1997 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Special Meeting (Town Hall Room) (6:30 P.M.) I > Public Hearing - City Council Review of the Hearings Officer Approval of Wireless Communication Facilities - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-0004 AT & T MONOPOLE TOWER. The applicant is requesting approval to develop a 50-foot tall J cellular communications monopole tower and related equipment structure. Location: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCPM2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400. > Executive Session. M919 - Publish August 28, 1997. _ I I I I ..i I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 915 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising i *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice - 13125 SII Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • • Accounts Payable i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kathy Snyder i ^ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-mLIa 1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti garrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the C'L1P 7aTFT tinnopol a Tr wer I. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for- QNR successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 21,1997 Subscribed and savor before me this2 St day of August, 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BUROEN Not ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY CCMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT . _.__._w 1 - J i The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council will hold a I special meeting on September 4, 1997, at 6:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 S.W. 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 rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. 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 and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify tine criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE HEARING'S OFFICER APPROVAL OF: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-0004 > A T & T MONOPOLE TOWER < The applicant is requesting approval to develop a 50-foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and related equipment structure. LOCATION: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400. ZONE: General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial zoning district provides sites for the provision of major retail goods and services. The provision of utilities are also allowed in the General Com- mercial zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com- munity Development Code Chapters 18.62, 18.96, 18.100, 10.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120 and 18.130. b i I III II I III I I ► 1 I__I I I_ L C ! L 77 I o ~ ~ it i TT8915 - Publish August 21, 1997. 's ~epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time ch person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 DATE: September 4, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-0004 AT & T MONOPOLE TOWER. City Council Review of the Hearing's Officer Approval of k { Wireless Communication Facilities The applicant is requesting approval to develop a 50-foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and related equipment structure. Location: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400. I PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS f . i ji i . 1 - i . _~GENDA ITEM NO. 2 A PLEASE PRINT i Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. raA ddres, an /Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ddress and Phone No. Name, Addr ess and Phone No. ddress and Phone No. S d LIN A?-0' OP- q'! z z 3 C AIZ-C)l. FI212 103 lz` Name, Address and Phone No. (u vawo,6 Name, Address and Phone No. J9 T'4 T 60,'Mle ss .Se-rv«e1 QvPS~icr,~, IO to ~W I/LlfiRbts~1 W / t boo sw ~72 c1l. -Cl 1 I 11, Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. CAN fr 5 Mc S ~Qv) C,l~►'v~ l~ e+(t a n Z-y2 Sw ~ivvr,~,c`. ISc~J~ l~r~e i . - Wk (p'l I D ~Uv F;na Y M Yt~/l Name, Address and Ph ne No. Name, dress and Phone No. t'l /0~~'~ - G~tH ~c.~C_ e Ch III o,/ 1 p _ / u » /~~rr~~ /0730 Scc.~ ~n~rha~'ecc, q-d,d ~r2 977ZJ ~Pa~Pd/-i Dy 9 -9373 Name Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f 1~~~1C ~~85o~J Me,, ~KdaKa tf'r ZZZ ScJ C'tl~uK1Dl0. ~Sv 1E' I0680 5t,/• irlwvc•. t,/a ~pc ~C9, CQ.'a 7 ?-Qt, 22 (0^119 TjS.1 r vR 77 z7-3 ~G3 - 9 3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f 'III AGENDA ITEM ` FOR AGENDA OF: September 4, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: City Council Review of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-0004 - AT&T Monopole. PREPARED BY: Mark RobertOWPEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-0004 filed by AT&T Wireless Communications for a 50-foot tall cellular communications tower? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the Conditions of Approval issued by the Hearings Officer. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the "August 12, 1997" City Council Business Meeting, the Council moved to review the Hearings Officer a approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-0004. The application was filed by AT&T Wireless Communications for a 50-foot-tall cellular communications tower within the commercial center at 13707 SW f Pacific Highway (99W). On "July 7, 1997" the Hearings Officer conducted a Public Hearing concerning this oplication. During the hearing the Hearings Officer responded to questions from neighboring property owners concerning potential visual and noise impacts. The Hearings Officer also addressed issues related to the need for the facility at the proposed location, safety, interference with personal appliances, and issues with the overall existing retail center complying with current standards. At the close of the meeting, the record was held open for i three, one week periods to allow submittal of evidence concerning the need for the facility and noise generated from the new use. i. The applicant demonstrated that the 50-foot height was necessary due to required "line-of-site" between this facility and other antennas. The proposed slim-line design of the antennas would be mounted nearly flush with the pole. The Hearings Officer determined that the Community Development Code does not require the applicant to demonstrate the need for the facility. only that it met the standards for development at the proposed location. To address safety issues the monopole must comply with structural design standards through the Building Permit review. The Hearings Officer stated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), not the City, was responsible for licensing the use of certain band widths. If interference with personal appliances were to occur, it would likely be caused by unlawful use of the same bandwidths of more than one user. Also, the Hearings Officer found that because the application did not propose redevelopment of the entire commercial center, that any deficiencies such as noise or landscaping were not applicable to the development of the proposed use. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED y Approval of the application subject to revised Conditions of Approval. 1 FISCAL NOTES ~o direct fiscal impact. ATTACHMENT: Hearings Officer's Final Order MarkIt - 21 Aug 97.,9,:51 AfA, _I Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: July 7. 1997 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CITY OFTIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON°'n"`~'"i`y D" ~°P""°` Shapira ABetterCommunity SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY I I CASES: FILE NAME: AT & T MONOPOLE TOWER Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-0004 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Conditional Use Permit approval for a 50-foot tall cellular communications monopole structure and associated equipment structures. APPLICANT: AT & T Wireless Services OWNER: Tigard Retail Center Partners 1600 SW Fourth Avenue 1815 SW 169th Place ; Portland, OR 97201 Beaverton, OR 97008 a' z COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. j ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. LOCATION: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400. I APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108 and 18.130. I SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~ i i Staff recommends that the Hearing's Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit 1 will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: ; STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 - A T & T MONOPCLE PAGE 1 OF 7 . f I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639-4171.) 1. The applicant shall modify the proposed site and/or landscape plan to provide one (1) paved, off-street parking space for the service vehicle. Alternatively, the applicant shall provide proof that the existing parking on the property exceeds the minimum parking ratio based on the existing commercial tenants within the shopping center. i i. 2. The applicant shall provide fencing, landscaping, or other permitted method of screening of the ground mounted equipment, The screening shall be provided to the 1 west, south and east of the leasehold area. The applicant shall maintain the screening materials that are provided in perpetuity. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. i - SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The property is developed with a group of three (3) commercial buildings that are used for various types of commercial uses such as automotive repair, and a video rental store. The City has no record of any other more recent development applications having been filed for this property. Vicinity Information: i To the north, south, east, and west of the leasehold area are areas within the same retail center property. To the north and west of the shopping center are existing detached, single-family residences. The properties that adjoin this site are developed with j commercial uses except for areas to the north and west that are developed with detached, single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is presently developed with three (3) retail buildings, parking, and landscaped areas designed to serve the existing commercial center. The applicant has requested Conditional Use Permit approval to develop a 50-foot-tall cellular communications tower facility and related equipment structures. STAFF F -PORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 - A T & T MONOPOLE PAGE 2 OF 7 rF-. i SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 50 foot cellular monopole. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as a utility. Code Section 18.62 lists utilities as a conditionally permitted use in the General Commercial Zoning District. i Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.62 states that there is no minimum lot size j requirements. Developments within the General Commercial Zoning District are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant states that over 15% of the existing site is already landscaped. Upon inspection of the site and review of the site ' plan, this appears to be correct. Because the proposed leasehold area is presently paved, the construction of this monopole facility cannot increase the current percentage of impervious surface on the property. For this reason, it is not recommended that additional landscaping be provided in conjunction with this request. Setback: Section 18.62.050 states that there is no front yard or side yard setback facing the street. No side and rear yard setbacks are required except; a minimum of i 20 feet shall be required where a commercial use abuts a residential zoning district The site adjoins a residential zoning district along its northwesterly property line. The t proposed new ground mounted equipment structure is 25 feet from the northwesterly property line. The monopole would be 50 feet from the northwesterly property line. For t - these reasons, the proposed monopole and related equipment structure complies with the setback standards set forth in the General Commercial Zoning District for this type of use. I Building Height Limitations Exceptions: Section 18.98.020 states that any building located in a non-residential zoning district shall not exceed a height of 75 feet subject to certain criteria. Section 18.98.010 exempts structures that are not intended for human habitation. The proposed communications monopole is not intended for human ; habitation and is exempt from the height requirement as provided under Section 18.98.0'i0. } Street Trees: Section 18.100.035 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees. Section 18.100.035 requires 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), with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height. The existing retail building was developed with street trees. These existing trees are not impacted by this proposal. For this reason no addi!icn^I street trees are recommended to be provided as a result of this additional utility use. i Screening Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 . A T 8 T MONOPOLE PAGE 3 OF 7 L L { vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Because monopole facilities require a maintenance vehicle to access the site periodically, a minimum of one (1) off-street parking space needs to be provided, or proof that existing off-street parking exceeds the minimum standards. Based on the plan and existing site constraints, it appears that the existing retail use provides sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the service vehicle. It does not appear necessary to construct new parking for this purpose. The existing parking lot appears to provide more than the minimum required parking. Therefore, no additional parking lot screening appears necessary to comply with this requirement. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is 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. The applicant has not proposed to construct improvements that exceed the aforementioned height within the Clear I Vision areas. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030 does not specify a minimum parking ratio requirement for an unmanned utility use such as the proposed cellular - communications monopole. The applicant states that periodically a maintenance vehicle will need to access the facility. The applicant has not provided parking to serve this development. Because the applicant states that a maintenance vehicle will be at the site, one (1) parking space has previously been required for this type of use. For this reason, the site and/or landscape plan shall be revised to provide one (1) off-street parking space, or the applicant shall demonstrate that the existing off-street parking exceeds the minimum standard for parking. cces : Section 18.108.080 states that commercial and industrial uses that require less than 100 parking spaces provide one (1) access with a minimum width of 30-feet, and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. No specific width is set forth for unmanned utility uses. The proposed leasehold area is accessed by an existing 24-foot-wide, two-way commercial service driveway. Due to the type of use, no specific width is required. The Fire District approved access to this facility, as proposed. Site Development Review - Approval Standards: Section 18.120.180(A)(1) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Sections 18.62, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, and 18.130. The proposal's consistency with these Sections are reviewed elsewhere within this staff report. Site Development Review - Additional Approval Standards: Section 18.120.180(A)(2- 18) provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180(A)(2) (Tree Removal), 18.120.180.(A)(3) (Exterior Elevations), STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 - A T & T MONOPOLE PAGE 4 OF 7 I L~ 1 1 18.120.180.(A)(5) (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.(A)(6) (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.(A)(7) (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), (18.120.180.(A)(8) (Open Space Dedication), 18.120.180.(A)(9) (Demarcation of Spaces), 18.120.180.(A)(12) (Public Transit), 18.120.180.(A)(17) (Signs) and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Section 18.120.180.(A)(18) requires that other applicable provisions of the underlying zone be addressed. These sections are addressed elsewhere within this report. THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS ARE FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE FROM SECTION 18.120.180(A)(2 -18): (4), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15) and (16) and are reviewed immediately below. Buffering Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining U199: Section 18.120.180.(A)(4) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. The applicant's proposal did not indicate specific screening materials that would be utilized around the proposed fenced leasehold area. It is recommended that the applicant provide a screening plan that utilizes one (1) of the approved types of screening i materials to screen the ground mounted equipment. Due to its 50-foot height and its communications purpose, it is not possible to screen the entire facility and still allow the necessary clear line of site to other antennae structures. The monopole itself has not been designed to attract attention due to its proposed neutral gray color and unobtrusive antennae panels that would be in line with the monopole itself. { 1 Section 18.120.180.(A)(4) also states that on-site screening from view of adjoining - properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking !o' , a^d mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. The applicant has proposed to screen ground mounted equipment through the use of new landscape plantings. j Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.180.(A)(10) requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The Police Department reviewed this application and had no comments or concerns with this development as proposed. Access: Section 18.120.180.(A)(11) requires compliance with the access standards set forth in Section 18.108. The applicable site access provisions are reviewed elsewhere within this report. y i rki : Section 18.120.180.(A)(13) requires compliance with the Off-Street Parking Standards set forth in Section 18.106. The applicable Off-Street Parking standards of I r Section 18.106 are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Landscaping: Section 18.120.180.(A)(14) requires compliance with the Landscape provisions of Section 18.100. The applicable Landscape standards are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Drainage: Section 18.120.180.(A)(15) requires compliance with the surface water runoff standard of the 1981 Master Plan. No increase in runoff can occur because the affected portion of the property is presently a paved service area. For this reason, no new storm drainage structures have been recommended. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 - A T & T MONOPOLE PAGE 5 OP 7 ~I 1 l~ Provisions for the Handicap pad: Section 18.120.180.(A)(16) requires compliance with the handicapped accessibility standards of ORS Chapter 487. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the City will review the proposal for compliance with all applicable handicapped accessibility standards. Conditional Use: Section 18.130.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Conditional Use: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use 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 I by this chapter. 5. The supplementary requirements set forth in Chapter 18.114 (Signs) and Section 18.120.180 (Approval Standards) Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. 6. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The use, as proposed, complies with all site development standards set forth for the General Commercial Zoning District. The leasehold area is physically separated from existing residential development due to the location of adjoining retail buildings. Fencing, landscaping, and existing development around the leasehold area will partially screen the proposed monopole and fully screen the ground mounted equipment from view. The applicant has not requested that public facilities be made available to serve this development as proposed. All applicable standards of the zoning district are met by this proposal, as reviewed within this staff report. The development of this facility will not generate large scale construction impacts due to the type of improvements that are planned. The site will also, not likely require the development of new parking. The applicant has also proposed to blend the antenna into the area and reduce the visual impact of the antenna. The antenna itself is described in the applicant's submittal as being a metal pole with antennas which are not expected to draw attention to the structure. This portion of the site to be redeveloped is paved so no unique, natural features have been noted. The small leased area requires no significant grading or engineering to develop the site as proposed. The applicant has not proposed to develop a site larger than needed for the proposed use. The specific development criteria of the Comprehensive Plan that addresses the development of this type of utility facility are contained within the adopted Community Development Code. The applicable development standards of the Community Development Code are addressed within this report. 1 j 'I STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 • A T & T MONOPOLE PAGE 6 OF 7 - J 1 U14 r~C*3 0 P `I 01.1~C !VACANT, 1 i A3 TWE AGAR ! AJAX sw TAN . ~I!III~ Z m TOUER DEW.14 BT OTHERS g 1 a tt'-W X 16'-V FT¢FABWCATED ECLUF ENT WATER O I - I FCVOATILN DESICiI FCR ~ ~ ' TOUER AID C41Ef81T , I ° rdiER 6f OM1,ERS ~ , . WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION V I 1 1 C SE NO. i A.T.&TMon SW Pacific Highw EXHIBIT MAP ighway Site CUP 97- 0004 I ' - I I SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Engineering Department has reviewed the street and public utility needs for this site. Because this facility will not directly adjoin a public street, no conditions of approval have been recommended concerning street or sidewalk improvements. Because the applicant has also not proposed to extend other utility services to the site, no conditions have been recommended concerning the provision of public utilities. The Building Division has reviewed this request and provided the following comment: A building permit is required for all fences, towers, and walls in excess of six (6) feet in height. Provision for handicapped accessibility will be required. No other comments or objections have been received. I SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS No other comments or objections have been received from affected jurisdictions. ~/~Z~ dclf~ ~T~-- June 27. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts, AICP DATE Associate Planner i _ j _ June 27. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richa d Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager 111 I i:curp!Nmarkdcup97-04.rep 3j1 ~.J i - STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 97-0004 - A T 8 T MONOPOLE PAGE 7 OF 7 a oowowliii PPRKST yr, ,i ;p OW0000 i y-~cyna~i~►a~ r " I~ s Conditional Use Permit Application for the McDonald Rd. & 99W Cellular Site A Proposal Submitted to the City of Tigard Prepared for AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. 1600 SW 4th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 - i i _i Prepared by l W&H Pacific i , r; 8405 SW Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, Oregon 97008-7120 April 3, 1997 6j J CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION f 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 1 CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Na i GENERAL INFORMATION DATE OF PRE-APP.: ~12 Property Address/Location(s): 13707 SW Pacific Hwy FOR STAFF USE ONLY Id Tigard, OR Case No.(s): Tax Map & Tax Lot $(s): T2S-R1W-3DD 400 Other Case No.(s): „j Receipt No.: Site Size: 0.95 acre Application Accepted By: Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)': Tigard Retail Center Partners Date: Address: 1815 NW 169th Place Phone: City; Beaverton, OR Zip; 97006 Date Determined To Be Complete: t Applicant': AT&T Wireless Services Att: Real Estate M r. Address: 1600 SW 4th Ave. Phone: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: } City: Portland, OR Zip' 97201 i J: Chris Corich, W&H Pacific 8405 SW Nimbus Ave. CITArea: I en the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written Rev. 62996 1:1curplnvnasler6ku9.doc authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) a must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY r REQUIRED SUBMITTAL E MENTS 1 The owners of record of the subject property request Conditional ; w Use approval to allow (please be specific): construct a 50' tall " ✓ Application Elements Submitted: y~monopole and equipment building for cellular communi- I cations. Application Form' 3 p Owner's Signature/Written Authorization . i p Title Transfer Instrument or Deed I r . p Site/Plot Plan (8'/r-x 11 (V of copies based on pre-app check list) Applicant's Statement r (9 of copies based on pre-app check list) j p Filing Fee $1,615.00 f4 k 4 Table of Contents µY 1. PROPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION 1 . I II INTRODUCTION ....................................................2 f Background on Cellular Communications 2 Proposed Cellular Facility: Responding to Demand 2 f III. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 3 Site Description 3 IV. REQUESTED LAND USE REVIEWS 3 } V. RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 3 Compliance with Community Development Code 3 { Site Development Review 7 :r VI. RESPONSE TO CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA 9 i ' J VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION . . . . . 11 ' RF Design/Collocation Issues . . . . . . . . 11 = ^ Neighborhood Meeting ................................................12 VIII. CONCLUSION .....................................................12 - IX. EXHIBITS A. Radio Frequency Engineering Report B. Site Plans & Elevations 'j C. Neighborhood Meeting Notes I X. ATTACHMENTS i_ A. Owner Authorization i' B. Title Transfer Instrument J C. Pre-Application Conference Notes D. Photograph of a Similar Installation a 3 .J 4 i 4 ! AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application l 1. PROPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION File No: 1708-1116 ` 1 Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services 1600 SW 4th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 Preparer for Applicant: Chris Corich W&H Pacific, Inc. l 8405 SW Nimbus Ave Beaverton, Oregon 97008 (503) 626-0455 Property Owner: Tigard Retail Center Partners 1815 NW 169th Place Beaverton, OR. 97006 r- ; -1 Request: 50-foot tall monopole with flush mounted antennas and a 12' by 16' equipment shelter % ,t Location: 13707 SW Pacific Highway Legal Description: T2S-RI W-3DD 400 I Zoning: General Commercial (CG) ~J a ;,f I J MH Pacific, Inc. Apri13, 1997 ~J _ S s 1 r M1 AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application j 11. INTRODUCTION AT&T Wireless Services is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to install a cellular facility i..i consisting of a 50-foot tall slim-line monopole and three flush-mounted panel antennas at 13707 Pacific Highway in Tigard. There will also be a small equipment shelter placed adjacent to the monopole. + i ~ l Background on Cellular Communications `s E i AT&T Wireless Services is one of the original licensees authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular service to the Portland Metropolitan Area. In order to provide this service, a region is split up into smaller geographic areas called cells. Cells are theoretical cellular + coverage areas. Each cell is served by a cellular facility consisting of transmitting and receiving antennas mounted to a monopole or other suitable structure and a shelter containing radio equipment. As a cellular user moves across the landscape, his or her call is passed or "handed-off" from one t cellular facility to another. Each facility is connected to a mobile switching center, which provides connections to the land based phone network serving your home or office. When an individual cellular facility reaches its maximum capacity, in terms of the number of simultaneous calls it can + handle, the cell is broken down into smaller cells and one or more additional facilities is added. The _ resulting cellular facilities typically operate with less power and at lower antenna heights. y Cellular facility site locations are determined after a detailed analysis by radio frequency engineers. !w Site selection criteria include: surrounding topography, distance from other cellular facilities, e„ proximity to traffic corridors and population centers or heavy usage areas, and other technical factors. Computer modeling and radio testing are also conducted to determine potential sites. Proposed Cellular Facility Responding to Demand 9 The AT&T cellular network is a mature system, having been in operation for nearly 12 years. i i Consequently, new cellular facilities are being developed and others are being optimized in an effort to enhance coverage, increase capacity, and improve overall system efficiency. New cellular facilities R are added to a given area "sized" to accommodate local area needs. As a result, new facilities in heavy usage areas, such as Tigard, are designed to provide coverage to small, targeted geographic 1 R'~ areas, which limits flexibility in site selection. 1 a The proposed cellular facility location on Pacific Highway is designed to enhance cellular coverage in Tigard including, portions of Pacific Highway, McDonald Road and surrounding neighborhoods. This facility will connect to other neighboring facilities in downtown Tigard (proposed), King City + and at Pfaffle Road in Tigard (Exhibit A). Besides enhancing cellular coverage in these areas, the proposed facility will also greatly increase capacity in this high call volume area. U {P&t1 Pacific, Inc. Apri! 3, 1997 2 u j 3 ~ s AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site - Conditional Use Permit Application III. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION , The proposed transmitter/antenna site consists of a slim-line 50-foot tall galvanized steel monopole { ._1 and an equipment shelter containing radio equipment. The monopole will be outfitted with three panel antennas measuring approximately eight feet long and twelve inches wide. Each antenna will 1 be flush mounted on the sides monopole. The equipment shelter measures approximately sixteen feet ; long, twelve feet wide and ten feet tall and has an exposed earth-tone aggregate finish. 7 The entire facility will be located within an approximately 900 square foot leased area. This lease area will be surrounded by a series of four foot tall bollards to protect the proposed structures. The proposed lease area will be screened from surrounding properties by existing commercial buildings ( on the subject property, as viewed from the north, south and east. Residential properties to the west are screened by existing mature landscaping located along the rear property line. 1 Site Description The lease area is accessed from Pacific Highway through a paved parking lot on the east side of the subject property. The lease area is located in the west-central portion of the approximately one acre j subject property, in an unused area that is presently paved (Exhibit B). Existing development on the, property includes three rectangular shaped approximately 30 foot tall retail-commercial buildings. The leased area is located adjacent to the south side of the westerly most commercial building. This building is presently used as an automobile repair shop. Other adjacent uses include commercial and t multi-family residential uses to the south and east along Pacific Highway. There are single-family residences abutting the subject property to the west and to the north, across S.W. Watkins Avenue.; 7 IV. REQUESTED LAND USE REVIEWS The applicant, AT&T Wireless Services, is requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a utility facility pursuant to Section 18.13 of the Tigard Development Code. t V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following paragraphs are a response to the applicable development review criteria. Compliance with Community Development Code. _ 18.62.C-G: ei era1 G i Commercial District 3 18.62.040 Conditional Uses t t If'&HPacrfic, Inc. April3, /997 r") 3. l 11 1 r- AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application ' I A. Conditional uses in the C-G district are as follows: ' 4. Utilities l 1 Response: ^ The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 50 foot tall monopole and associated t equipment building for cellular communications. This use is classified as a utility pursuant to ' 1 Section 18.42 and is allowed as a conditional use. • 18.62 Dimensional Standards _ A. Dimensional requirements in the C-G district are as follows: ' k 1. There is no minimum lot area required. 2. The average minimum lot width shall be 50 feet. Response: p r The subject property is 140 feet wide. Therefore, the minimum lot width requirement is met. `w 3. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: k„ a. There shall be no minlmuum front yard setback requirement... b. On corner lots and through lots there shall be no minimum setback.. C. No side yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where 1 the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district... d. No rear yard shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the C- G zone abuts a residential zoning district: Response: The subject property is not a comer lot. The rear yard adjacent to the proposed facility abuts a residential zoning district. The facility will be setback approximately 30 feet from the rear j property line. Therefore, the setback standards are met. 4. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.98, no building in a C-G zone shall J exceed 45 feet. Response: The proposed cellular communications facility is not intended for human habitation and is, therefore, exempt from the height limitation per Section 18.98.010. [ " IMH Pacific, Lic. April3, 1997 4 ' J • r 1 AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site y 1 Conditional Use Permit Application 5. Maximum site coverage shall be 85 percent iticluding all buildings and impervious surfaces; and i ...1 Response: The addition of the cellular facility will be not cause the total site coverage to exceed 85 "j percent. This satisfies the maximum site coverage requirements. 6. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 15 percent. n Response: The subject property was recently developed and contains in excess of the required 15% total site landscaping. 18.96 Additional yard setback requirements and exceptions. a " r 18.96.020 Additional Setback from Centerline Required. F 18.96.020 J y I. Arterial Streets: a. The required setback distance for buildings on arterial streets is the setback distance required by the zoning district phis the following distances meamired from the j centerline of the street: n Response: A setback of 50 feet from the centerline of Pacific Highway is required. The proposed cellular facility will be located in excess of 200 feet from the centerline of Pacific Highway. j This far exceeds the special setback requirement. y 18.100.030 Street Trees ` A. All development projects fronting on a public, private street, or a private driveway more than m; 100 feet in length... Response: The proposed cellular communications facility development will occur behind an existing building with a developed street frontage. There are existing street trees along Pacific _ Highway. ixr JUH Pacific, Inc. April 3, 1997 f; U 5 t AT&T Wireless Services -McDonald & 99W Site 1 Conditional Use Permit Application j 18.100.110 Screening Special Provisions A. Screening: Special Provisions. 1. Screening of parking and loading areas is required... t ,s Response: The applicant is not proposing to develop parking in conjunction with this use and the proposed communication facility is unstaffed. Infrequent maintenance visits will use existing parking located at the premises. As a result, and as noted by staff in the pre-application conference, the listed parking lot screening provisions are not applicable. "j 18.102. Visual Clearance Areas 18.102.020 Visual Clearance: Required. A. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. Response: The proposed facility will be located greater than 150 feet from the street facing property line. This is well outside the 30-foot vision clearance area. This standard is met. y 18.106.030 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements .1 Response: There is no minimum off-street parking ratio requirement for an unmanned utility use such as the proposed cellular communications facility. Infrequent maintenance visits will use existing parking located at the premises. r 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation t J 18.108.080 Minimum Requirements: Commercial and Industrial Use A. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than the following (See Appendix, Figure 19): v {V&HPaci Inc. ic, Aprif3, 1997 - 3 I • 3 AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application j Response: This proposed use does not require that parking spaces be provided, therefore, two-way access is also not needed to serve this facility. Therefore, no specific access width is required for this use. Through the Building Permit Fire and Life Safety Review, any necessary _ revisions will be made to this plan for emergency vehicle access. IfI Site Development Review f 71 1 Section 18.120.180(A)(1) requires that the development proposal be consistent with the various . standards of the Community Development Code. The following are site development review approval standards applicable to the proposed cellular facility. Y H 18.120.180 Approval Standards 2. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment a. Buildings shall be: t (I) • Located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage; (tt) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; (iii) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire fighting; and 17 (iv) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind; and t 1 .J j b. Trees having a six inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by } new plantings of equal character. Response: i s The proposed facility will be located on a property that is already developed with a . i commercial use. The facility will be situated in an unused area within the parking lot that is A presently paved. No trees will be removed as part of the development, nor will the j topography be altered or the natural drainage be changed as a result of this development proposal. The design of the facility will take into account the ground conditions as part of the _ foundation design for the monopole. The ground is flat within the development area and shows no signs of current or past slumping or sliding. " The monopole is less than two feet in diameter at the base. Consequently, it will not impair 11 light or air circulation nor will it create an impediment for fire fighting. i i6•&H Pacific, Inc. Apri13, 1997 a . r r J r~ AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site J Conditional Use Permit Application I 4. Buffering, Screening, and Compatibility between Adjoining Uses: I T a. Bgfferingshall be provided between different types of land uses.. j i,.1 Response: j Buffering and screening of the facility is provided by existing improvements and landscaping on the property. There are existing 20 to 40 foot tall coniferous trees located along the west property line, between the proposed facility and abutting residential uses. This will provide ° r a considerable level of screening of the monopole structure from abutting residences. The existing commercial building abutting the site to the north will also screen greater than half of the 50-foot tall monopole structure as viewed from the north and north-east. Additional I screening will be provided by the existing commercial building to south of the site as viewed 4 to y fi-om abutting properties to the south. However, it is not possible to screen the entire facility f and still allow the necessary clear line of site to the antennae structure. The proposed 50-foot tall monopole structure, with flush mounted antennas is similar in I design to many parking lot light standards. Consequently, it is far less obtrusive than the power poles and associated transmission lines that exist along Pacific Highway. These existing 1 poles are greater than 60 feet in height. Furthermore, the building height requirement for non- f^ tr^~ utility structures in the General Commercial zoning district is 45 feet. The monopole _ structure is proposed to be only five feet taller than what the district allows for commercial buildings, which are permitted outright. e~ b. Orr site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas.. . ~ t !I Response: The ground mounted equipment building and portions of the monopole will be screened by existing improvements and vegetation on the subject property. 10. Crime Prevention and Safety: d The exterior lighting levels be selected and angles be oriented towards.. Response: The proposed communication facility will be located adjacent to building, away from pedestrian circulation areas. The facility will be illuminated from existing lights in the parking j lot. No new lighting is proposed. W&HPacific, hm April 3, 1997 i 8 t r _ J AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site j Conditional Use Permit Application 14. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set L ' forth in Chapter 18.100. b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections S and 6 above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking loading and service areas shall be landscaped, and C. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped,- r' Response: As described above, the proposed communication facility is well screened from abutting properties by existing improvements on the site. Greater than 15% of the subject property is already landscaped. Therefore, gross site landscaping requirements are met. No new parking, loading or service areas are proposed. 3 VI. RESPONSE TO CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA I , The following paragraphs will respond to the conditional use criteria contained in Section 18.130.040 .J 0 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as some of the other information requested during the pre-application conference. J 18.130 Conditional Use 18.130.040 Approval Standards and Conditions. «r A. The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or denY an aPPlicationfor a " J conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use... 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed 4 use; t Response: The site size and dimensions are adequate for the proposed use. The lease are will occupy only a small fraction, approximately 2% , of the .95 acre site. The proposed facility will be located in an unused area adjacent to an existing commercial building. The proposal is consistent with the C-G district and meets all dimensional requirements. f } J W&NPacific, Inc. April3, 1997 9 u AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application ' 2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and iuatural features. t, Response: i The characteristics of the subject property are suitable for the proposed facility for several reasons. The size of the subject parcel is large enough to accommodate the existing i a structures as well as the proposed facility. The site area is flat. No unique, natural features have been noted on this site. The small leased area requires no significant grading to develop R the site. Access to the site is easily obtained through an existing improved parking lot. The size and shape of the parcel is well suited for a proposed facility of this nature. In addition, the existing buildings will partially screen greater than 50% of the monopole structure as viewed from the north, north-east and south. Additional screening will be provided by r.:l existing 20 to 40 foot tall coniferous trees and other shrubs along the west property line. Another strength of this site location is its proximity to commercial areas and transportation corridors in Tigard. This proposed facility will help to better link telecommunications between King City and Downtown Tigard. The elevation of the site (±260' above sea level), allows the radio signal to have maximum coverage, and helps to limit "blind spots" created t by ridge lines. _ z~ 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. Response: a J The applicant is not requesting that public facilities be made available to serve the development as proposed. Power and telephone service are readily available to serve the •"1 proposed facility. The installation will not require any water or sewer, or any other public services. The facility is unstaffed. Therefore, there will be virtually no traffic generated from the facility. In addition, the facility will help satisfy the increasing demand for wireless services in Tigard. _ 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. Response: All applicable requirements of the zoning district are met. _ 5. The supplementary requirements set forth in Chapter 18.114 (Signs) and Section 18.120.180 (Approval Standards) Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. Il R Pacific, bic• April 3, 1997 l 10 E, 'IF Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site AT&T ~ ! P V Conditional Use Permit Application i Response: No signs will be provided. As demonstrated in Section V., this proposal complies with the applicable approval standards of Section 18.120.180. 6. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. I 1 iA Response: 4 The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged and Community Development Codes r have been adopted to implement it. Applicable Community Development Code approval t-4 criteria have been addressed. Comprehensive Plan Section VIII (B) under Public Facilities and Services (Private Facilities/Communication) does not address cellular communications. Li Goal 12 Locational Criteria [Section 12A.1.A. (1) and (2)]/Minor Impact Utilities and ;i Facilities are applicable to this proposal. The proposed site location will allow AT&T ;hy Wireless Services to provide enhanced cellular coverage along portions of Highway 99, McDonald Road and surrounding neighborhoods. The facility will also allow for added call capacity in this high call volume area. AT&T is authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular service to the City of Tigard. There are no visual traffic, safety, or noise impacts, which would limit or impair use of surrounding properties associated with the proposed cellular facility. The development of this facility will not generate large scale construction impacts due to the type of improvements that are planned. The facility is unstaffed. After construction, there will be a monthly visit by a service technician to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly. Access to the site is easily obtained through an access easement to a commercial driveway that provides direct access to Pacific Highway, a designated Arterial Street. The appearance of the 50-foot tall slim-line monopole structure is similar in design to many types of parking lot light standards and is less obtrusive than existing power poles and associated transmission lines along Pacific ' r Highway adjacent to the site. In addition, the antennas will be flush mounted on the sides of r the monople to further minimize visual impact. VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION u RF Design/Collocation Issues At the pre-application conference held on February 6th, staff requested that the applicant provide an i engineering report documenting the need for the facility at the proposed location. This information is included as part of Exhibit A. 1 y _ F9 1 v IVcfH Pacific, Inc. April 3, 1997 t ; !J I E AT&T Wireless Services - McDonald & 99W Site Conditional Use Permit Application Neighborhood Meetine . A neighborhood meeting was held on March 17th to discuss the proposed facility with surrounding property owners. As a result of this meeting, AT&T modified its proposal by flipping the layout of the facility so that the monopole is on the south-east side of the leased area, rather than the north- t west side (Exhibit Q. This was done in response to concerns raised by operators of the appliance t store on the property. Flipping the site plan also moves the monopole further away from residences located to the west. VIII. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing analysis and findings, the applicant requests approval of the proposed 11! conditional use permit application. The application meets all applicable criteria for approval. 1 IX. EXHIBITS A. Radio Frequency Engineering Report B. Site Plans & Elevations ~J C. Neighborhood Meeting Notes n ~ ' w J 3 I 1 1.1pro/ec11170811161updam1mcdonafd.app # JUHPacific, Inc. April3,1997 12 J i. I P W F" Pte` EXHIBIT A Radio Frequency Engineering Report I i = f~ 1 AT&T AT&T Wireless Services t..! 1600 SW 4th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 i t Office (503) 306-7484 it FAX (503) 306-7486 71 March 20, 1997 City of Tigard . Planning Department Tigard, OR tt RE: Proposed cellular telecommunications site- McDonald Rd. & Hwy 99W Our Engineers have studied this site extensively and have concluded that this location is the only t viable site that will meet our engineering needs and requirements. The studies for this area included computer modeling and actual testing of the sites to determine coverage, technical acceptability and suitability of the site. Whenever possible, we also conducted models or tests of alternate sites for collocation or joint construction. We have found no acceptable alternative to the site we have applied for. t l I have attached a statement and exhibits prepared by Matt Harkins, RF Engineer for this location. His statement and the "plots" clearly demonstrate the need for this communications facility, coverage of the proposed site, and unacceptability of the AirTouch site. ` We have purposely designed this facility to be low impact by using a 50' monopole and "slim line" antenna design. The slim line design allows us to close mount the antennas against the pole in a vertical fashion to minimize visual impact. Samples of this type of mount are enclosed. Please contact me at the phone number above if you have questions. E Very truly yours, I Ron Fowler, Real Estate Manager 1 J E t70 Recycled Paper f - i i I McDonald & 99W Site Objectives: The main objective of this site is to improve coverage on 99W near Bull Mtn. Rd. Currently several sites serve this high area, and the average signal levels are quite high. 1 Unfortunately, no single server provides quality service for the entire stretch of 99. The j existing service is blamed for the high percentage of dropped calls and very poor audio { J for this heavily traveled route. The proposed site will provide acceptable, dominant service past Bull Mtn. Rd, and allow mobiles to hand directly into the proposed Tigard DT site. The AirTouch site located ,.1 near Walnut Rd. and 99W, would not provide the high signal levels required to suppress the existing servers on the hill top. In addition, the AirTouch site is located so close to AT&T's proposed downtown site, the majority of the improved coverage would be redundant. Predicted coverage plots are attached for the McDonald & 99, Tigard DT and Walnut & 99 sites. These plots demonstrate the overlapping coverage of Tigard DT and a site located near Walnut on 99W. It may also be seen that a site located near Walnut Drive would not provide the required signal levels south of McDonald Rd (this site's main coverage objective). The proposed 50' monopole located near McDonald, was the only test site found that 1 J accomplished the sites objectives. For these reasons, co-location at the AirTouch site would not allow AT&T to provide quality coverage in this area. J MATT HARKINS RF DESIGN ENGINEER { r' l r f Ida- ~ f l [ : [ . ' I [ ;P- 1 7; 3. i__ ➢'r 3 I `fa E ' Z. 1 l 1 D S GL ' .r.z y ern ' i( P Wreless Services toverage Plot _ cr 1 4 II Y2.4 ' f AI s - II' Rt} and 99W (AAA) > H-MH`j 1-000 , Hypothetcl ~ f• u o " ~~I ) r y V3 1 ( ii/_~ AOP_ ODEL : Okumura LAT . 45-25-U N \ LON 122-47-04 W V GE . 233 It ADIUS : 25 mi ~~~~/°~Y' 1 i' ~ ~jf~ o i ~r` / ~5~- • ..i ~ ~.~RADIALS 360 \UI, 1 y i 7 i i NA RAD 0.1000 mi w ANTENNA : 70-12-WNASP ~NipTION 65 TN ~I ERP 10.00 W V TILT 5.0 Mech 1 `Tx Ht . 47 It 7 1: 1~ r~~ ; . r+r ' 1 1 U iFJ~~ n_ hHREDS c OVERLAYS rn s aem \\i' sac _ $ s' > >~8{I 31ate Roadway at Roads 1` T~ County Doundries - ; 1~::•` ~ t;` ' • e~~ ° I ~I_ MSA-RSA -J `J50 k~M< J%'l \ ~'I~ d J x I nll, z > ~ :1 r; •I~t C/~_. Y' ou~urA+t ~ ~ _ -o _ I 1 1 lrhL rd Miles 0.25 0.50 0.75 _ ry K; j5 i~ - i \d a \ L( 1i 4,000 03/19/97 15:37 i•-; -'fi••i it ~I:; 3~ ~ ~ _ ~c, rb~LT, ~ "v~/'~.'~:;.~'o Pff~ .If l~ i . - ? eTy Ct A[&t Wirele = J t # a. . } . 1 t ULI~' Oregon OQVerage Plot t... / CelICAO U V2. - [ AAA) sYS-CR_873 \ ,~~1 sYS-873 \ II ' current Y3 okunlUM ~ s,. ky ~i. : e. • PRQP iA00EL N ~ \ t 't • +Y .fl- rr ~ ' ;fr!p ~ L 122-;8`3 n `t. : ;'1+' ':"j't: :r•z . ✓ i' 174 It p + a t t s •f C i+ f MORP RD'S ; 25 mi 1 \ \ t e - j RA01A15 010000, g' ~ a :~,x 2 r,/ ' OEANiEN~ 70-12-p0NASP f r ` Y r- lr r.ry~ tL 11 15 [N w ~r $ c~~ l { 1 = 1 . '`G 1 g. rt ORIEN[A[I 10.00 N oil. l' rl. It a r r,r°p ; !c' ti~ [ILHt 45 it [x r;7 r x a f riJ ` 1 (Sig d8tt) nlerstRoo Ro r / lti•f • ~4 _ y ;~i, _ >=`6 Stole d gaY t l..synt r y c c };en,cx'r3 ` Loof Road r )r ~ x r - ~ ~ ~ rJ earl ~ ~ i C nt I3oundr"s t i- t 9 Cou t Mites 0 _ 0.50 35 19/9~ 15:51 0.25 03, " < t ya°A r c SCALE: J~ ~1 ' nta -,3, ~ >JI~ ~ GtY iri:hnrrti :r2~ _ - rtl to ,;t s r~ : I EXHIBIT B Site Plans and Elevations 1 ~ ° ~ - - • I = . I ass="' FI,°„1°' _l . , . ~ I I ~"I{~P"~ i \ ~,y t• 51~ ? ¢ S' ' ~r"rn q< .Pp VICINITY MAP WATICI ~ NS AV E. \ \ \ 6urcorAc \ \ \ CAS If~FR ELECT. AE7ER \ f ANJ BOLLARDS \ r \ / "LEASE ~ / ~ ~ reLl !co \ r AREA { . - / ' ~ % ~ , ~ ~Oj BEAR/ACS AAL sASm av THE aeECa+Aaerx RRS EL.260. fl fT. r ~ STATf LYlDROIKtlE SYSIEN. Tld~ IAFAZWTIdJ I \ BOCLAR:IS ~ r YAS 1~TERAlAE0151MC c1Qb1L PASITICWlAC lTY C~ T1GA/-01 DAIU!/ . II - , J ~ ~ V G ~ ~ / _ d~ srsTEU ~ASUrm+rs rrnr LErcA Ae+~t zca / ~ RECEivars. nrE Data ras rnAacFaz~n To / STAG 9'ACES PA" IN K40 83 IH1CN IGS A TINA yB~ vE~nrr < 'FJ ED A~~L~lL^arTf•. AeLARLncc~ e sl % 4, PROFESSIONAL Nor•arls•ErsTRL~AaRrN. oL'~ ~ ~ LAND SURVEYOR rELE RISER ~ ' - ~j I p maLSEae~R ~l~-G~` PAO BmLOrrK sloErux OREGON FEBRUARY 3, 1983 BRUCE D. TOWLE _ - 2030 SCALE 1 " = 50' RENEWAL DATE: 6-30-98 -50 -25 0 50 100 /e~/m~/a~w~>o/~nnwa SURVEY FOR: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES GESJCN HsR scuE J'-=so• LAND SURVEYORS MCDONALD AND 99W SITE j J-360-695-JJ85 SECTION 3, TZS, R1 W,W.M. TL 400 NSR 6ArF 3/Zb/9T ENGINEERS 1-503-289-9936 3 ENGINEERING INC. 1111 BROADWAY, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON cNECxEO Bar ,raeno. bore Agenda # 2 tof9 $ i ~ _ - - c"_... ~ - a ~ If this notice appams clem•er th:m the AUG 2 41998 ; ~ . `document, the document is of macginnl quaiitr• j MICROFILMED , itl - _ ' : i y ' IXCX "MADE QI CX ~ ~ c+2-n...~.. ~ , ~ . a s t~ Jt u a u ns n ~ u u ~ ll~~il I {[l~IUIIIIIIFI(ifillll~lul[I11I~f11(11111111IIIIIIhllf~lfl~llfllf(I~IIIIIfIli~iuplU~Ulllllll~Illllllll~ililll(i~hItfl cif f i IfiiiID[ IptTllil~itiflll dumuuhl~ir~imlummdtudu1~u111iiihuilu lm • - y REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 'J~ O11~' OREGON FEBRUARY 3, 1983 ~ BRUCE D. TOWLE ~ 2030 RENEWAL DATE: 6-30-98 S` alzclg~ ~ ~ cts (E7m aFCr. (t7cx AAO &y(A1CtS / + ~ s BUILDING ~ / ~ + / / ci77 0< nc(~ DAru~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + / / ~ ~ ~ PAYaf7l7 \ + + _ _ _ C~ PAannc.wAtES ~ } PAYEIO? ~ ~ + PAiIIQlf ~ b Q, ,w ~ S/LEIAGY J IFSE RISER ~ ~ ~ / dARlAGS A,9-&.RD dV 7/f d3tiri/ M79M BUILDING ; + srA>FCaro~mArFmrF(!. nEnraa(Anav lAS R7FAYlA® Ib1hC L(GNIL PoSl7/dYlAC IRA/drG'CFR ~ S1S7d IEASlR7Eh'!S /I7R LflCA AIXQ XU PAD + REC'£l{fR£ !ff 61TA IAS 7R4kF7ItlFD Id OLGUV Af177N (MD B71 MlpI KISA INE7A A4G(E' Q" /'A'!1'. A BEA4IAG ~ N 0!•37'lI' F !S /RTE /AAP7N. SCALE 1 " = 30' -30 -15 0 30 60 09104197 Agenda # 2 2079 Aalo/6(Y.b ED70 6a7a/%.W/CO ®LAND SURVEYORS SURVEY FOR: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES o6icv Hsa scniL~ t-=3o~ ENGINEERS 7-360-695-7385 MCDONALD AND 99W SITE ~,,WN Hse DATE 3/26/97 2 ® - J 5 3 189 9936 SECTION 3, T2S, R 1 W, W. M. TL 400 ENGINEERING INC. 1111 BROADWAY, VANCOUVER WA 98660 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON CHFClIFOBDT J08N0. 6078 3 ~ If this notice appzars clearer than the AU6 2 1996 4 {document, the documeni' is of marginal ,uaiitp. ~ MICROFILMED { _ ~ ~ _ I _ F- INCH ~ MODE a/ CN - -.xEic-,., R .u - t -7 , t mst - s a. _ ~ _ - a ~,r 7 t : _ tt >c 7S is r": to to, ~ ~ f ilmmmllulnuilliu l i _ - - ~ ~ udful~ur r~rlaou~dm ulll}}ulullouduuillllC111~(ll IIIfIii~IIIIIIIiIIIfIIIllNllllll(lllllllllllil~tl}llll~~Illllll~lllllllll~lllillllll(hilt 1 i filnlT~l~lllllunhutliu I l~lll - - a 71 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ~ ~ ~ OREGON s FEBRUARY 3, 1983 BRUCE D. TOWLE 2030 Y~ dw OCAINIAI IIATC. G_i0_ON s CAS METER ELECT. METER 3~2L~~-~ AND BOLLARDS TBM Too RRS BUILDING ELEV. 260.47 BASfD ON BM 83 ~ ~ CITY OF TIGARD DATUM / \ d~ ~ ~F9 s~, \ mo` s ~ + 9~'F` . ~9POs . 9 \ + PAVEMENT • f9L '9 / & \ ~ \ / i PAR>rl G SPgCES 6 ~ I ~ PA4 ~G~ I 1 ~ + EMfNT ~ I I I ~ I C j 1 ~ ~ 1 s~rF ~rNA~ mni.¢ rrrmunav CrRB ~ - - "L 1 ~ acs ~rtlavrAm ramc ccasu asmawAc ~ ~ 'a I 1 ~ snrtar ~.cuaffAONS nrxlEru Aazz au i I f r~rEivon. nEwrr acs mus aam rd ~ 10E I oss'cav Nara fNAO arl nrra xas ~ nrEre ~ S/OEWALK ,mcrE ~ r non'. ~ eEAVrnc o< N Ol'Jr'!f' E !5 rA1EAtl77X. TELE RISER BUILDING TRANSFORMER PAD Scale 1" = 20' -20 -fo a zo ao do tlj/~~,1 LAND SURVEYORS SURVEY FOR: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES ~sicrr Nse sr,~,~=so' s"~T ,-aso-sss-faes MCDONALD AND 99W SITE 3 ~ ENGINEERS 1-503-289-9936 SECTION 3 TZS R 1 W W. M. TL 400 0R4WN ese at>E 3/26/97 ENGINEERING 1NC. 1111 BROADWAY, VANCOUVER WA 98660 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON craECrcFn eor JOB NO. 6078 3 Agenda # 2 3of9 ' ~ ' ~ 1f this notice aDpaars clearer than the AUG 2 1996 ~ 4 ;l ?documenf, the document is of msrginal yu;liiti•. ~ MICROFILMED li ~ ( t tI _ 1 1. : INCX' ~ 1AACE di Cfl =e ~ - . ~t ~ ~ <-T_4____ f_..4- .,'.11!~ Ii 17?r K .'15.-._Ii 7,.. 1! f9,_-:-: 70:.x. ~f{~I~Illl~l(1 III{HIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~Jilllfill[(1~1111~411IIIIIIIIII{IIIIfIIII~(1111111(~IIIII[IIIiIII111111IIIIIhlflllllllllf({iflllllfi~ll>pli!)UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIpIllnl[liilf ~1 f 1 mli)l III~IIItIIIllluu[lulW- 1 illilllllllW ' J 1 H ~ , _ ~ s,'~ r f SUl PARK ST ,y~'~ k ~ o ~0 T ~ ~ ~ q YCDONALD ~ 94 CELL 81TE Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G~ ~ i FAIRNAVEN S7 G~~ QP AIRNAYEN GI ft t (~~tx% G~I G ~ Al. VICINITY MAP 9 A2. SITE PLAN ~ A3. PLAN ~ARD~ A4. WEST ANp SOUTH ELEVATIONS PARK PL A5. NORTH ELEVATION AND BOLLARD DETAIL PROJECT SI~'~ A6. GENERAL NOTES MCDONALD ST NORTH YICIN{~~' M>4P ~I NOT TO SCALE asro4rs7 A7dT WIRELESS SERVICES p miller COOk Agenda#2 4af9 IbE~5lU4thAVE.PORiL~ID,Oft91201 p~~ BrChItBCts, p.C. • aJ.B. McDonapld d 99 CELL 517E ~ I M I N A S ~ T 13~~~iA~p`3cIdN' 9l I0~ a~.4/4/9l u...wo AI PRE R 91143 ~ ' If this notice appaars.clenrer the+n the AUG 2 41998 . ;document, the document is of msrginal guaiity• ~ MICROFILMED - - _ _ r. ? INCX AMENI 6Idlk . x,~sc.,= - .tom _t -'.,4 '1 ._at li iir 1t-.: ~'IS. till.' 14 ~ 1i - 36. . ~2 r . _ _ Ilil(IIIIIII Illlfllllllllllll(IIfIf11111Ulllpll(~AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhiIIIllp13Ui1 ~ 1 Im nl mtUi~u~u~lla~ua ~1°~~ 1~1II(IIIIIIIII(nIIIIHIIIIIIIIIilllll(I~flllllll 1lfllill~lll(Il~ll~llll~llll~lllllllf~lllllllifllllllil I - ~ - ea a ~ &uw ~11C1 ~ ~ NS q _ \ i / \ / ~ ~ ~ / 6LDCs C tAACANT) c~ / MEINEKE ~ I A3 TUNE A CAR y Cg ~ o / ~ / ~ ~ ~,c, t Q4 AJAX SUN TAN NOLL7Ul00D / vIpEO 8- _ _ - osroars~ _ - _ Agenda#2 ~ 5 of 9 NORTH 1 SiT~ P~>4N ,42 1'=40' ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES miller cook 1600 SW41hAVE.POR?LI+ND,az9ismi architects, p.C. 8.1.8. Mcpona Id t 99 CELL SITE '°"'c"'°~ PRELit'~INARY 5~~ ~~~~~P~~ bbNa o.u ei4~a 91104 4/4/91 A2 ' _ _ - ~ If this notice appa~rs clcnrer than the 8 AUG 2 4199 ;document, the document is of marginal quuiih' ~ MICROFILMED i ~I~~t. n ~ fNCN ' 'NFDE IN CN " - - a 5a ~ _ . x _ t ast r s-- x- e , t0 n .i u u its . to i u u - = - - u IIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIl~l1111181 llllr(i r~11111~IIIIIAI(~Illlllill~lllllllll~ll[IIIII~IIIfhIIfi111111111h(lllllli~lllllll(lfilltlllii(UUpU~1111111111tIIIIIIIi~IIIIWIIfiiiifl - 1 i ~[f111 I(11j1f[~llllllf~llllW VIII - _ - i s FTe •9~ K~1'N0~'ES: 6 8 I II'-b' X Ib'-0' PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER ~ • Z 50'-0' MONOPOLE TOWER W/ 3 WHIP ANTENNAS. ~ S, 9 v OTH S), (TOWER FOOTING DESIGN BY ER 5 ~ ~ 3 EXISTING PARKING LOT. b 4 LEASED AREA PROPERTY LINE. ~ I • ' 3 ° I1 39 ~ . 5 ll3) NEW BOLLARDS 4'-0' O.G. AROUND SHELTER .e e, e~ 6 l5) EXISTING BOLLARDS. LEASE AREA: . fib, SQ. 3 EXISTING GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS. 4 8 EXISTING ON SITE BUILDINGS 2 10 9 WAVEGUIDE BURIED 0 30'~X 3'-b'H CONCRETE PROTECTIVE BASE. 11 EXISTING LANDSCAPING Il . S ~ ' r~oRrN 1 ~N >43 Inb'_r-m' ~ro41g, ATE7 WIRELESS SERVICES ~ miller COOk • Agenda#2 1600SN4thAYE.PORiI.AND,OR91201 OQn $rehitect$, i?.ri.a.{.a. 6ot9 McDonald d 99 CELL SITE `°°tt ~ PR~~IMINARI' SEA 13T~A~P~~ •~Na a~. DnrM°Na 9'123 9~1D4 4/4/97 A3 ' _ , t I - If this notice appaars.clenrel• than the AUG 2 4 1998 : ~d 'document, the document is of marginal ,uaiit~~. ~ MICROFILMED _ _ ' INCR~ I 'N1iDE Rt CXNtM °*„+e~".:~.':= I . 'I ' "1 FII li'":~N~' 14..- =:%S,, , 11 ~7:' II ~ li::. _ -2 "2A >0 " , ~ ~ _ : ~ . . nu ~ r m u lut~llZluluafuuluIl~ r►lmuh 1lumuu6mmlduuluidtul►I~I~tullluTtlrlur~rm~lydiili~urhiullmfiumin6lu►uuumlmdrmtUirfuulul~umuoVrutlruluuumlrullurrlrullml ~ulr . . , , r y (JI LINTENNdE aND SUPPORT @ STRUCTURE ' B IF 3 0 TOWER pESIGN BY OTHERS ~ Iv r m D 0 11'-b' X Ib'-0' PREF,46RICATEp EQUIPMENT SHELTER ~ - t - , ; _ 4 ~ ` 4 4+: FOUNDATION pESIGN FOR TOWER ,dNp EQUIPMENT SHELTER BY OTHERS 1 UJ Sl' ~~.~V~4~ION 2 50UtN ~~~V,~~ION o9roaais~ ©~r 7of9 a#2 'b~AT~T WIRELESS SERVICES po miller • COOIL 5U14thAVE.PORTLANp,OR9'1201 ~U~ erChlteCts, p.C. 8.1.8. Mcponappl~~d 4 99 CELL SITE ~°"1AQg1t°°" '°°M>n'°«>, PR~~IMIN,4R~' SST 13~IGA~P~CON~ bENe. MN UnHgNO. 9~`C23 97104 4/4/91 A4 ~ ~ ~ If this notice appanrs clearer than the ~ ~ ' AUG 2 41998 'document, the document is of malginal~,uaiitp. ~ MICROFILMED ' ` y~~t~~ 77 INCN~ MADE W CHIMEice-.~--.~ ~ T"* 1 { ---7 9. i - ~ ~I ~ III flf s , a _ ~ 7o t t u a-r w ~s n r It tt , _ a _ ss J711 lilll I flflllNliflllijlllifll(f~f(lll~llllilllll~lfll~![I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfI[r114iiI~lIIIIIIIIiIfIilllllhllilllli~llllllll~llitlllll~lfllUlU~IUIIIII17t1111181GlIIIIIIIIiIff(If~ i~f Utlll~ilt[~llll[llfi~uUlll ifl IWll~illl ~ CONCRETE CROWQ I' MINIMUM b' DIA. STD. PIPE UNLESS NOTED ~ OTHERWISE CONC FILLED PAINT W/ TRAFFIC YELLOW 2-COATS GONC.WASH 0 AC. PAYING a ~ al , la a ~ ^ 18'p CONCRETE BASE %y J _ _ ~ a ..A I~ I 2 1-/oi~. F/""SI 4/ ~1~. I l"!IF ,L~~j 314'=I'-0' 1 NOR1~N ~l.~V>4~'ION 1/8'=I'-0' wmmxr D9f~~' AT<T WIRELESS SERVICES p mi!!er cook Agenda # 2 8 of9 I6mID SW 4th AvE. PORTLAND, oR ei:mi pOn erchl~eCtB, p.c. • s.i.e. !0 KM. M •Yf. ►OII7LIYq OII~ODY ~71W I/Op ttF•U! PRE~IMINARI' S~~' au 96148 4/4/91 A5 ' ~ ' If this notice appzars clearer th;m the I _ ' AUG 2 41998 `document, the d°cum~nt is of m.trginal ,~;aiih~' ± MICROFILMED ~ I ; INCN ~ MADE YI CH . <.~xc-.ra:..= ~ ~.n ar a ~ ~ - ' - 1 ~ - 4•~_. .4 _~t:.~ 'i9-.: --;it~_ i li . px it 75; 1I T ~ 11 1L: _ _ -25.:. _ 3 3D. . IlllllllWIII~IIIINIIIIiI~Itlllllll~(lf(1(Ili~lf[IIIfI~IIIICaIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIifllllilil(IiIIIIIIIIIIiGflllii~lllll(IIIVIIGIIfII1111b1UII11111111II11111HIIlllllllplflllfl ~II[fljlll[Illil(ltll~lU1[l 1[~ il[Ill~lll ' I. C~ENERA~. NOTES: L VERIFY AND GCNFIRM AI.L DiMENSICNS AND CONDITIONS SNOIIN OR 13, BACKFILL MATERIAL TO BE SELECTED NATURAL FELL MATERIAL FROM ON IMPLIED ON THE DRAWINGS AS WELL AS THE F'HYSIGAL CONDITIONS 517E EXCAVATION OR OFF-SITE BORROW, TO CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING OF THE SITE. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OR ATlT WIRELESS SERVICES FIELD BLEND: WELL GRADED GRANULAR PIT RIAJ, OR BANK RUN SAND, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION MANANGER OF DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO START OF WORK. GRAVEL, SMALL COBBLES UP TO I IR' IN MAXIMUM SIZE WITH NOT MORE THAN 10~ OF FINES PASSING THROUGH A N0.20@ SIEVE, OR APPROVED 2. ALL MATERIALS AND UJO(d'1AN5HIP SHALL CONFOiB'1 TO THE UNIFORM ON-SITE EXCAVATION MATERIALS. SEE ATt? WIRELESS SERVICES STATEMENT BUILDING CODE, APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. OF WOt~C, SECTION 12 FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 3. ASSUMED 501E BEARING: SEE GEOTECI~IICAL REPORT 14. MAXIMUM b' LIFTS, COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D5510R ASSHTO T-180. QUIRED 8Y GOVERNING JURISDICTION. `'EE ATt7 WIRELESS SERVICES STATEMENT OF WORK, SECTION 12. 4. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL. A5 RE 15, PROVIDE MINIMUM OF b' GF 3/d' M1NU5 MINIMUM WELL GRADED MISC. ROCK 5. REMOVE ALL. EXI5TING CONCRETE AND Ofa'sANiC MATERIAL IN AREAS BELOW EQUIPMENT SHELTER SHOWN TO RECEIVE WALIdllAYS, SERVICE YARDS, AND BUILDINGS TO A STRIP MINihIUM OF b' AT ACCESS ROAD. PROVIDE MINIMUM OF b' OF 3' MINUS AND MINIMUM DEPTH OF b'. TOPPED WITH 3' OF 3/4' MINUS WELL•GRADED Ci~l15HED ROCK AT ACGE55 ROAD, ' b. GRUB OUT ALL STUMPS AND ROOTS LARGER THAN I U2' DIAMETER CROItN 3' AT CENTER 5EE ATtT WIRELESS SERVICES STATEMENT OF WORK SECTION 12.4. REMOVE ALL SCRAP METAL AND ALL FOREIGN MATERIALS, REINFORCINC Bpi, TO BE M COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM A-614, GRADE 60, 1. pISF'OSE OF CLEARED AND DEMOLISHED MATERIAL AS STATED DEFORMED BARS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. M ATtT WIRELESS SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK 5EE ATtt WIRELESS SERVICES STATEMENT OF UJORIC, SECTION 14 FOR ADDITIONAL 8. EXCAYAtiON SHOULD BE PER£•ORMED iN A MANNER WHICH WILL CAUSE A REQUIREMENTS. MINIMUM DISTURBANCE TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE AREA ADJACENT 18, SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMF'RESSIYE STRENGTH OF 3~ 70 THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE GRADED 50 THAT WATER WILL NOT RUN P,S,i, AT 28 DAYS WITH A MINIMUM SLUMP OF 3' AND A MAXIMUM OF 5' MTO THE EXCAVATION. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL HAVE SHORING IN DURING PLACEMENT. CEMENT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM ACCORDANCE WITH OSHA REGULATIONS. SEE ATtT WIRELESS SERVICES C 140,11T'E I OR TYPE 2. WATER TO BE POTABLE Y ASH IS STATEMENT OF WORK SECTION 11 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTE AGGREGATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C 33-86. USE OF FL 9. EXCAVATE FOR FOOTiNCsS, FOUNDATIONS AND OTHER IMPROYEMENT6 PROHIBITED. ADMIXTURES WHEN USED ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE TO S1ZE5 AND LEYEL5 SHOU~1 OR REQUIRED. ALLOW FOR FORM WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AND APPROVED BY THE FIELD GONSTRUGTION CLEARANCE AND FOR PROPER COMPACTION OF REQUIRED BACKFILLING MANAGER. MATERIAL. SEE ATtT WIRELES SERVICES STATEMENT OF WORK, SECTION II AIR ENTRAINMENT ASTM C 260-86 FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. WATER REDUCING AGENT ASTM G 494-86 10. ALL FOOTINGS TO BEAR ON FIRM, NATURAL, UNDISTURBED 501E FREE OF ~-L OTHER MIXTURES ~ ASTM C 494-86 ORGANIC MATERIAL OR ON ENGINEERED FILL. USE OF CALCIUM CHLORIDE 15 PROHIBITED. SEE AitT WIRELESS SERVICES STATEMENT OF WOR7C, SECTION 14 FOR 11. EXCAVATE ALL SOFT, WET, OR 601E OF UNUSUAL CONDITION TO FIRi'7, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. NATURAL, UNDISTURBED SOIL, AND BACKFILL WITH SPECIFIED FILL 19. TOUTER AND WAYEGUIDE BRIDGE SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS. MATERIALS. 20. MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY ATtT WIRELESS SERVICES AS LISTED IN STATEMENT 12. COMPACT AREAS BENEATH STi~IJCTURES AND FOUNDATIONS TO 9580 OF WORK OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY M ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D1551 OR AA5HT0 T-180, 21. SPECIAL INSPEGTI0N5 WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL CONCRETE, REINFORCING SiANDARD METHOD DF TEST FOR MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONS OF 5TEEL, AND HOLDDOU.N CONNECTIONS. 501E USING 101b. (45 kga RAMMER AND AN 18' (457 mm) DROP. MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 3~ OF OPTiMUM AT TIME COMPACTION. C~ENER>4!_ NOTES © mrxatoir Q6 ATtr WIRELESS sERVicES miller - cook I6mmswau,avE.PO~tLaND,oReismi erchlt®CtS, p.C. • 8.1.8. McDonald 4 99 CELL SITE '°"""'°'°"1001 us ~ 97 M 13 '15U1 PAC IC EpUY Q~E~...il IIN>~~~ ~~r ~~atzo c~ri '°D 9104 ~d4/4/9'1 ~`O~O~A6 Agenda u 2 9l`1~3 9 of9 ' I' ~ i - ~ - _ y I. a • If this notice appa;us clelrer than the AUG 2 4 199a :document, the documzn, is oT msrginal ,naiih'. ~ MICROFILMED , _ ' INCH. 'MADE N CI11NA- -,vm-rwac.._ _ ~ s t ~t s r- e r tt >z , ,u.z ~ to it to tr t fU n I(It[IIi~I Iil11lU1~U tUlll~ilif • LIIifIIIIIIIIII(hilllHllliili~UIIIIIIUI(tl~(i~lllll Il((ILIIGIIIflill~llllllill~ll(I~lll(IIIIfli1IIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IllllllllllllNl(fl~ipplli)ILIIIiIII~iIiIIIIfllillllllll~iil i ~ • • r 45D' FlR ✓'^~b~-~` ~ *~~L, 1 ~rl~~~~ ta0' CONIFERS p . ~ 5y~ W q Tk~NS ~ \ q Vf 430' oEUOUOUS ~ 445' CONIFERS BLDG C (VACANT) ° 4xs' oeaouous ~ 440' CONIFER ~ 414' PRBORYRAE ~ ~ ~n, TUNE A CAR 4: 430 FlR <'y~, ~ _ 24' SETBAC ~ ~ - ~t- 4x5' DECIDUOUS ae~o et'6 . ilL~c' "G ~ 00 C Dj '5 ~ ~ C.B. ~ y ,28~.~'.; a e° '\\t30' FIR p / ~~7 .d;~ ' ' 420'-2a' FRUrt,• " T • • 25' SETOACK ~ 4e'-Ix' DECmuous ~ f. 4`' V r 425' CONIFER Q / AJAX SUN TAN HOLLYWOOD VIDEO - NORTH 1 SITE PLAN 1"=40' AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES p miller cook A2 1600 SW 4lh AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97201 ~ architects, . c. a. i. a. DD McDonald &g 99 CELL SITE ~ N.W. PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 (503) 226-0 22 ` 13TIGAROW OREGON NWY Job No^71 04 Dec~4/4/97 orawing MoA2 ~o~ilt1 PRELIMINARY SET 97223 7 ~Il ~z - _ ,r ~ . _ - l_,,,~.., - - _ If this notice appaars clearer th;+n the AUG 2 4 1g9B document, the document is of m:jrginal quaiih', + MICROFILMED _ , . l . _ , ' INCN ~ MACE IN CH - _ '~'g~ 4 ~ 4 ii1{~n~uii GlttlGU~i~lfiudiullu{flui~►iillhui~ ~ { im n~ uitTl~{uilunliulluQ i~ iu ~u 1 '~2 t-. i Ma 11 I S il-+ K . 1 ~ Ii 1 II tt l~lllllllll~{f111111(~N1li({Idlllllllll~t[{(I(Ili Iltllllll~t[Iitt~fl~IILIIIIIIClll41i4[l~lllllifl~1111111hIIIlIIIIIII{llIlI111llllll V t . ~ - s _ _ M 1 { ~l EXHIBIT C Neighborhood Meeting Notes ra m. 11 f 1 i I r;17' Meeting Minutes for Public Meeting i Proposed Cellular Tower - Hwy 99W, Tigard Motors g AT&T Wireless Services ~ The meeting began at 7:30pm and ended at 8:40pm at the Tigard Water Department auditorium. r11 Staff attending included: , Kelly Sweenson, AT&T l Jason Wells, AT&T i Chris Corich, W&H Pacific Spencer Vail, Spencer Vail Planning j .ti Four individuals came to the meeting. A copy of the sign-up sheet is attached. Two were 111 neighbors to the north west and two were from an adjacent business (A-Jax Appliance Service). a Issues discussed included: w 1. Design and locational requirements. There was a general discussion of the design of the pole, the site requirements for the cell system, and how cellular systems work. l 2. Visual impact of the pole. The two neighbors were concerned about visual impact. The location ` of the pole was verified to them and they realized that it would not impact their homes. There was also discussion of the design - AT&T uses a slim line pole/antenna design which minimizes the j R, visual impact by eliminating a large triangular platform (AMPS platform) at the top of the pole. The low height of the pole was also discussed. 3. Access and Parking at A-Jax Appliance. The operators of the appliance operation expressed concern about access to their parking and circulation with the pole/equipment shelter. The isle E between their parking and the most narrow point with the cell site was calculated to be twenty j four feet. This meets the city of Tigard standard for two way circulation within a parking lot. In d an effort to maximize the circulation space available, AT&T is considering flipping the site plan - g reversing the location of the pole and the equipment shelter. This will make it possible to move the bollards which will protect the site in near the pole which will make it possible to narrow the j space taken up by the cell site and thus increasing the area available for circulation. , 1 4. Power Requirements/Contents of the Shelter. Questions were raised about the power supply to 1 the equipment shelter and the type of back up power used by the system. Back-up power was identified as gel-cell batteries. Power supply to the shelter was identified as a call-back item (note: the power requirement is 200 amp - similar to a single family residential home - this information V was provided to the person with the question). V b 7 r" i ~/I ~J , I. i - - 1 ._I Meeting Minutes for Public Meeting _ Proposed Cellular Tower - Tigard Main Street ii AT&T Wireless Services ~..J . . The meeting began at 6:30pm and ended at 7:30pm at the Tigard Water Department auditorium. Staff attending included: w., Kelly Sweenson, AT&T Jason Wells, AT&T Chris Corich, W&H Pacific ,f Spencer Vail, Spencer Vail Planning Staff were present the entire time and no members of the public came to the meeting. A public meeting for a different cell site was started at 7:30pm at the same location. 1 f "i J Filed: minutes.doc F-I a AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE 1VITHIN SEVEN (D CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO. Caainof Tigard Plu g Division 1315 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 71 I, TP ~c-p U rya r V\ , o , do affirm that I am (represent) the parry initiating interest in a proposed Cono1 ha,;a( vt~ ghK IS,.- A U41 mo„oooleaffecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) /3-7o7 S(,) Poc;Q 1 r' gl~c , and did on the ~P-7 a day of i=e.bruar~ 19 personalty post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a C nnd;;on~l use application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. ^ The sign was posted at orhP.r of Sw PaclC"c al 2qar/ lGto r,r, (state location you posted notice on property) - - i A-QfAfA4A Signatur We pres of a Notary Public) r-+ (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE) i l u i Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the day of 19 J ~l YAkETM WILSON l/(~%i~t~.✓ W~4L~~i NDUFiY KEW-ORE SON COMMSSIONND. 053163 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON W C0MWSS*N E)MRES AML 16, = sss My Commission Expires: zoo 0 please complete iaiorzration below for proper placement with proposed project) ' - r.fit,OF PRO---------=----OP--------------------------------------------------- r ~ JECTOR PROSED NAME: 17?E OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENM t flame of applicant/Owner. 3i j? ddress or General Lomteon of Subject Property: i iubject Properzy-7az `tap(s) and Loc i(s): ---J - n'bynlpi0yYr1IIC1VRyGfiTA . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) 7 ) SS. J City of Tigard ) I, 5epe~ AaCA"o being duly swam, depose a and say that on 19 of I caused to have mailed to each i of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 71 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 . J Office located at Wk's W_" ,o;&ke,l u p ov- 91105 Sw f0l n6i Ave. , aeaverkn ) with postage prepaid thereon. 1ri Signatu e n the p s nce of a Notary Public) y u ~ III (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLEMNOTARIZE) j ~ i- 1 Subscribed and swom/aifirmed before me on the day of 4 v.Ur'1,I cW 1 .19 J ARM ~ u1 oPfiC~1EEM. , J vANFTTA L WtILWN COMWOON NO. 053163 urC0ADMIDNE7(PIRESAPRIL16,2000 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON i j My Commission Expires: I~-zooo ';ant. please complete information below for proper placement -with proposed project) OF R E JECT OR PROPOSED `L9JLr: P OF PROPOSED DE~ELOPiSErT: `dame of AppL'cz r, e c dc-ess or General Lxzron aEJUbjecc P upere~ j ~jeoec ?ppe:-LTazlfapts)andIat------------------~ . tl.'lOtln~W~3CMlt'4. P.]J Rt7 r y Date: Name and Address I.I Re: Communication Facility Development Proposal 13707 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard Oregon 't Dear Property Owner: AT&T, with the permission of the property owner, will be submitting an application to the City of { Tigard for a conditional use permit to construct a 50' tall cellular phone monopole at 13707 SW Pacific Highway. The proposed monopole will be located in the parking lot of Tigard Motors. This monopole will be similar in height and design to the AT&T monopole located next to the Oil Can Henry near the McDonald's on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 125th Ave. If you are in the area, drive by and take a look at it. At 50' tall, it is very similar in size to most utility poles and parking lot light poles. 71 Prior to applying to the City for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting at: i Where: Tigard Water Department, Richard M. (Dick) Brown Auditorium ! When: 7:30pm - 9:00pm ` Date: Monday, March 17th, 1997 The Water Department is located adjacent to Tigard City Hall at 8777 SW Burnham Rd. (see J attached map). This will be an informational meeting on the preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to 9 rl submittal of the application to the City. W&H Pacific is working with AT&T as the planning consultant on this project and we look forward to seeing you at the meeting and discussing the proposed development. If you need more information prior to the meeting, please feel free to call me at 626-0455 between 8am and 5pm. J Sincerely, W&H PACIFIC, INC Christopher B. Conch Development Planner r~ Filed: iaprojttd\17081116\wpdataVn tim.m= i t ,I C+ .t ~ Preston & Lisa Vielbig Marion Ward Helen Cook 10725 SW Fairhaven Way 10600 SW Fairhaven St 12265 SW 128th Ave 1A -,gard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 j; Christopher Gardella John Chamberlain Carla Gardella Allen Zandonatti A Debra 10690 SW Fairhaven St 10680 SW Fairhaven Way 10710 SW Fairhaven Way j Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Erwin Schacht Jr. David Hammes & S Vicke W Marjorie Ralph Peters & A Barbara j 10740 SW Fairhaven Way 10770 SW Fairhaven Way 10800 SW Fairhaven Way , Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 - David & Teresa Gooley Juliane Shippey Randolph & Leann Glahn 4635 SW 42nd P1 10740 SW Garden Park P1 10750 SW Garden Park P1 - Portland OR 97221 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Phillip Kelleher Eorge Crawford --Thomas & Cynthia Mulflur Barbara Kelleher J Sandra J4535 SW Tarlow Ct PO Box 23023 10395 SW Hillview Dr _ Portland OR 97221 Tigard OR 97281 Tigard OR 97223 Kenneth Spence Doris Mae Soller V Georgia Theodore & Helen Gano 2094 Summit Dr 10405 SW Hillview Dr 8914 NW Lakeshore Ave Lake Oswego OR 97034 Tigard OR 97223 Vancouver WA 98665 TIGARD LODGE NO 207 Caron Rubin Af & Am Of TIGARD RETAIL CENTER PAR I 520 SW 6th Ave #400 PO Box 230184 3164 NW 114th Ter 7 Portland OR 97204 Tigard OR 97281 Portland OR 97229 Lloyd Gilbertson i 'CHARITY LODGE NO 75 IOOF J Darlene TIGARD GRANGE NO 148 r 11055 SW Cottonwood Ln 15980 SW Colony P1 11222 SW Cottonwood Ln i -Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 ° I r 1 ;EMPIRE ENTERPRISES INC Colleen Fowler Pietro Vitiritti 422 Railway Street V6a 1 13605 SW Watkins Ave 14115 SW 157th P1 CANADA Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 "'an Martin Chris Corich lvr365 SW Pathfinder Way 6595 SW Alden Street Tigard OR 97223-3930 Portland OR 97223 I I w i CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TEAMS (CIT'S) NOIII1CA110N 1151'TOIIAPPIACANf5 WI111 IANI) USE 11-1101-05A15 WI!ST CIT IAHJ1 IISI! 61111COAMITTCI! EAST CIT 6011111 CI r_-_• _ CENT IIAL CIT Abdi llah Alkadl Clark O. 7.ellar pPVerly Frou,la ralg I Inpklns Jack tlielhan IL Ma,lir 11005 SW 125Ih Loud 13200 SW Shore Drive 12200 SW Bull Mounlain Road 7430 SW Vams Site 15525 SW Omlh Avenue 10965 SW PalhGnder Way Tigard, OR 97223 Tlyard, OR 91223 1Igard, OR 07224 Tigard, Oil 07223 ((gaol, Olt 07224 'Ilgard, Olt 072233030 (503)524.1000 (503) 5240094 (503)630.2529 Dill Gross Larry Weslerman 1(alhy Smllh Mark f. Mahon Min flanneth 11035 SW 1351h Avenue 13665 SW Fem Slrcot I W45 SW Cloud Coml 11310 SW Old Court 15550 SW 100th Avenl,o Tigard, OR 07223 Tigard. OR 07223 Tigard, OR 01224 Elgard, OR 07223 l lunrd, Of? 97224 (503)524.6325 (503) 5244550 (503)030.0004 Kalhla Kallio Chdsly I Im Unda Matters Joai Slovens 12040 SW Glncler Lily Drive 11306 SW Ironwood Loop 15120 SW 14 let Avenuo 9060 SW Vanhua cowl I lganl, OR 81223 Tigard, OR 91223 Tigard, OR 97224 figard, OR 97223 (503)524.5200 (503)590.10701(503)624.0000 (503)020.7602 Ed Ilowden Barham Sniffer Scoll Russoll Pal Wydnn 11020 SW Morning Ifill 11245 SW Morgan Courl 31291 Raymond Creak Ilnnd 0122 SW Spn,ce Suoel Tigard, OR 07223 l luard, 01107223 Swirtoose, on 07056 Tluaid, Olt 01223 (503)524.6040 (503)604.0303 (503) 543-2434 Donna 6 Jim Roach June S11111ddun Col Woolruy 14467 SW Twckoshury Ddvo 15040 SW 146111 Avonrro 12350 SW 132nd Court Tigard, OR 97224 Tlgoul, Olt 07224 Tluord, OR 07223 (503) 5000401 (503) 5000523 (503) 500.4207 Karl Swlurson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 07223 (503)500.33GD IrLVASC NOTPi In adriillon to prop.,(; ow,rar3 wllldn 250 fact. nollco of rnaalblgs on land use proposals shall ha 30,11 to all file narim an lids list. • ++.~-.............w 1•MY.~IIII.~irnl.4 eikn 44,4 1 rwr',J~ s ~ c~a CA L=_7 L_J L -3 L J E__ ] L._ J 1 AT6,T r "•'I AT&T Wireless Services Ron Fowler Real Estate Manager 1600 SW 4th Avenue - - Cellular Division Portland. OR 97201 CE tia 503 316-7464 CELLULAR 503 780-7648 7 FAX 503 306-7486 - 1} EMAIL rlowler® i pdxcellii.nwest.mccaw.com ~i . ATE-T a _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - AT&T Wireless Services ~ Spencer Vail 4505 NE 24th Avenue Site Acquisition Consultant Portland, OR 97211 ..1 \ Cellular Division 503 281.8245 r-----~- CELLULAR 503 789-7632 FAX 503 284.5506 J L '1 J l i J { 7777 F-i P N 9 Tigard Water Department 8777 SW Burnham Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 s4, WATER D~ y cf] J iMGDOMALD ST Q z w eeting: AT&T Wireless services Public meeting '1I }Proposed Cellular Tower - Hwy 99W Date: 3/17/97 Time: Name Address Phone PLC C 13 7~J s•w ciF~G C/ 912 a 13727 SW 'Pa c . ~/wy L39 Y91J I' IQ6530 S.GJ, ~ir(1aVUn f-✓u , 639 rl 1 ~F3 ~ [S- ~ ° 72 S SUJ r-. rt ~ ~ '2-A'2-~f k-b y u r. 1 ATTACHMENT A owner Authorization i E.1 I Ll November 26, 1996 City of Tigard Planning Department y 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Land Use Application j Proposed Cell l Site 71, To Whom It May Concern: Negotiations are currently under way between Tigard Retail Center Partners and AT&T Wireless Services of Oregon, Inc., to finalize a lease on the property located at 13707 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. I am aware of the need for AT&T Wireless Services to make application to the Tigard f Planning Department for approval of their proposed plans, as well as a building permit at a later date. I have no objection to their making such application at their own cost and risk. Please accept this letter as authority from the property owner to allow the processing of such application. J Very Truly Yours, rry w~ Taehoon Chung General Partner ti 1 U i u 1 a~ .A ATTACHMENT S Title Transfer Instrument t f r..O4/07/97 3I0N 11:08 FAA SOJ JOB 7486 ATT WIRELESS 0002 89-48353 tiJ Fidelity NMlonal Title Company of 0c'egon W-MVnyrn tb+q g , 17 tTAiw0a: WARRANTY 099Q a JAt'Ir5 LORE!! CAIN and DARLENE L. CAIN • s nt r~ come and twin fo... as .TICARD.HETAIL, LraNgLR Y...... R en Ise on lYmi'Led•-a'r`Eilershi p r. aren:ee, rAe /oNowlra dexr.Ded roofpproprrtY. t and cfror of rneumbrente( e:cr/if M spec(/fmlrv set (o•IL 'a henln, tltuated in lkr cwwry o/_,Wtl9hinRton St. If of Orelon, to wit: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "All i. ° 0 411 5 Sub/ectto and excepttnr. Easements, conditions, rerericetons and powers of special ' $ districts if any. 1989/90 real property caxes which are a lien not yet . r W payable. 'rt115 LVSTRUMENT W1LLNOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTA UMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND EEGULATIONG. BEFORE SIGNING OR AcctrnNG THIS INSTRUMENT SHE FERSON ACQUIRING FEE TPTLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THB APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY F PLAK:IING OEPARTMExr TO VEMIY APPROVED USES. C, THETRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCGIS l3rr OR39].070) i a:Lnranae tpvurr t>uwu,~ dgot4e.CfJhnz.._...._,T..».ATOPM7 9 %r o. /d 1,F. Pu 19 PfS M OLTE p e, ~......r•.•...M... James or c Cain ~"••-a-•+•-•+ 'D'ar a re r a n ~ SrATL OF OREGON, ) Srwra OF nXACON, G..MJ et._._...-..........._.r...).. C.. Clacke,.9 uwuM......... tM n,..n.rr>.er....r.A.w.. s. _..A.. wra e"r....•ti • o< IM .IA.r, IIJ r l.w W Ian.r i. l.• Jamee. ten eaLn In ••lene.-.._ .•,h Ix'--I' .nt nM .n. r ».h er_ > ....,Y... w.r~rl.f ; ...,,ir M lti /uH,lne :~rrv• .r,d iA.r ~h. •i..iri;..r i.•W .rwpr•J lhuivww.d- rM . n}Yli r~l AL ~T.J.!~.._•Jvnr.rY .n rM dM. •1 ere rorr~.eiw r rfwl ..:r rrzfZv l W i.- _ YS „•I lull of ..:r w rlw. b .•Ir..nr rf h, r..ua r! eir..r~.: •»r • d • ~ • • • r Ih.n+ •J~w ui1 n,or w Y M •,l.nl•ry rn rW 1d. «r. ScftLJ' SEAL) ,•FIC '~Wk r•r an/.n Nam r.u:. ru On(en m..+ra wdr». 2-12-91 .rr e..anl.r.n ndm: STATE OFORLGON. County of P ",lily that the YrltNn Ioases. mint Icas rv:ttutd far ncord on the day o O'rfocY Af. anti r•carded •6ooh/reet/ooluma Ro.,, ,on Tigard Retell.,t en[er, Yn;[nets Pa[e.,.....:..._ ores d"u,nvnl/;er//Itr/ ' .7"-30I Q. Record o/Dtedt of raid rounry. _Ltkt..U.tiMtCY,O..~D WII r- n y hand and real of r•n..e•...~Idw~~+. rwrr.rl+..w r.+.l. County o//tied. .JS.s e.F.R.l:fd..¢bav_e 8Y._.-_....M Drpufy Pe]0.OOl/ ••~'•'~'•n 04/07/97 MOO 14:09 E.•L1 503 306 7486 ATT WIRELESS (0003 -1 11-7 91 ' ~ .Stq. ~;2 j'• EXHISIT 'A" Ln Order No. W 42460 O page No. G t DESCRIPTION A tract of find in the Southeaac quarter of the ^outhesst quercer of section 3• 9 Taonship 2 South. RAnge 1 Wear, Willamette Neridisn, in the City of Tigard, T:•, vee111ngcon County. Dragon, dsocr ibod ne Loll ova: ;'/>~•c ' Beginning at the eouthe.oc corner of I" S. YELROSE ADDITION; thence North 67s 07' West along said Lot 8• 68.94 feet to a meal axle: there North 390 O1' Heat 106.4 feet to an iron pipe along the south line of Lot 7, =.P.05E 1;;, • :'i is ADDITION: thence North 78- 24' Crest 192.2 feet to the southvesc comer of said `c• +:5'~•: Lot 7, said paint also being on the swtheesterly line of Lot 5. Blcck 6, rAtRNAVEN :ALAS: thence Southwesterly along the southeasterly line of Lata 5 and 6. Block 6, fAIRNA9'04 COURT 170.66 to the cost Southerly southeast corner ft'•~' f p' of said Lot 6: thence South 85- 58' East 331.65 foot, more or 1".• to a point .long thou Wsecerly boundary of S.U. Pacific Nighvsy; thence Nottheaaterly along _ the reat.rly boundary of said bigtvay 140 feet to the point of beginning. C C I STATL OF CREOON c..nty of 11 Waal f Yaaton &M 1. Ooryp Y/. tf4aR Ouevar of a; woe Mr •r<ctTyA owtCon- "Y ow r4 MPn d 6( soLMY. Doc 89048353 ~f Rest: 19350 2f 3. 00 ~r 10/06/1989 11: 05:0511dd t~_1 - - . :f► x •t fya?. _ t ~ ; ',iii>: f L~ ! 04/07/97 MON 14:10 FAX 503 906 7486 aTT WIRELESS IGJ004 1. j .I i.: yb Fidelity Naliannl Title CCmpany Or'DrTgOn 89-48355 G~ e[r..ry _ Sn I Na=N A$CIAMY.G I10 ' WTH HOLDINGS. INC., an Or. on Corporation r.•......._ :a lv m . Jr-ro•. comr and uwlmla to fICAA6 AEfI Yf 'CtM EA PARTNERS an Orson lialced parcnarahl.P•.•,_„_...,._ t' , ,0 ttrantrr, the (oilo w,n(dererlbed real DrOpuN, Jlee and efrar Of eneumbrvneea rseept at .pcrl(frally mt forth ' hereln, situated in the county of Ra Mh gton............ State Of Orl(On. to wit: _ I Lota 7 and 6, MIME. Washington County. Oregon. ? 1 x _ c 1 c Subject to and emrepan/.' , THIS 1NSTRUME:<T WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT l.N VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING TH[S INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNT! e~., PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. 1 THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE tS S_NQ i ` tS•e ORS 97.0301 ! Deed this JV, day of iwi.. ..~+s: [..n... IPI14 HoldinYr Inc. - I J u I i SrATS OF OALColy. Sf Tf P MOON, C.YF a Cl~..... 3.. ««+~co Qoe r U E9 i - C..re v FY.YrnF...._....... .,d I to rk, btN Ivlr ,.•,4 i P•rrnJb .•r••./ rlr .s.., ,u../.........«....... ..d M a:rrll I,re rr /r w Ykr, IW Ys ( ,tr•w1 L Ik .~,..:......_u.»._ " . . iR71..NGIdlaga._IRG . rK.~•°-r •e:waai~lbw. a..._..:..:_.i:_L.~._....., nIr•- J Kl.wrlN N IM _ L /Y,!slN I ..N ,A.I ,M r,l .IRYI I, IN [...fYP~1:YrynW I.'r •wnwyr r•1 .1N -'d-d- [ri,n .N rN1 Y:/ lNlrydr,,a P"•[V.QI.KIAI rN[I.. n•n1 I, d...........................•,I..YUy .u Yld M •t rt1 tr•,nr:•n br wlfrrlb N.IY?.Pr~ ,~.I t4la, m1: , t (OFFICIAL .I I.a u SEAL) « „ A h6f/c OnL•n >n P•dic /Y OK -'ir,.y'f:~-' Ns enau',n .Iylnrr Mr aw,•dWen .IPlln: 2-12-91 trA Ts ncoo Ont+>w } a CoraaW[rr' OW L OSav W. ra.e. Okam' of A.@--" s:: tr: am Traao+ cvar east • .ars+na tar I~ ' sr .a+: g Iyp. .d • I o - - - . all oa FG COUP' ter......---- ; DOC 69016355 11, 00 ItaCt- 19760 10/06/196!. 11:05t05AM .F___............«.................... nepkly T1PS0-0dil ••••.,.r~ . a 1 1 1 ~I ATTACHMENT C _ Pre-Application Conference Notes 1 r• - /YI~poNnir,( k'c( ~ Gl9 W Srf-c _ 6 CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES S aoN-e~~tltat GrAFF. l" G ;P- 2rl~,e APPLICW. T' AGENT- J i w ~i Ssctr a1 Ptler [ 1 Z~5) - X5245 Pbove: t 1 -0 S105, 3 P0OMM LOCAi101t A0!$ESS: 13-76 7 5 W Pacl~' l a~C u.+a y l 7 TAXi UfWLIT: 25 (031i akK 1e L1 oe _ itFCES M APPLICATIOUSk ~a w~ o rad l GG ~P . {r¢~-u, f - o"OPOSALDESClancit S~ A4nnoAO1e aj relAd P,gu)PG~+oa~Sr~ ~i~er' v- I ~ NYPBEB~ISI9E i HMRESICHATIO1t 6.eL449orl Cec.r K,e~clo f ~C G ZOItI116!lE51GNAil01t _l~.ect8va~ ZD wiu~ev-cla ~ i 6> ~ CtflMiltgOLVElHEIdi _ ~..et,t Q fACWiAi'®6: TEANABE)t PROKE 15031 -1DFIDIGBISiMCTDIMERS10NALREQ EIIIM w... - Minim-ur~ lot size: esq. ft. Average lot width:-- C-ft. Maximum building height: G4 ft~ " seteacsim Front"~ ft Side V. ft. Rear -26 ft. Comer Iflq, ft. from street. j Maximum site coverage: K S % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: _5 0 Ellderto Code SademilL 6 q1 / @DiIIEEiE iS~l-~ su.¢cul~,ot 4 ~e~v v~s1~,~ed..rls ~,q~y -AHDtiiOMAI L01 D 0 Minimum lot fr ntage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as art of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a - minimum 15 foot -de access easement. The depth of all lots all not exceed 211 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 112 times the minimum size of the applicable zoning district. fflc1utoCedeSect1eu18164. -Lets) - :meFltsne>r rrs~eoetsn..e.~a..c.wres rs~eta~ a _~oarmrs~r+w.rro..~..w.m.a«w. l f 1 ECLU SEMCKS > Streets: O feet from the centerline of 1 > Established areas:- t feet from > Lower intensity zones: 'z-G feet, along the site's oi- boundary. > Flag lot: 10 foo'-tvde yard setback. Igalerto Code Sactien end11.961 EClA1IMINGEMG EMGff PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions • Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 3 feet provided: y~ a H,aVC)•~tc(.+t eJ~q~t~ aµp(J~S > A maximum building floor area to site idea ratib 1FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; A > All actual building setbacks will be at least % (half) of the building's height; and > The structure will not abut a residential zone district. (Refer to Cons Section 18.91.0201 j asKINCaluaceESS ~ e Required parking for this type of use: d i. r, Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): +i I Secondary use required parking: 04 1 r Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): In/ 3 of required spaces may be de signated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking staAs she a dimensioned as follows: > Standard parki \ed dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. ^ > Compact parkindimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. _ max tl1 Core 8.166.8201 > Handicaping: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensionled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person KO-M parking so provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Amer' Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A a - handicapping pace symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriathall b posted. I ) Bicycle racks are refor multi- mily, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks sh all be located in rotected om automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall vided on th basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular x parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: a Minimum access width: K Minimum pavement width: k r_; All driveways an rking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. r Drive-in use queuing eas: Qeter to ado Sectioa18.106 aW 18.1081 m er:ltCllra eaafasoa rotas Pspa 2 a o ` AAMAr BEQUIBEfd 1 1 Walkways shall tend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access an egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commerc I, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed betwe a new development and neighboring developments. t>;efor to Code Section 15.108.0 i ^AADDIG A8EA 8EQ81B I Every commercial industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a j loading space. The spa ize and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. tBefertoCodeseWon18.1 90l 4 .LEAS YISI0I1 AaEA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. Mdar to Cade Sectlon 15.1021 JMTI 81II6 AKD SCBFMIN j - In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between 1 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 QII1x be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. s ®efor to Code Chapter 15.1001 The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows:r s ft. along north boundary. ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along -11IIIDSSCA.''IN6 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 A ` trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above a 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. f srn 1iGI0 n nw ese[ersaea Mates rage 3 of I I , 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. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. 1 Meter to Code Chanters WK W06 and X1081 Sign perm%mayb obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permut is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards ermitted if the si gn proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternati y, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the ¢ Hearings Officer. - Meter to Cade Sectlou 18 ? SE1lSlM - The Cod provides regulations for la s which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas withi he 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 d percent, or on nstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application c ference based on available information. HOWE\ ?R, the responsibility to precisely identify i meeting t e definition"s, of sensitive lands must be clearly- indicated on plans submitted with the j r development applic?tion. _ Chapter 18.84 also provides gulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands I _ areas. s - Meter to Code Section 18 841 `IUM SEWMM AGEA\7enn 130 M STAliURM 6 8 0 96-44 Purpose: j - Land develop' cent to sensitive areas shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated ` corridor for a bi enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. 1 3 design Criteriati The vegetated r shall b a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of sitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to a reduce the widportion of t corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce j _ the width of a of the vegeta d corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to a n area of etated corridor at is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachmenr e 15 feet, except allowed in Section 3.1 1.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of ttated corridor within a development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any e average width of the egetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. ,yiiOFiriW tt~-l~tfesgrfet~raNsies Hpe4oti '1110--mm nocaftammd" kiam"d -CCU i r I _ i 1 -i Restrictions No structures, d velopment, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any ma vials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quali \hn tection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: ➢ A gravel walkwbike path, not exceeding 8 feet in width. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the ed corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bikay not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, ap oved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so inimi disturbance to existing vegetation: and Water quality famay enc ach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the y or City. i i ocation of Vegetatridor: In any residential pment which ales multiple parcels or lots intended for separate own ership, such as division, the veget ed corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part oparcel to be used for a construction of a dwelling unit. ~oterto8si96-0Bo9al~sss-C~G~~,6 torSW~ _BEE BEHRU PINT BEQ A tree pan for the lanting, 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 I a subdivision, major artition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is _ filed. Protection is pre rred over removal where possible. . The tree plan shall includ the following: b Identification of the cation, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the Ci • _ b Identification of a progr m to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation mu t follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the followin standards: _ ➢ Retainage of less th in 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a 4f mitigation program a cording to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; ➢ Retainage of from 25 5D percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires j that two-thirds of the ees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; ➢ Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent f existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; D Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existi trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed, nd I m a nwa e.~sre,c. KIM h0858118 'sect$a f f s i A protectio program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. i Trees removed withi the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as p of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.D. [Refer to Code Section 1 50.0251 PGATIOK Replacement of a tree shall to a place according to the following guidelines: r- ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site I characteristics. r D If a replacement ree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Di ctor may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent _ natural resource % alue. D If a replacement t ee of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or j would not be viabl , the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in l accordance with the ollowing formula: f D The number of replaceme t trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated { caliper size of the tree r oved or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest i o reasonably available replacem nt trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Di ector may require one (1) or more replacement trees to i - be planted on other property wi hin the city, either public property or, with the consent i 8 of the owner, private property. ! 9 ➢ The planting of a replacement tr shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. j In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D f this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its co is in performing such tree replacement. meter to Cede SECT n %15MM ml ~KAWTIYE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approv I standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to conside . an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. meter to Code Sec en 18.321 3 ~ .000E SMOMS _ 18.80 _ 18.92 _ 18.100 _ 18.108 18.120 _ 118.150 1 _ 18.84 _ 18.96 _ 18.102 _ 18.114 18.130 _ 8.160 -I _ 18.88 _ 18.98 _ 18.106 _ 18.116 _ 18.134 162 s t/ 18.164 a i a M @FTW= MAppOC2dM Pe a Notes Pm 6 H t ~ en~atlwlR+~~ssaro~ersutw MFACT STOOY As a part o the application submittal requirements, applicants are required to include impact study with t it submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the i development on ublic facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the r transportation sys m, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water i system, the sewer stem and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of pact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City f standards, and to min' ize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and a ected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code require the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either i specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real pro rty dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the 1 - projected impacts of the develo ment. (Refer to CabChapter %32.Se ao.0501 i When a condition of approval req ' es transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the L i - approval authority shall adopt finding which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportion to the impact the proposed development will have on the ! public. - (Refute Cede Cdr 18.32. Seglee 2501 KEIMMOB80021MING The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator an i the members of any land use subcommittee(s) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handou i - concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meetin is to be held prior to su i j application or the application will not be accepted. Meter to the KeftbUflovid Meeft Ramdo0t] i plicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pri sposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. Meter de Setae®181161 D®mOHAI CONCERNS 08 COMEllTS: i ( i/e L4) i~ u% c.a~uY S a i s ✓ j H m.~.a O 4 V 2 r,Hdtr KQ U/ K s L~2 K 15 2 t - o u z SL(1 "5 S j > a s'~z (aN oP`t~~ goer' ~ s:'{~. wl~-Gt a ai!2~}a} 5.2~ ~K ~-4Q a•- o La C~cevelo u ~I; se- ~s G~r eemoaE ee-d a_ i. ~d s cafe -c~k 21 esf l s s ld~~ 4r r~ aP- - dministrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. - Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. } ITT IF irAa0wi.newes ru,aaus. ofts ~ e ~ ~ 1 e~ a u~ ~ ~1 aQS W Pc~e s!~ e Id I ~ t 1 1 ~PPUCATIONSOBfi WALPROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning- Division acceptance may be returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. n Mans submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. r, The Planning Division and Engineering Division 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. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. i Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows 11 land use decisions. An appeal on this # matter would be heard by the Tigard LOkNCe / A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. j " This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the v 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. s T PLEASE NOTE the Conkf nCe and notes Cannot CUU afl Cade MQatrements and aspects of good stta pfanntag that sheaid 0010 9 the development Of Yom site plan Faffae of the stmt to prerfdo Ildefu tlon recaftll by the Cade shell not Constfinte a waver of the = Bowe standards a Middle uceL a is recamroeade~ that a prospective = 11= either ohm alm read the Camm®fty Bellefspment Code or ask m Qnestions of City staff mlathm to Code mautrements prierto substahig an atroDcadea ` 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). i 3 PREPARES BY. Cmr OFn6ABD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE 15031639-0171 FA* 15031684-7297 ' ~ -vUoginlPe2tylrtus[enlpsaPPK.mst l6gneerinp Sec[ion: mesterslpreeDDt.engl 17•Jen•97 Ulf UTMM ft*4 lncWa Cutereoce Meal Pape I of I f r~ ( CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELORMENT DEPARTN(E:NT APPLICATION CHECKLIST 1 CITY OF TIOARD ~ The items on the chec<Iist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist Identifies what is required to - be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. i See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: wl CP- 19p, Date: 2 6 9 7 } - APPLICATIONS REL-\TED OCCUMENT(S) SUBM)TTAL REQUIREMENT INCLUDE ! MARKED -ITEMS] A) Application form (1 copy) - I B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrumentlor grant deed m~ D) ApplicanCs statement No. of Copies 20 i E) Filing Fee 5 Ir IS j SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(SUPLiN15) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED n E.%tS i A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies SO f 1. Vicinjy, map 2. Site size & dlmenslons > 3. Contour IT nos (2 if a66:1010 or 5 ft for grades > 10%) - -s. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 3. Locations of natural hazard areas including: Q 3 (a) F(oodplain areas to (b) Slopes in excess of 25% i _ (c) Unstable ground 1 _ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table 1 (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential (i) Areas having severely weak foundation soils M _ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive _ Mao Inventorv including: (a) wildlife habitats _ (b) wetlands a 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings (b) _Trees with 6" = caliper measured 4 feet from ground level ocation of existing structures and their uses a Location and type of on and off-site noise sources ❑ _ 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-wavs, i L--'-D LSE APPL'CaTIOY / L15T PACE : CF 1 f i P} 5) Site Develoament Plan Indicating: No. of copies t.9 i. Eht~ proposed site and surrounding procerues d/ 2. Contour line intervals i<3 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and N easements on the site and on adjoining properties ❑ (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site ❑ (c) Alternative routes of dead end or prooosed streets that require future extension ❑ n t. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site Parking and circulation areas (c) Loading and services area (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ❑ (e) Outdoor common areas ❑ j (f) e\bove ground utilities tit/ / I 3. The oca ron, imensicns & set ack distances or a 1------. (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site 6. Storm drainage facilities and analvsis of downstream conditions Sanitary sewer facilities ❑ S. The location areas to be landscaped t~ 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes e 3 11. The location of all structures and their orientation t7~ 1. 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ❑ C) Grading Plan In tin No. of Copies The site development Ian shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analvsis dra ings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and e. ent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General conto lines ❑ (b) Siope ratios (c) Soil stabilization pro• sal(s) ❑ (d) Approximate time of ve for the proposed site development ❑ 2 A statement from a registered a ineer suppored by data factual r y substantiating: (a) SubsurTace exploration and ge ethnical engineering report ❑ 3 (b) The validity of sanitary sewer an storm drainage service proposals ❑ I (c) That all problems will be mitigated d how they will be mitigated C3 l . _ i 1n~0 LS / UST PACE ] CF 5 1 . D) Architectural Drawings Indicating: No. of Copies ZD L The site development plan proposal shall include: 6 F!oor plans indicating the square rootage of all structures I~ proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure t E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site A analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: I. Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials ❑ 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions ❑ w (b) Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ F) Si n Dr vin s-. ❑ Sign drawi shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit t construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation E imate: G H) Preliminary Partition! of Line Ad'ustment Man Indicatin No. of Copies 1. The owner of the s jest parcel ❑ _ 3. The owner's authoriz agent ❑ 3. The map scale (20,50,1 or 200 feet-1) inch north arrow and date ❑ j 4. Description of parcel locati and boundaries G 5. Location, width and names or •rees, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the arcel ❑ 6. Location of all permanent bui(din on and within 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all water tour- s ❑ 3. Location of anv trees within 6" or grea r caliper at feet above ground level 9. All slopes greater than 25910 ❑ ~0. Location of existing utilities and utility ease ens CI 1 For major land partition which creates a pub street: (a) The proposed right-of-way location and th ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed stree olus any reserve strip 11 Any applicable deed restrictions 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ " - Lana Use aP~~C\TCr J Us. PACE 3 CF 3 ~ -'~!undivi;ion Prelimin. Plat Ilan and Data Ind;,-in: No. of Copies F,, 1. Scale equaling 30.-0, 100 or ZCO feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet The proposed nam of the subdivision ❑ 13. Vicinity map showi g property's relationship to arterial and collector streets c a. Names, addresses d teiephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer nd designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines of tr ct to be subdivided ❑ Names or adjacent s bdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of u -subdivided land ❑ I? 8. Contour lines related to City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater an 10°o c r 9. The purpose, location, type nd size of all the following (within and 1 adjacent to the proposed sub ivision): (a) Public and private right =ways and easements e ° (b) Public and private sanita and storm sewer lines ❑ 17 (c) Domestic water mains in uding fire hydrants ❑ (d) Major power telephone tr nsmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for par , open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles'of proposed sanitary and storm sewers - _ with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water dis ribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire ydrants ❑ 12. Approximate centerline profiles howing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a asonable distance beyond the limits of j the proposed subdivision c ! 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed st et right-of-way(s) ❑ l j _ 14. The location of all areas subject to in dation or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of I water courses & drainage-ways e 16. The proposed lot configurations, approxi ate lot dimensions and lot numbers. 'Where lots are to be used for purposes other than _ residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at ? feet above ground level, and the location'of proposed tree plantings ❑ S. The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses or the structures, and a statement of whim structures are to remain arter platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) c (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivisior improvements ❑ 20. Existing natural features including rcck outcrocoings, wetlands & marsh areas ❑ 21. If anv of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application _se AP°r••e,rc•. i us: ?.,CT , CF S 1 , . 1 1) Solar ~cc,-.s C culation.; _ K) Other Iniormation No. of Copies -kn ~O Q~U,~PfiS GOKC~vt~tS I'14~IMQ ~Q ~4I~ ~O I Kepvlvtn s~ ~ ~taN.~r K *~e H e `Nip ' c1 a ~ta~ 4e 0 vn ; ~D bi-e _ Cs~lau~~ ~.e, i4~ ~uc~e~ r`h ►~2vya~I.d~ Zo rc'~S Kee~pir" 1 I: ~y - I _ Mav 23.1993 . . U57 7.1C.SCFS I p i 1 xm ATTACHMENT D Photograph of a Similar Installation ! f l~ ~ :r(~ 4~,,w~: ~ i l.~ a 1 7 ~i _ .2~ ; ; .l yt~.. ~ i , I t'~'7 . ~ 11® ' ~ ~"T7 r : t ~ ~ ~ I t. t ~ FOR PHOTO'S SEE j ~ f - COUNCIL MEETING PHOTO FILE 1997 DATE: D9/01/(37 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER OF PHOTOS: ~ - 1 RIyI,~i7 September 4, 1997 Special City Council -Review of AT&T Monopole (CUP 97-0004) j Submitted bv: bbic Chambcrl n 10710 SW Fairhaven Way Noise issues: j i ' • noise from the businesses, Tune-A-Car, Tigard Motors. Mincke: revving motors, honking, telephones ringing, automotive power tools, and occasionally, obnoxious yelling and profanity. i • These businesses, at times, work past their normal operating hours, with the back doors open. • garbage pick-up - every Tuesday morning, as early as 4:45am. • parking lot sweeper, noise, dust at various times and days • loud music from cars, often late at night • When property was developed, we were told that none of the businesses would need to be open after hours or on Sunday, and that noise would not be a problem. Visual issues: • lost approximately 15 evergreen trees in last 7 years property was developed • chain-link fence and a poor excuse of a "hedge' • not enough privacy Ouestions/Concerns: - • Why neighbors at the east end of Garden Park Place not notified of this proposal? (picture) • Why was Tigard Motors (used car dealer) not included in the list of tenants of this complex? • Handicap parking. Is it sufficient? One of two spaces has no sign posted 1 Conclusion: This neighborhood has been here for close to 35 years. Instead of us, as residential property owners having to put up with commercial zone regulations regarding noise levels and times, ctc., it should be the commercial property owners showing a little consideration to their residential neighbors. After all, who do they expect to have for customers? And the same goes for AT&T. Nobody wants a pole in their backyard! I ! ,1 f - SEP 05 197 11.07RM O'DONNELL, RRMIS P. 2 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR CUP 97-0004 - AT&T MONOPOLE 2. e. The noise generated by this use shall not exceed the levels allowed by the Tigard j Municipal Code. i J 2, f. The Applicant shall plant two (2) to five (5), three (3) to four (4) inch caliper trees within l the area bounded by the property lines of the three lots abutting the northwest property line of the retail center. Exact location to be approved by a certified arborist. Plan to be . subject to review by staff. Tree location is to maximize screening of the view of the pole 1 from the adjoining residential properties and to include trees that grow with varying speeds. Tree location will be either within existing landscape areas or the leased area, but would not adversely affect the functioning of the monopole. Applicant to be responsible j for maintenance of trees. Certified arborist to be selected by applicant, approved by City. Council's intent is that stag's review is not a land use decision. f" pJb1- p007A a4D1e wn+ 9/S/97) 1 i rt- r , 9 , T + ' I PACIFIC 5405 S.N. Nimbus Avenue ~~G 199 Beaverton, OR 97U08.7120 011 8/26/97 Mark Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 " j ~ RE: CUP 97-0004 (AT&T Monopole)-Photos I As you requested, please accept the attached color photo simulation and photographs of the proposed L j AT&T cellular site. These are the same images that were provided to the hearings officer. Photo 1 simulation #1 was taken from Fairhaven Way looking southeast toward the proposed site. The house shown in this photo simulation is the closest residence to the site. The second photograph (#2) was taken near the intersection of Fairhaven Way and Fairhaven Street looking southeast toward the proposed site. The third photograph (0) was taken along Fairhaven Way near the first angle looking northeast toward the proposed site. As the photo simulations/photographs illustrate, while the facility will be visible from the lot immediately west of the site, there are significant numbers of trees that screen the facility from the vast majority of the residences. % Sincerely,... W&H Pacific I Michael Birndorf Project Planer 1 ~•1 % E L'IPROJEC710152020214VPDA TA IPDX6YV'. RPD (503) 626-0455 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture 7' :7 x 1 I t uv~ p S S 4 K, s ~Y•Y 4; ..~v i. .a. rr T~ rte' rY 1 ® 1 r~ .,~Fj i,~p i ~ Y F"r• S1. ` h, . tr 4~ ~ 1 1 n f } f _~~c`~ a _ t ..X'~.~, •f.. I 1~T~+. ~ : i~: III i i 4 I~ ~ a III Ii Ili I,. ~`iA. ri~ L ~i y. ~ • `F'ti .ti M ~3 ~ . , ~i~ -n _ ~ .f 1~.. . .t.^~.. ' ~ ~ ~ ` s ,r i X" ~ . ~ ~•.R' 2 ~ ~ J -+.a+ SyI:A. ,4- •h;r w Z 1-r Sti"~t s^ 4 I i F ~y a 1 P Y ~ 9 t 4.;y't~ t r t 5-r lF~ i 1i .T" ✓Y.}. is i'~.t tv .d n 'i r~-}•,. yF• 'i , _ r a~~_~r t x fi''~t" Y 4A.~ T3 ~ i - J, F o PACIFIC :1100. S.W. vunbus Avenue ' t3eavectun.OR 4-003- I_II July 14, 1997 i W. Larry Epstein Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 , RE: AT&T Monopole (CUP 97.0004) Dear Mr. Epstein, Please accept the following letter and attachments in response to issues raised at the public hearing on July 7th: i NEED FOR FACILITY: I Documentation from AT&T's senior RF Engineering Design Manager is attached, which demonstrates the need for the facility at the proposed location. l NOTSE: Regarding the issue of noise generation, the equipment shelter will be equipped with two "residential" style HVAC units. These units operate in lead-lag mode, meaning a maximum of one unit can be in operation at any I given time. I have attached sound data from the manufacturer of the units, which confirms that the units will not ' F generate significant amounts of noise (approximately 50 dBA's at a distance of 50 feet). The HVAC model that will be used is the AVP24ACA by Crispaire. The proposed location of the HVAC units is fifty feet from the i residential property line-boundary to the west and a considerably greater distance from the nearest residential dwelling. Please note that the noise data was taken directly in line with the front of an HVAC unit without noise- dampening obstructions. The proposed location of the HVAC units at the Highway 99 site are buffered by the proposed equipment building, the existing commercial building, and the existing landscaped buffer along the property line. Based on this, noise levels to the vmst and north of the facility can be expected to be even less than ' those identified by the manufacturer. VISUAL ISSUE& [ As described at the public hearing, AT&T is proposing a "slim-line" monopole and antenna configuration to address community concerns regarding visual impacts. I have attached photographs of a similar AT&T - installation in Tigard that abuts a residential zoning district As the photographs demonstrate, visual impacts are not substantial. - If you have any questions regarding the proposed cellular facility, please feel free to contact me at 626-0455. i Sincerely, j W&H Pacific Michael Bimdorf~ Project Planner 150316_6.0155 Fax (50315:6-0775 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services L~ AUT AT&T Wireless Services July 14, 1997 1600 SW Fourth Ave. Portland. OR 97201 Mr. Larry Epstein Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Re: McDonald & 99W Proposed Cellular Site Dear Mr. Epstein- -The following engineering data is provided in support of the application for the above proposed cellular site. j Attached are two plots of actual cellular coverage data gathered during test drives along I routes that will be affected by the proposed site. I - The first plot shows the level of coverage provided by the existing serving cell sites in the area. On this plot, each different character or letter represents a different "dominant server" or cell site sector which is strongest in a given area. The color of the characters j indicates the signal strengths: red and green representing strong coverage, brown i representing the minimum desired coverage to achieve reliable voice quality and smooth hand-offs between cell sites, and blue representing areas which need improvement. Looking at the plot of current servers (cell sites), one can see that in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cell site there are currently five possible servers vying for dominance. This is not a good situation. Ideally, one would want a cellular user traveling along the highway to pass from one area of strong coverage to the next area without passing through areas of weak coverage, and without "bouncing" from one server f to the next in quick succession. This "bouncing" or, more technically, lack of a dominant server, results in multiple handoffs which can seriously increase the chances for lost calls, dropped calls, handoff failures, or unacceptable audio. This plot also shows that there are areas in and around the site of the proposed cell location where the actual signal level is below desirable levels. i The second plot shows the improvement in both signal level and the establishment of a dominant server which will be provided by the proposed cell site. The asterisks on the ti plot are actual drive data for the proposed site gathered by having a temporary test i transmitter on a temporary test tower at the site. It can be seen that the proposed site not If ~=A Pec.c!ed Paoer only brings up the signal level in the surrounding areas, but it also provides for a solid and smooth transition from the site in the north (Pfaffle C Sector) to the site in the south (King City A Sector) along Highway 99W. j In addition to resolving the dominant server issue in this area, this site will also provide increased capacity to the heavily traveled roads in the vicinity, while at the same time offloading capacity from the cellular sites which currently serve the area. t For the above reasons, the proposed site is necessary to provide ongoing high quality cellular service. Sincerely, ~44 I4{ Carol Friz, P.E. RF Design Manager }i Registered Professional Engineer, State of Oregon' cf Attachments (2) r i j f 1 I EXISTItVG COVERAGE 1 _ I i d I- d COYEMCE P V NOW l0( f(C~lwrnal) NOW SlgqnrwI: A AMtimun I I- - I 1 I I d .d HWY 217 I Courage fir.shold: -110 (dBm) T - - - -r- d• . t I : a Client: Market: Alaska - r 11 I d'' L 1. _L 'm p user: mollh t I I : I d"lr mm I Prepared 07/11/97 01 10:33 IF m FN -I - -I - I m roarost.e u.Mi .~•m"mt • I- 4 o.,.r ac M(A) O_ C... CC M(A) C`- ' ? - - `a. Ili 1 tM, t 1--~j ' .amd, m mril 99 W a•, m. m t - I - ~ d in rn m I - m. , I I d ! h' e: - - d • --t to L . e - do shit -d'tt-dl b b m; b mfi BULL MTN RD e7 MCDONALD - -~1 1 . a f - -_I - ti I - Current Servers in the Aren 11 31p 1 i -r t 'p 1of the Proposed Site: t I 14- - t- - i m e _ _ I - - + I I d- Praffle C Scclor 6 •f. s I I I i, _ o= Viewmnster B Sector - m = Pfafflc 13 Sector i = Viewmastcr C Scclor s= King City A Sector I I r I. Mlles o 0.25 0.50 0.75 l ! r- I 1 I___ I I' SCALE: 1:21,000 Lam. t F7 . - - s CC)VEFtAGE WITH PFt,CJPC> SEE> SITE - d- I i COVERACE PIOr •+o I) l: rlmum I 1 I d. I I r . NOW Slyw d d I r ,1 Coverage Thre/hold: -110 (dOm) _I r i, I I J L I~ I mM 1 Market: Atalto r I „ 1 r [1 t I Wer: molth I Prepared 07/11/07 at 10:35 t mm m' "-Ti' ru. u.r~.uN ru. waMiw marwt..n n 99W m fi ~ n1. a•...r a Mlwl o.. o...+ a Mlp o.. FYI a • m HIVY z» j rrI I t ' I d/: \ mm mM I- 1 Mle lpht dr.rn M" ".1w hW I I r I-- m ) I) h rI1 IA M I-- 1 MCDONALD ST - - r- - " DULL MTN RD f improwmentin Local r . ~ ~ - - I I~ - • ` ti - - - T - Servers due to the addition TI.51p ofthe Proposed Site: r>r-~► I I I -1 I - , . r • = PROPOSED SITE 1 + _ , ' - I I I d - Pfa(ile C Sector D o = Vicwmaster D Sector t! + r I 1 m- PfnMe D Sector s ' ' 1' I I 1- Viewmnster C Sector /1 - - - _1 - s- King City A Sector +....r_.t-1"( '1:-r-1_.1....1•-1 I~...~:1~ t-r . 1 - I 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 i 1 1 1-• I t SCAIE: 1:21,000 i n - - - , - - - -J t' ur, I J7 IUl I+: iq- H-~•~ qua ..n SSSU PITMCX PORTLINO 0004 Z u aaXss.9r TEt 0:13 FAX 7704339323 CAISFAIIL ATL TESC9A 0004 Cannam la Ortlcas a MorxlOCtYM+O Pkwd s P.O. &30 400 s CoidMs. G► 34045 (0421 273,1636 a Fmc M23 273.6454 • j I 1[ODLLr- i - . act= DATA 4I1VP The Tabulated Sound Leval Data vas takes directly in line vith ebn Eroat of the Ccndsaaar Coil/Condenser xir Outlets of each iiu2-~Louae 1tr Caaditfoaar. " The aetar vas placed approxioaeely S feat above grrnmd level and the m1cropaoae angled at AFPSC - tely 70• up frog horiaoaeal. The Tabulated Data bas not been corrected•.sith respect to j . baalcgsvuad aoir. A13. 9psasured sound levels haves bass sounded to the neareat decibel. Tba waluss c=t.Ai ed in the Tabulated Data abould be viewed as approximate/refex ce values ably. actual values may vary with sacs aituatioa. Shelton Hobbs P -oj eat 2=gA .,ASS- f page 3 of 3 j ~ I 1 ZO'd £Zb0 SEZ £OS u.-t a'~saH dvv:zo L6-SX-Cew MEMO 03/IS/97 'MIU 14:40 FA.'( 503 226 8880 Pt*rMCK PORTLIND ® 002 • r i - - tav tr:to X11 7704330323 CRISZAIRE A2L RESCOR•~~..~ m002 VC13n~1KLt7'mtRLK1w raz-ytt-L /.Ya/!?a rW- l Cnspaire P.O. b= 400 0 123273-5154 Gc GA 31015 i. Corporate CCtk=% A nAarwf2a P4~tOX (9 t.: MARVAIA scmw DAT.1 `xVP KaD=A" TT52 7g27ZLs AVDI2ACA_ Tr-.VT SAT3- 09/21/95 k DXSTPJ= rams 331ST got= LiVtS. +=SSA .dom. G!S 5 63 l0 60 f 20 S6 30 S3 40 52 50 51 60 42 - 46 d$A TSQT i1OZ>SL. VP2~AC1► TEST CABS: 06/0t/95 aZSTAX= FROK to= soma LTVPS ~ FESS' d3f 6G G ° S r ' 10 61 56 =O S3 30 51 40 so so 49 60 DAGlCGRC141~t 39 - 49 dLSA Page 1 of 3 - l ~Qq u.•ta7.saM dbb=ZO L6-SL-FQW 1 ATE,. T SLIM-LINE MONOPGL-E i =,x SCHOLLS FERRY & NORTH DAKOTA L~ AT&-Q SLIM-LINE MONOPOLE 15 .1 ■ SNOW J. ^HOLLS FERRY & NORTH OAKOYA i e John & Debra Chamberlain 10710 SW Fairhaven Way Tigard, OR 97223 } (503)639-9871 1 July 21, 1997 Mr. Larry Epstein Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Boulevard I Tigard, OR 97223 Re: AT&T Monopole (CUP 97-0004) !j Dear Mr. Epstein, M While we were unable to attend the neighborhood meeting in June regarding the AT&T I monopole, we were in attendance at the July 7, 1997 public hearing which addressed that i proposal. We have also received a copy of Michael Bimdorfs letter (with attachments) I dated July 14, 1997 in which he responded to three potential problems noted during the public hearing. We certainly appreciate having been informed of this proposal and recognize your difficult role as a mediator. However, we are dissatisfied with the seeming lack of concern, on the ' part of AT&T, for the neighbors who would be affected by the installation of this monopole. • NEED FOR FACILITY While Carol Friz's letter documents AT&T's need for another server to eliminate their area of weak coverage, it does not rove or demonstrate that this server must be placed at this precise location to remedy their current coverage problem. We would like to see alternative proposal sites and have undeniable rp oof that those locations are unacceptable. We suggest the following as alternative sites: - Grange Hall/Odd Fellows Hall directly across Hwy 99 - John L. Scott building lot - lot at Park and Hwy 99 (former Hot `N Now and Taco Bell) - Neilsen's Tire Center ' { - . 11 i LARRY EPSTEIN July 21. 1997 Page 2 - Baptist Church on Gaarde at 110th l - Canterbury Square - Elmer's Pancake House - Public Storage/God Fathers Pizza site i - Tigard Market Place(BiMart I I - Boston Market If a church or another non-profit organization were to lease a portion of their property to AT&T for the monopole, compensation, it seems, would benefit a worthy cause. o NOISE In regard to Mr. Birndorf's response to noise generation, the sound data from Crispaire C does not confirm that the units will not generate significant amounts of noise. I The fourth paragraph on page three of the Crispaire material states "Actual values (of noise levels] may vary with each situation." In effect, the monopole placed 50 feet from our backyard fence would generate 50 dBA's. That is where our three children (ages seven, four and two years old) play. f~ Secondly, paragraph two on page three of the Crispaire documentation states "The Tabulated Data has not been corrected with respect to background noise." Tune-A-Car, the tenant located closest to the proposed site, produces an extraordinary amount of noise from approximately 8:00 AM until closing, and sometimes until as late as 11:00 PM. Our family and neighbors listen to revving motors, honking, very loud telephones, automotive tools, and occasionally obnoxious yelling and profanity. It seems to me that these noises, as well the constant highway traffic, constitute significant "background noise" and should be considered when measuring the sound level of the HVAC units. • VISUAL ISSUES i I Mr. Birndorf indicates that "visual impacts are not substantial." He based that conclusion i on the photographs attached to his letter. The photographs do not clearly represent the visual interference that this monopole ! causes. They actually minimize the visual reality of this piece of equipment. In addition, Mr. Bimdorf implies that the residential zoning district referred to is similar to ours. This is simply not true. The referenced site abuts an apartment complex. Our - neighborhood is comprised of approximately 95% home owners in single family dwellings. J Not only was Mr. Bimdorf s statement purely subjective, it was offensive. By stating that i i i i i LARRY EPSTEIN July 21. 1997 Page 3 "visual impacts are not substantial," he devalued our opinion and concerns. We feel that 1 this monopole would be an irritating intrusion in our lives, that it would be unsightly on a daily basis, and we would like to be heard. i Another issue about which we are concerned is in regard to the possible additions to the t pole by AT&T. We were told that once the lease was signed, AT&T could alter the pole at a future date to adjust to changes in technology. This could mean anything, and that disturbs us. Please address this issue further. As we indicated early in our letter, we feel that AT&T is indifferent to potential problems arising as a result of the monopole's placement. f r I At the public hearing on July 7, the AT&T representatives mentioned that any problems with television, cordless phone or remote control receptions were possible. However, i they confirmed that AT&T would not take responsibility for a reception problem that could occur in the neighborhood. The residents were told that the FCC would be their f only recourse. i We find that this indifferent attitude is indicative of power over the people. We were invited to the public hearing, but we don't believe we were heard, nor do we believe that our sincere concerns matter to AT&T. We respectfully submit this letter of personal concern to you. We ask that you I thoughtfully consider our request to deny AT&T the use of this site for their new monopole. Thank you. f i { j Sincer Fharr erlain i Debra Chamberlain 1 c: James Nicoli, ;Mayor of Tigard I j A Monday, July 21, 1997 i David and Vicke Hammes j l 10740 SW Fakhw,rn Way Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. I-arry Epstein j Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ' i . Re: AT&T Monopole (CUP 97-0004) Dear Mr. Epstein, This letter is in response to information provided by W&H Pacific and AT&T pursuant to public heating on July 7 at City Hal Need for Facility: Per the attached supplied drawing it appears this tower is needed to cover the Bull vfountain, McDonald and 99W intersection. With another proposed site being down on Mast Street and 99W it appears these poles are needed approximately every mile up the f( highway. As stated in the meeting several of us who have cellular phones are not _ experiencing the trouble with our telephones as AT&T stated we were having. We question J the real need for this tower with the tower being installed at 99 and Main Street With this documentation it appears AT&T will require a tower every mile, to male-1!2 radius to { i cover the area they want to. Again, this appears to be a band-aid affect to take cart of what AT&T says is a problem for today. How many more towers are we going see in the area J 1 over the next five years? As you asked AT&T in the meeting, and they admitted they do j not have a long range plan, and it appears they shill do not have a long range plan. k IoLse: Per the supplied data it appears this unit should not bother us, but as stated in the meeting j we were told by W&H Pacific when the area was originally improved we were promised ; . and guaranteed we would not hear noise after business hours and on Sunday. Presently f neither of these conditions have been met. The noise problem continues and with the addition of the cellular tower it will only compound the existing noise problems we are j experiencing. We have complained to the police about the noise and will continue to do so. Visual: The tower located on Scholls Ferry and North Dakota is butting up against apartments and net residential homes as so stated. The homes are on the other side of North Dakota and j approximately 500 feet away from the tower. I spoke to a resident in the residential area i who was unhappy with the present tower that he can see from his backyard, but he was to 1 far away to raise any issues. The probed tower by that AT&T wants to install is less then 50 feet and bordering residential property. As stated in the meeting the proposed site at 99W and Main Street does not have any opposition but it is bordered by apartments and commercial property only and not residential. People buy homes to stay in them People in i , i aparancats stay for a short length of time. If they do not like their snrrotmdings they up and leave. f Please consider denying this application, and let AT&T find another location on 99W that is commercial and not bordered with residential homes 50-75 feet away. (h7te the proposed 99W and Main Street). j i ' \v L1 \ f 1 i PACIFIC 1 y405 S.w.Nimbus Avenue Beaverton.OR47008-71_0 I 1 j 7/28/97 SECEUM PLANNING I Larry Epstein JUL 2 9 1997 j Tigard Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd., MYQFTiGARO 1 Tigard, OR. 97223 RE: CUP 97-0004 (AT&T Monopole) y - Dear Mr. Epstein, Please accept the following in response to letters received from John and Debra Chamberlain and David and Vicke Hammes questioning the need for the proposed cellular facility and discussing noise f and visual issues. • NEED FOR FACILITY: i As documented in the previously submitted analysis from AT&T's senior radio frequency engineer, the proposed cellular facility at 13707 SW Pacific Highway is necessary to provide ongoing high I quality cellular service in the area. The service standards set by AT&T reflect directly upon the quality of the system and the degree of customer satisfaction. AT&T sets high standards in these areas and is committed to maintaining those standards to ensure superior call clarity, a very low 4 percentage of one-way calls, a low number of dropped calls, and a low number of callers who are I denied service. i The proposed site is part of a long-range plan to improve the level of quality of coverage and to increase the amount of caller capacity in the Tigard area. With the addition of the proposed site, and II a future site to be located in the vicinity of the Highway 99 and I-5 interchange, AT&T will have i completed its plan for improving cellular service in Tigard for the immediate and foreseeable future. There are no plans to place new cellular facilities every mile or mile and a half throughout the City. The location of cellular facilities is not based on a fixed distance of separation between sites or grid E „ pattern placed over the landscape. Rather, the identification of the location and need for cellular facilities is a complicated process that is based on such factors as surrounding topography, the presence of natural and man made features, and current and projected usage patterns, For example, j the increasing use of cellular phones within buildings has dictated the need to improve and increase signal strength to allow for "in-building" signal penetration, f i S: • VISUAL ISSUE In response in concerns raised that photographs of the existing monopole on North Dakota Street do f1 not accurately represent the appearance of the proposed facility, we have provided a photo simulation 1 ` J and photographs taken from Fairhaven Way (Exhibit A). The attached photo simulation is based on i a (503) 626-0455 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture ® I i a photograph taken from Fairhaven Way looking south east toward the proposed site. The house shown in the photograph is the nearest residence to the site. As the photo simulation demonstrates, the proposed fifty foot tall "slim-line" monopole is not a massive structure that dominates the { landscape. Rather, it is similar in height and appearance to many parking lot light standards. The second photograph was taken near the intersection of Fairhaven Way and Fairhaven Street looking south east toward the proposed site. The third photograph was taken along Fairhaven Way near the first angle looking north east toward the proposed site. As these photographs illustrate, a grove of trees and shrubs obscures the view of the proposed facility from these perspectives. • NOISE- As previously indicated, noise generated from the proposed air-conditioning units are not significant. Given ambient noise levels in the area, it is not likely that the units would even be audible at most times. Nevertheless, AT&T will agree to install compact ultra low noise air-conditioning units (Exhibit B) in response to continued concerns. These units generate noise that is far below accepted thresholds. i If you have any questions regarding the proposed cellular facility, please feel free to contact me at 626-0455. j- Sincerely, j _ W&H Pacific - Michael Birndorf f , i i f ` i f I I f t ~ i V 118#-1X3 i i or®~ - i i 1 . ! } - - < ~ ti _ - I ( , ~.,.a i ` i L i I~ WIN I 600- {'Cf WIRELESS • U7. -1.97 'fltl' 13:21 FAX 503 306 ;idti EXHIBIT B The 38AN/BK series condensing unit combines smcller size. reduced weight and enhanced performance with state of the art styling. • The 38HDC/QR series is a robust commercial grade condensing unit designed to be reliable. quiet and extremely efficient. The 38HDCIQP incorporates many features that are extra or unavailable in many other condensing units. This exclusive Carrier design offers maximum value and flexibility. The 38AN/8K are cooling & The 38QR is a heat pump The 38HDC is a " heat pump units operating ranging from 18.000 to cooling-only unit with at 9.000 to 12.000 Btuti. 60.000 Btuh. capacities ranging from 18.000 to 60.000 Btuh: Matched with: Matched with. 40QNBIE009 40QKE024-048 Matched with: 40QNB/E012 40QAE024.060 4CQKB024-036 40QNEDI8,024 match 40QABO24-060 i with 388KO18 &024 40QNBO18 - 024 (this CDU is a 38QR configured for High Watl setup) A - S ate. 12 SUR with =tied systems Sudl Compressors Ws in outdoor unit High a low pressure swifrhes Standard Low Ambient - 6.8 Sek- The 38HDS Multi-Split serves 2.3 or 4 zones allowing for over Compressed Cabinet design 40 possible indoor fan coil combinations. Cooling copccaties range from 24.000 to 48.000 BTU's These systems operate with combination of 40QNB. 40DKB. 2QAB fan coils. The 38HDS also permits standard ducted tan col opercricn in conjunction with duct free. For more information, conrccr your local Carrier Representative. I 1 J 0 PRO no ~ o r o~`o L c s K a cpPl3r~ p K a x xvp-~ p~~e $ E S R sosSZS ~ ~ ~ $ S t~tt FFF- Fssa~F c k F F F Sttit F. oL,o ~ $:tgst FFF~LF~~FFFF Ftt= FFaFF FSs~SF F"stiFF =Fc G<a --=s' s s 9 55a1~ :art"s ~M-~Ma € 6 S S Stgt ~trss i ~ '~3 Z ssY a »m ~~.~..LS Q 8 - - Crrr C1 L'trr wr.SLl".. iyBx~ 8 rrrY rJ' iri o ~y~ p p p p P p0Pi? s~tt1 aftKeaaB p p C C7ppp kcya ° A~°: Y Y 2 Y Y S Y S X19 '..Y '»:f~~ Y Y Y Y~ gYlY $ s H - V~JVt KKKKK K K kKKK KK : a a mop i:K iKr = k Y rr Yr rY= YXYYYY Y YYYY Y Y' e accFP nppp paGtt aaUdp n C p p aaap pP_nd r - 3.n144 _ r ou Egan x~R - - ~a3 pis: 3d?iaa 555K5 5 5 x 5 5 5555 555- 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5555 55 - _ ~ _ _ a :,:SS 55aS 555x:5 ~ S 5 > ? a_5: 5>SS ~ ~ 2~ S g L r a~ 3 Y 8 Y LYE.. ~ Y $ O u NEE" C=A•ve SoLutons Superior Service FAX PACIFIC ~TRANSMITTAL 2405 S.W.WhmbutAve. { Bcavtmc6 OR 97002-7120 I I To: if06U~j l Date: ~`Z Company: 0/ ProjectNumber. Address: Project Namc: i City/State: RE:%f% TcvFaY as: Pz 9 7- Ood ~l 77 From: ,Q%yjp(p c.nWesWlkrt!.uea Tlosrw(ma. to muaQad crap frt ~amasrtLa meWid.o! . L%~~'Gt' ~'7L' .deaavchom auctm~.t~da.pp0o6e. Las: Itr~. rmae~miamerne. isnm , ~.immddnvpiaat crmacmptgw ar~mt xpoma3+.IIrdslivslay e,. a+m+!° t Phone No. (503) 626-0455 ~~•aj~v~cr~++babrt,.aa.em.v:ma y ~iamlaaaoaefryi~ot~hi. mmm~u+auoa a~ha atiotsrmr uveomma~ee..a , 0s cvatea4 sr this lol4muion. is .duly pcoh3ltad. If Yss fsvs :k y Fax No. (503) 526-0773 rAanky r~a®i41a a[a pl.ero aouym~medi«ebbr di.c~tmllaz} SLnu We we Sending: These Are Transmitted: Copied To: Aaached 0 For Your womia --1 Facsimile C] As Requested of Pages Inatnxling Cover Cl For Raview & Commant Copies Description f~ Comments: ~'s~pQi✓.s~' % D f~~F1fi~//t/'1~ 01C eoR 1 Engineering ♦ Landscape Arcbitecture • Eavim=eutal Sar ices :'iaaaing • Surveying and Mapping Washington d Oregon O Idaho f 8iT'd 8c5'ON DIJIDCd H3M i PACIFIC s ~1 3405 SAV. Nimbus Mmue Beaverton OR 97006 7130 1 7/28/97 D Larry Epstein Tigard Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 RE: CUP 97-0004 (AT&T Monopole) 1 Dear Mr. Epstein, I Please accept the following in response to levers received from John and Debra Chamberlain and F' David and Vicke Hammes questioning the need for the proposed cellular facility and discussing noise and visual issues. • NEED FOR FA ITY: i As documented in the previously submitted analysis from AT&T's senior radio frequency engineer, i the proposed cellular facility at 13707 SW Pacific Ffighway is necessary to provide oagoiag high quality cellular service in the area. The service standards set by AT&T reflect directly upon the _ quality of the system and the degree of customer satisfaction. AT&T sets high standards in these areas and is committed to maintaidng those standards to ensure superior call clarity, a very low percentage of one-way calls, a low lumber of dropped calls, and a low number of callers who are denied service. The proposed site is part of a long-range plan to improve the level of quality of coverage and to j increase the amourd of caller capacity in the Tigard area, With the addition of the proposed site, and a future site to be located in the vit3nity of the Highway 99 and I-5 interchange, AT&T will have completed its plan for improving celbilar service in Tigard for the immediate and foreseeable future. 3 There are no plans to place new cellular facilities every mile or mile and a half throughout the City. The location of cellular facilities is not based on a fixed distance of separation between sites or grid pattern placed over the landscape. Rather, the identification of the location and need for cellular r facilities is a complicated process that is based on such factors as surrounding topography, the 1 presence of natural and man made features, and current and projected usage patterns. For example, { the increasing use of cellular phones within buildings has dictated the need to improve and increase signal strength to allow for "in-buil ding' signal penetration j • o yrSUAt. TSS TF : I In response in concerns raised that photographs of the existing monopole on North Dakota Street do i ' not accurately represent the appearmtce of the proposed facility, we have provided a photo simulation j and photographs taken from Fairhaven Way (Exhibit A). The attached photo simulation is based an j I 3i2'd t50:2c5'0N55 Fas (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineerin¢ • Surveying • Landscape Architecture ~IaI_Nd HEM WdTt,:z o I , a photograph taken from Fairhaven M,ay looking south east toward the proposed site. The house shown in the photograph is the nearest residence to the site. As the photo simulation demonstrates, the proposed fifty foot tall ,slim-lino" monopole is not a massive structure that dominates the landscape. Rather, it is similar in heiflht and appearance to many parking lot light standards. The I y second photograph was taken near tho intersection of Fairhaven Way and Fairhaven Street looldng i 1 south east toward the proposed site. 717te third photograph was taken along Fairhaven Way near the j first angle looking north east toward the proposed site. As these photographs illustrate, a grove of trees and shrubs obscures the view of the proposed facility from these perspectives. j As previously indicated, noise generated from the proposed air-conditioning units are not significant. Given ambient noise levels in the area, it is not likcly that the units would even be audible at most times, Nevertheless, AT&T will aE ree to install compact ultra low noise air-conditioning units . (Exhibit B) in response to continued concerns. These units generate noise that is far below accepted thresholds. If you have any questions regarding the proposed cellular facility, please feel free to contact me at E 626-0455. Sincerely, W&HPacific ' - Michael Birndorf _ i - u i 8/£'d 9Z6'OFl 7IJIDUd H3M Wdc ~bbt Sc' ~t~~ - j I - I 1 i :~_.s- 1 `.t . s;~~yylav `F'~~ ;yy~.z ' t°'•.- y Ft'~,'i }Y , Y X ~J~, 't ALA 11.7 _t~' ^c ~ _ f •.Z.'i ~ J , ~ v ,r~~~,r n ~,~i f,t ~ k.F ,,1' q , ~~y~= . . fit: _ i 1 _ 1 i I 1 _._9~7 J'-I T f I r 1 y t may" ~ ` c C' l t 10 ~ + .p `J~ y. ww j~ ~t t 1 S. f z ~ ~~~.M t iii • 1 MONO 07/24/97 Tn IS:2t FAX 503 306 7436 ATr RLlU5i has s l a u s EXHIBIT B 1 The 38AN/BK series condensing unit combines smaller size. reduced weight and enhanced performance wit'i state of the art styiing. n The 38HDC/QR series is a robust commercial grade condensing unit designed to be reliable, quiet and extremel-r efficient. The 38HDC/QP incorporates many features that are extra or unavailablo In many other condensing units. This exclusive Carrier design offers maximum value and flexibility. U:11 w L The 38AN/8K are cooling & The 38QR Is a heat pump The 38HDC is a heat pump units operating ranging from 18.000 to cooling-only unit with at 9.000 to 12000 Btuti. 60.000 Stuh. capacities ranging from. 18.000 to 60.000 Btuh. Matched with: Matched with: d09NB/E009 40QKE024-048 Matched with: 40QNB/EO12 4OQAE024-060 40QKB024.036 40QNEOI8,024 match 40QABO24-060 with 38BKOl8 &02d 40QNB018 - 024 (this CDU Is a 38QR configured for High Wall setup) ;00-r SYSTEM~1- h.i 12 SEER with mmhed systems . Stroll Comprossms Urs in outdoor triv Nigh d Low pressure switrhes Standard Lrw Ambient The 38HDS Multi-Split serves,'!, 3 or d zones allowing for over 1{ Compressed rabinu design ry p 40 possible Indoor fan coil combinations. Cooling 000, capacattes range from 24.0;0 to 48.000 BTU's 1 These systems operate with combination of 40QNB. 40QKB. 409A3 fan tolls. The 38HDS also permits standard ducted fan coil operation in conjunction with duct free. For more information, contact your local Carrier Representative. c.r'd 9~5'GN - 1IdI-t''d H?M i 1 Aii 41n a~ ~I 07/24/j7 TIN 15:22 FAX 503 306 7486 1 O ~ OOUIrnDRS , OIAt[IWOIts ( IROOR WACM (112,A) I 1.1 SUITIT INDOOR (111 OUTDOOR 1111 1FIRIOE1eN11WIR0 WFIGI41(161 NIIXG 00 111) I ~ A112 YtRT M11 Nl INl)DOR OU1000R COOUNO MTIXO Sf{t INSfi INDOOR CUr0001 UM W D s W 0 s Ufi thl' LOTH tt1) u0111D BAS .000, .0011 i caounc only NIGR Well W01 . STSM ; I W01w01-.I 7RY406f-1 tsoo to.s ns1~0 u5•Iaa m 334 in nDt ]►I 1.1 1115 JO Is 1n I/7 lu ss j 667012-] 7W-017d II.fW 11 0 W/J i-W ri 1/210 t 1 w 740 711111 Zf l e1 7125 a li l/ A TL7 fi to ; . 100Y011-7 )tI1D[AIIJ U.s01 111 1 107/M 40 61/77640 SsD 12, p 62lu 407 JaN IISi 7S.17 ISO 700 all Sill 30 40=w JWD(Dii-I 8&m 11.0 - ml/Dal•w M1/A1.140 SIR 4511 1.64 0.11IL14 43,15.111 ISO mD 7.4 Sn , u./ la i I I uX"1 CMING ISIQU • sesi l 40651Dt40-1 umucaIRa II,OW 170 101/116110 20/116140 S00 50.11 Zlll 1.14 74.11 11St till Ifa 7462 YI fA toil I 151 I WOwOHIW await-] ZLIDI 170 w11U6160 21UM140 tW 50.11 612 1.11 34.11 14.56 27.13 ISO 100 I to SA IW 131 i 400il43Mya 3"0(016,) 70,000 ILI - ml/I16140 21156140 110 1111 23.17 1,11 7L0, 1436 21.17 w PO JA Y4 111 10 4OW211Ra .71HOODA4 Jt04 120 - :01/U61ED 1NMI40 NO 5411 2112 1.11 1\71 I4S4 7111i 30 M. IA 711111 171 j II ioadmil.-1 411(017-S/i )1101 - ILA - 261nM1+0 t0~~ 14 Sill 2111 IN 1\14 1134 2LI3 150 200 1/1 7/1 117 lit i 400ASNtW )076(047.1 17,101 ILO - 251/(11140 IMM11,14011700 1134 x1I 1,14 µS1 2714 71.11 159 ZW lA 7/1 111 770 100401YLa SARDOS4Wt 0,000 ILO MMI.t.w ;"/ZR"e I1111 71.16 2112 1.11 Wi Mae 21.11 150 200 7A 111 141 2715 4=10 I 100KOwt-1 WIDIDIOJ 31,6200 ILO "7170.140 lumima Iwo 1111 t11I iA µ3i 17.111 7711 370 m0 In 1•In 311 I 790 i 1001f017F] ;i1p07ia-5/6 SI wO 121 201/7.6111 'r4 to 1100 1200 SLl7 t94 4114 17117 4.11 150 no Ue 11A In 111 USSMI (s70a • svsmm i 10011014-1 7111D0110-1 11,7110 H.l 200/116140 IfOn70W J7f iu 74110 11]7 m4114-% E.11 4362 IOQ 7/1 7.7 111 170 1 4000alba atim 24.•1 iewo 11.0 741/MI40 •OU716140 115 49627607 IIJS x11 1U0 41.11 150 IN 34 5/1 IBI 151 1 ! 40011W4J 111eRm76-7 w,1a It-1 74/47614/1 'Gn1M145 113 n.u 1125 I1JS SUI 14y Is17 150 EO 7/1 Yi IOS.I iw ' i0CH076J 17.516474.7 77,011 lOl 751/777.140 !71/4307." 113 NSS 1616 fns ]7.N HSi 5.11 ISO 207 IA 1/1 tos.l 171 t ,+°^eFp71a 111100)1-S 31,000 10.1 l0A/IJ6W IU/C01f0 llf 41S21600 IIJS A94 VU1 15.11 W m0 YO 7/1 IOSJ In j 3u=&-6 72000 10.1 usalm it 1-'O 115 4111 111,23 5172 18.11 11A all ISO No I Sn IA 125.1 171 I i , Hurrump XIGH WA11I'IOXE- SIS11311 I . 40011[001-1 1i0LAf-I 6700 1.000 100 ie 115.140 113146 1U 174 elf 11172 xi 7.1 2311 10 E 1// In W w] IOOXCJIt-0 1111-017-) 123620 17.3620 103 i1 .~1/D6[40 1D1/tl61.ID 160 !.-I. III. 7111.11 x{ 61 p1S 70 15 1// I/7 I13 KSI , 713 171 I' 410em14I 27 UI&J 17X0 14107 II.5 is 76{/570140 TI/MI40 S30 4511 Ili 1411 7W 11434 1S.It 150 2N 314 5/4 ~i 100IR4iba ' ) tHW Il.`a0 11,400 11.0 Li 7av m4E41411 SII 611 Ut 1111 11,11 IISI till ISO MO 3/1 I 3,2 ILf 167 E`! - UROtI (WHO MORE • SIMI) I CUM4 4 3MUI&C-3 19.000 17.11W 11.0 7.1 Ms/1161411 ml/n614D 520 5097 7112 1.H )L11I Me 73.11 ISO XO Jn 1 fn 1 ila 1 Is4 411047076-7 332,101 f.) 77106 22100 11.0 1.7 :01/7:6140 ml/LJ6140 Stl SLH ult l tJl x11 IlA 33.17 ISe 700 lA s77 560 167 40014536"6 3tOlOW0.7 ]0100 71,010 IIA 7.1 X1/7141.61 Timms. u1 5111 All /H 7611 1156 5.11 ISO Zoo 1 In I NI 111 110 i ]/1 III IH ' 4W1t116e-1 iSOf.DI6C-1 ]1,011 13,000 Its 7J 1731/213.141 WIN& 1 171 fell 7ml 1.11 SU41 lut 71.17 ISO 200 11 40010:1617.) 347R076C•5/t 3ton 71,80 11.0 4.1 ZIVM140 I`'! 110 30.11 2111 1.4 1704 1111 177,11 Ise I no I its I Y4 IN 261 40O1194e11-3 SsOR641ca 46,1W 13,500 10.1 11 701/MI40 1.206/4317. 01011131 x17 1.11 'A.56117.06117.111 ISO n 7/1 7A 131 52 ISO 400 lIl I 7;1 1 151 rit 1 411AIN116.1 7CI1011WA 16Aw 45500 101 1.7 }tl/n6160 'q4 X111620 IS31 7212 1.161{134 1191, 779 I 11061204-1 1 3104S60Ca S1,000 57,510 Me_ 1 7.1 - 11/711LI41 701/776160 IKa 117.20 71.12 I.t4(654 17011 3/,11 Iw 2W 7/1 1-1/i III in ' 40017264.2 710141045/1 58.000 57" 11.0 14 2Cl/7JO.IJO a 1107/O61iC 114 'Lao an 7.11 4416 1711 17.11 154 no SA I 1-/1 1 111 71'7 Ws= Most • STS12101 /OOIFO't4a :L2t01Ka 1141 17,00 IQs it i01/Ra340 n6nxi146 SE ILA 7x10 111513411 1454 33.17 131 :w an SA S\I 151 400/417.3 3e01024W 25.50 23.em 10.2 15 am/73a14D ml/M;40 17.7 lit 4762 7L51 Ins 14,14 1456133.111 1s0 2071 1 2/1 1 5/4 IOVt 10 Ot.i 570 111(71746 ]Sill W 7Ga 17,000 IS it 7 7/1:1760 ,ohmall40 960 4112 IU1111J3 7..V 1434 35.1] Ise -A JA Y4 1 i O,WW :16713476 1105 A,aW Sos iR :01/7361.0 tD1/nol4o IILa 1111 2110 IUS :i.il '131 5.13 Ise I 102 I lA 1 1/1 1111 161 i 4optLW.LS 1!01016-s 11,/4 34.DM 11.1 61 :Jf/pa7.61 0004401110 0.17 2L:A 1113 3111 17.17 71.11 Iso 270 3!s 1// 1111 10 j '10uo-w 33; 4C.4 A400 71,0% 1001 1 le Mlq'J6146! 10.140 II4 11.17 wo lust %611 17.17 11.11130 271 3A 7/4 Ilu 711 ~labmum natptW CWwence Cepontll on cons0u mfl nets to SeM_e if I -z,-I000n wO~c7toni. For more information contact your nearest 1 4 I ~ L S Cu7i6.v Represantatfve, or cell 1-800-CARRIER. Q~ Ofvisit out;vebsiteathr0:,Avww.carriMCQM SoOcI1collcnl sub)41c1 to chonee without notice 0 1996 CegiB • d"Pp,dbFG -ONcuse. NY Printed In U.S.F.. , c , IdI:Nd H^,M01197Wdtn - i ul~~rG f~t1r cny - 9141lF7 September 4, 1997 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1 Tigard, OR 97223 If the AT & T Monopole Tower is approved, I would like to have the following additional conditions required. 1. Construct a masonry fence with the proper building clearances ' that will surround the tower and accessory building. 2. The construction materials and color of the fence to match the existing building construction standards. 3. The height of the masonry fence to be 2' above the accessory building height. _ 4. Install (1) 3x7 solid core weather proof metal door in the masonry fence facing East toward Pacific Hwy. Door to be j locked at all times. ! 5. The reasons for a masonry fence versus a sight obscuring fence. A. NOISE CONTROL: 1. Workers doing emergency repairs on the tower or in the building after normal working hours. i 2. Reducing the noise that the A/C units will produce after normal working hours. These A/C units are designed to run 24 hours per day. Even though it is cold outside, the A/C units must provide A/C to overcome the internal heat gain that the equipment produces inside the building. i 3. Reducing noise that is produced when the door to the building is open because repairmen are there. The noise level with the door open could exceed noise level limits. j 4. Reduce unforeseeable noise sources that could exceed noise level limits not thought of or considered at this t time. I i i I L~ i j { Page 2 B. SAFETY: 1. A taller masonry fence will make it much harder for children to access the tower and the building. C. VISUAL: 1. The masonry fence will reduce the lower level visual y impact of a small building next to a much larger building. The masonry fence constructed of simili.ar materials and color of the larger existing building will allow it to blend into the structure. 2. The life and the appearance of a masonry fence last much longer than a sight obscuring fence. ! Also, the maintenance cost will be much greater for a sight obscuring fence. 6. Install "compact ultra low noise A/C units" mentioned in the Hearings Officers - Notice of Final Order - page 3-4b. 7. Install tall trees that would reduce the high level visual impact of the tower from the 10' to 50' range. The type, j quantity and location of the trees on the commercial property to be agreed upon by a neighborhood sub-committee and AT & T or the property owners at a later date. B. No additional dishes or accessory items can be added to the tower. Yours very truly, 1 J / n Chamberlain, PE i J ' 3 ~ - a 4 va~virvr iv: of -prove ooa rzvr viii or rrc,:uw q0ov Z/'ovJ -Di JOh n Cham, bv~L '~ublt~ ealu-a ~ August 29, 1997 C! Cv~1Mc~ C CITY OF T'GARD 9 Ala 7 Meineke Discount Mufflers OREGON 13707 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard OR 97223 As owner or resident of property in Tigard you may not be aware of the ordinance below, which was enacted for the safery and welfare of citizens. Property located at 13707 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, Oregon, at Tax Map 2S 103DD, Tax Lot 00400, is in violation of 77GA_M MUNICYPAL CODE. SECTION 7,40,160 NOISE EMANATING FROns CERTAIN PROPERTY. No person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise sensitive land use to exceed the levels specified in Sections 7.40.170 and 7.40.180. i The letter enclosed states precise Decibel levels taken by myself on August 27th. Because your business abuts a residential zone you must comply with TMC 7.40.160 as stated above, "nearest noise sensitive / land use". In short, this means that your business cannot exceed the maximum noise level for a residential zone. j Since your property is in violation of the stated code requirements, we would appreciate your immediate attention in rectifying the problem. Please resolve this matter by September 20, 1997. If this does not provide a sufficient amount of time, please call me to discuss signing a Voluntary Compliance Agreement for an extension. Failure to comply may result in the issuance of a citation, court date, and possible fine. I am available to answer questions and otherwise assist you as may be required at 63914171 Extension 314. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If I am not available, please leave your name and phone number so that I can call you back as soon as possible. i t Mathew Scheidegger Code Compliance Officer 13707.doc t 13125 SW Hail Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 e Otl/U9/tlT 10: J1 "aJUJ 684 7Ztl7 CITY Ur TI(jAND O UUJ/UUJ ' i ;I { To: Dick Bewersdorff/Jim Hendryx ' From: Mathew Scheidegger-Code Compliance Date: August 28, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON 3 a On August 27th I visited Meineke Discount Mufflers on 13707 SW Pacific Hwy. Suite 100, regarding noise violations reported by residential neighbors. i According to Tigard Municipal Code 7.40.170 Maximum dB levels for areas considered "noise sensitive" is 50dB. Meineke is in a commercial area that abuts a residential ! neighborhood, therefore it must comply with residential noise levels. The Ambient noise level measurement after fifteen minutes averaged 48dB. Testing the level of Meineke with the rear doors open, air generator operating, stereo on, and general shop noises was 54dB, which already exceeds the ambient noise level. When the high impact torque wrench was in use, the level jumped to 70dB. Testing the dB levels of Meineke with the rear doors closed, levels dropped considerably to 45.5dB. Once again when the impact wrench was in use the level jumped to 55.6dB, still a i violation of the maximum level. In either case, doors open or doors closed, Meineke is in II violation of TMC 7.40.170. E { j i , 3 - i 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 584-2772 i ' 7 i. - { 1 1 9 ArO Noise Monitoring and Estimation of Impact . on.Current -Noise Levels from a Proposed Installation Of Cellular Telephone Tower at 7, Z, 1370TSW Pacific Highway.. Tigard Oregon . I Noise Monitoring and Estimation of Impact j on Current Noise I.evels from a Proposed Installation of Cellular Telephone Tower at 13707 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, Oregon E t ~ t R i 1.0 INTRODUCTION f Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Clayton) was retained by Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson and Skerrit to evaluate the noise impact to current noise levels from a proposed installation ofa cellular telephone tower at 13707 5W Pacific IIwy., Tigard, Oregon. Information concerning noise producing air conditioning uttits that will be part of the equipment shelter was provided to Clayton along with a site map showing the approximate location of the shelter and tower in reference to adjacent properties. Current noise Icvcls were measured by Clayton at the site and estimates of the impact of the air conditioner units were calculated. At the time of the evaluation the air conditioner units had not been installed. The results ofthe work are contained in this report. i 2.0 METHODS The current noise levels were measured using a state-of-the-art sound level meter, Quest Model No. 2800 and calibrated using a Quest Model CA-1213 sound calibrator. Measurements were taken with the instrument set on the A-weighted scale and in the slow response mode. Three different time periods, selected to represent typical conditions throughout a 24-hour period, were monitored at the property line bordering on a noise sensitive land use (residence). The measured noise levels were used along with the supplicd information to estimate potential noise level impacts due to the installation ofthe air conditioning units using accepted methods for calculating noise Icvcls. Distances used i in the calculations were taken from the supplied information and were measured by Clayton based on the site map location. All survey work performed by Clayton was conducted by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. 3.0 RESULTS f The current noise levels measured at the property line were- Reading No. 1 9/2197 1 1.15 AM Average=53 5 dBA Range=51-61 dBA I Reading No. 2 9/2/97 10:15 PM Average-52.8 dBA Rangc=49-55 dBA I Reading No. 3 9/3/97 8:40 AM Average=55.1 dBA Range=48-60 dBA i ' eased on the information supplied by Michael Birndorf at W&f I Pacific the estimated noise level that would be produced at the property line by the two air conditioners operating simultaneously would be 48 dBA. It is understood that the intent will be to operate the air conditioners in a lead-leg mode where there will be a cycle between the air Ater Wynne Ilewitt Dodson Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. 13707 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard Project 65-98033 Gibrpt 3 t conditioners; thus only one would be operating at any given time. The estimated noise 3 level created by the air conditioner unit would then be 45 dBA at the property line The impact on the current average noise levels was calculated ;o range from a 0.8 dBA to a 1.1 dBA increase at the property line. Although measurable by a sound level meter, this I change would be barely perceptible to humans with normal hearing. Generally, it is recognized that an increase or decrease of approximately 3,0 dB is needed for someone to perceive a change in noise levels. Attached are the noise calculations utilized as well as copies of the information received from Michael Birndorf and yourself. On the site map we have indicated where Clayton ' took the current noise level mcasurernents. =t . I I i j I i Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc 13707 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard Project 65-98033 Gibrpt 31 _.,,.-..rte-..r..._--- L~ t9~"`" 4 cl-f ~ Y lol- 5 PL-C sr d 5fto r uv d 50 r0 ~ _ ,gyp Q~. ~ pcs~- k F _ckm 5A~m-PaAsL UxLL ku- 4w o OL#-4 c.&k- wNis~ 4,4Q- 44kL ,ol_ K' H5 43 SP(. = JO ~io '0 ~ to `0) SAC. = y 8 d #3+3 mss. / cteA o 4.9- 1a4~ &,r C;6%&L- 16 1 a4.,- } S . I 1 I 5PL = !o SPL Z. Sq. (o d-~ N Q / • / d$ vn.rJ~.e~4t. _ 1 i j SAL jD { ~ SAC. . may, b dBA ~ aY Q.. 1, a d,~ i i j - ~ i Mum r7. moo& AJAX ' II I ~ i . I ~yAp~nCN pElYY1 lGR. ~~n } WADS C3 nGa~ TIOI~I gpIJTN FLEyA710N A.T. & T Monopole x i MAP SW Paclt{c HlghwaY Site CUP 07- 0004 I~ZObJ F1SM~~9Z 2S+~t56T'6Z' 98S'ON 1 6/"d j } 4~. • moo. - r ~ Idyl tdH ~ ~ I I I ~ ii \ aPo"9 ~ r a 16 - I d Creative SoAWans Sfiper&r Servtce pAczFrc- o RANSMITTAL l Q4115 G.w. N1o,nupAve. p Deavrstoa OR 07009,7121) TO; I ~ Date: #lb:(( CompanyProject Address: C~ Projcot Name; City/State: 2- l/ Z RE: if/~filr `474 o c~1~ Tel/Fax fla G} 4;, F From: ' GAO/ e..Mlu u.ny{Y.ues:T.b~lmil. s soled ad osmplsm d'uele>,ue uadst °`~rm. m.v,..rwe vaiaa,.~ : 17O mid RCip~tll e/IS<tR1LI. (.Y. =rUM1~fI SrWYIO~Yjfu YO[ . ~ Phone No. (503) 626-0455 eazr:,,d.a `~'o"'°"+~¢^:s~..aavu*t~u++~s:e.m...e• ~ redpfa~c r~ Yc ~jo' aeiG.l u~u m. ~aeul6wi~l a~eo.ua,, i d+tr~TtOm Qayi:` oC1Ei. e.,am~l4tiao, a be Wd~ Ore°r .d:eo 0 nl{.ur m Fax No. (503) 526-0775 t°GO° p° °r ti:~+na • +rtt.yr P~ee3ic~ ura n..o „ah.a,e Goimlle i°mv, pleY°°°lydr:,s mmedl.i°yLy ~.I.pLcoe (cdlact), 7.7r°k you i ~ j We are Sending: These Are Transmitted: Copied To: [J ALhad ] For Your Info/Filo i _ ~fJ' Facaimiie All Roquestgl f I _ Y of Pages Innludiog Cover For Review & Commoot i CcAiog Dcscr! tloti i` Comments: / ~ i / ~ v/>/f3 /spa'/~ ~l a mac. J P v~~ j FnCi°°0rinB 0 Isndecspe Architecture, • Eur'vonmental Se:vleb ? PlantioY • Sucv°YinL " anal Mopping i 1 6 t'd 98S ON wnshineton O Oregon • TjI]IJtid 11'8M Wd82:ZT L66T'6Z'Onu I f ~ 07424/97 TO qY 6113 308 499 1R WY r. 11002 EXHOT s The 38AN/SK serles condensing unit combines smoller size. reduced weight one enhanced performance with state of The art Styling, The 38HDC/QR series Is a robust commercial grade condensing unit designed to be reelable. quiet and extremely efficient. The 38HDC/QR Incorporates many features that are extra or unavailable In many other condensing units. This exclusive Carrier design offers maximum value and flexibility. All- i , The 38AN/8K cre cooling A The 38QR Is a heat pump The 38HDC Is a heat pump units operating ranging from 18,000 to cooling-only unit with of 9,000 to 12000 9tuti. 60,000 Btuh. capocities rongIng from, 18.000 to 60,000 STuh, Matched with: Marched with: 40QNB/E009 40QK6024-048 Matched with: dOQNB/E012 40QAE024.060 40QK8024.036 40ANE018.024 match 40QA802d-060 with 38SK018 &024 40QNB018 - 024 (this CDU Is a 38QR conflgured for High W4113etup) ,.Z i 12 9B oh 414hiNd swrmt _ • Serail CornprefkH • 1dr's in 011A W aa/t • Nigh c Low prraurc swIlrhu Standard (nw Am&wr 8. 7S ffe7s>-- The 38HDS Multi-Split serves 2 3 or d Zones cllowing for over romDtrssirrrmhind drsiyn 40 poWbie indoor tan coil cornWnations. Cooling ~r copocattes range from 24,0p0 to 48,000 BTU's These systems operate with combination of 40QNB. 400KB. 409AB fan calls. The 38HOS oiso permits sronaaro ducted fan coil operation in COnlunctlon with duct free. For more Information, contow your local Carrier Representative. u 6iE'd 985'ON ~IdI~t1d H'8M Wd6z:zT 466t'6Z-vnu l~ J woo - r- 1. 07/24/97 T11U 15:22 FAX 503 305 7488 ATf NIABL$9s X003 Ariou I ful 1f11tun•Y/ - x0011 l~ 93T INN) roWel',11M1r ry1100t rol O'1tD00t RII ■(IIIJOU&NIT ttaims Vmw 04 . - mINL oo W Y] YELL l1At Iy1 MDOW 01710!100 (OOpNO NIA1100 Silt NlPI OI0004 01710000 on K 0 tl 1y D ■ flit WN IDl DES ry10O1 0{110000 COOCIH6 p1YlI IOWI WAI11710n Lr51U11 Iv {001.1 11■301-1 4510 14S 111-140 IISIY Ito 71.1E I to I J761 Lt tllf SI 7S I/f I/7 111 SS 1/1 IA )1.T f7 010!1017,] 11Y312-] 1110 IIO Rlrallb tl0117417a XY y.N 7y 11 ill LI hZS m IS ff71L01LJ 31MOIW 11,790 Its l 140 MMUC Sill 4q1 Lit ILV X11 11431125.1? ISO LID LI SA 113 In 42MM4-7 W007W AN I 1OV7704JC MMS. JI SA 1111 W IU7 !DH 10Ae 123 3 1H 01 WN SA 11,5 10 ` WIND R]tIYD 18341 • SYST 116YOIM 1 UU0111.7 I7,W1 I2.1 RI 1Y I Itl w 11.1E A.11 .f1 71.11 II,S{ .IS ISO 70 511 lot ISI ' 4a1107/4-3 711102N U94 170 141AL C11/1alY t0 SOA4 I11i 1.94 71,11 IU4 15.17 ISO 20 3/1 571 191 1 E00uo7111-) 3SMOCO 70j0 120 I"LIA0 71yD41Y 110 5411 77.11 I.Y1 31,114 115E 75.13 1 200 Sn N it, Ill 4116110341-7 IrmIll-7 34.03 171 III/W44 10! MIJa 440 Sill 617 111 36,55 1451, 25-13 ISO 210 3111 7A 117 In A794W7N{.7 IIIpro74..i/E 3100 141 - 101ML1A1 r~41Wp 6a !111 7117 9.01 x11 1436 3.17 ISI l0 4/1 !n Ili I/I IoayNIL-7 L 1j WIN 17.1 7Y/150100 IN OIAO I1W 713E t].l! 1. 905 VA )1-U Isl 700 1-4 7/1 III 170 "amomm4-f awscm-3/4 07,00 - 11.4 791/3741-60 1i1114►Sp 13% 713) 3112 1." 441E 17." 77.11 130 10 141 371 /1041WOa.•] 0103 540!0 11.0 791/774140 794/730.140 Il0 r7m a•It 1.11 417/ 17AJ 47.11 IH 794 >A •/1 In Ih mI0O60-f/E 31,031 - uA sOVI71.)So INE YSI■ Iw RJD 71.17 0,11 IESE 1747 74.21 If0 70D 477 1.1/1 In 710 i /1940x1.7 71mRIW 1 ILI 701413 Aa ANIO {A6 fi5 7711 um 307 7177 1 ` 2S.N 130 i7f 7111 5/1 4A 171 4230110 4 11110474-7 71,10 Ito 314/I7►IAO }1ODMI I1 1117 7110 11 34N 1131 75.17 170 101 Vol SA IKl I 1 1151 IH !97712190 71N9O1a.7 10,011 IIA RIAIII{0 7.1/11413L 1N N.H 341E tU5 yN t1 u,1) 151 in 'A IN(14E•.7 3M M36-3 10,1 ~1/774(AI 7I1/tl!W 3 41JI 430 Ills x" I T36 71.1] 150 I90 us In 11!.1 to EOWU314 301012" a,w70 10.1 711/m 40 101/110400 11S PIAf 1430 ITS - -43 a.ll ISO N 7A I- In Tm )n 7A a IT /000^• 741N036.6 4101 11.1 2D1/1>•140 It"" 115 "A) 71,11 1117 71.N 113E 73.11 15.1 ; N4TPUMI ' IIOY quL • n. S75TI11 Igl(g0-•1~ 5144001.1 1." x,000 0.1- ►1 115.141 IIHY 20 U41 419 1111 lS 70 T~, II,( YV I2.Sq os lA I0PD4144 7FIfll 11 l1 70 00ry101L7 1YIJ1w 17.700 74,10(1 Its 4a S OR'/7741Y ))a ISn LY 1u7 111 IISE 113.111 ISO 13.7H 21.1 ►1 II 6h U► 1111 1114 1134 sill IS6 1,5 1{i Sri ryDt11(3R16 {S10Y.11"S1W MCF110-1 311010111(-) If,= 17,100 11.0 I] 7mAR1A1 791 7490 0 b.M 3.17 C14 1411 LM U. ] I)0 to 7/1 y/ 111 W 1004(07411-7 3=4"C4 71,060 7tiW IIO I.7 NVM140 Y fls SlN 211! .K Lit II5/ 15.0 ISO 200 116 141 NIU uuk;U W L543OC-7 7400 Uri 11.1 1.4 23077E J0 7a1A1014a IA Oil ?Alt 114 ]0.M list, 7!.13 170 790 7A 314 111 IA ' 1004 25.11 IY t06 779 711 III IK , (010_ MUSSU-2 EDO 24100 113 1.7 701/7SIi0 N IY 171 7411 3.11 4 0L11 1154 "^W-7 ]I0A/C1/I 36.= 74,100 11.0 11 Rvr741J0 13" s/D In SLIT ill: 1,94 21.94 If16 17.11 170 !00 701 1/4 119 741 alll_3 719t01Ka y010 1 SIO 167 5 7NA311J0 •R '176/0 Il 1 11.17 I.M 1157 1111 77.11 150 710 7A 1/1 171 237 mt" -j ]795441(.7/1 u.D01 1893 111 1.7 711vrA1J0 X400 110 7154 1717 114 44 4 list 71111 lit 2n SA I/% ISI 137 1.N 407M 7.U 7!.11 1H 1 1•UI 111 171 eutMaw 7aa a 34199 47,500 11.1 7J 190/7410 241-374139 700 !2.90 211? RYUN1-7 710105oc-f/l 11,01 sfSw nl 71 201476144 o 1190 1131 all 9.16 wl u./4 Itl/ 150 le 711 I•VL m 721 712111 IS700: • 37Sttal 000 /-7 719L01KJ 11001 17.100 41 4.1 7101791.10 71V174 N0 Stl NM ILIA 11 ]S 3f.N 1/30 I ISI AO 711 f/1- 6►1 1 3►-9 2m 11.90 27, 10.1 13 t" 141 RI/p►IY 11,11 YID 1177 1 n 117 75.17 IH 1 3/1 1-1 IME IU gt}OY.7 319 KJ 21.00 17.001 111 7.4 a1/I7LI 710/!01 ~ 1117 WN 111.75131,% Itx 15.17 ISa 176 714 111,1 1b0 vl IIU 117 10(O411.] ])43743 73000 77.Dw 105 1 20471-10 90460 llA MAI 11.73 111 103E IS.I] IL 110 3A 1Qaw l X401 31000 141 /.1 ItIm.140 )0 1141 11.q SIm 14N Ir.17 ~t1 7m v. LI 111 NI Ills Iw WQW-3 3140717.1 .40 34.000 114 ♦1 ION'il AO 1730 Il0 Ij a9 IIJf 7/.N 17.17 71.11 1 0 700 3/1 71q i /opnalm nslpnl dleennce delwnd3 on cmnp~.aMOn Retel to 1t~r•AC. lrxTOi~p11tM Irotruc0on7. r FOP MOM trlWft 7leon eonteet your neanlat 1 1 ~ Q GO~ Carrier Ral""ntatire,orcall 14aG•CARRIER. Q Or visit OW woobslte of httpAvww.carrier.com eelncothr7: wOjacl <O chenpa WlthO 4 nwica WdOE :Zl: 2 Ond IpO,y t;yrnorcaporc7ROn. sv/OCw y Prln+ad In U.5 A, DIjID1d HAM? b!C'J gas•ON Ub/29/97 FRI 14:89 FAX 800 228 3708 ATER WYNNE ®a01 I 222 9.W. COIUmbla, Shot 1800 R Portland. OR 91201-Mig mot Fax 503-2264070 J f Mar Offos In its Seattle and San Francisco FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL NOTICE: This facsimile contains confidential information that Is being transmitted to and is Intended only for the use of i the recipient named bclow. Reading, discloeare, discussion, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information by anyone other than tho namea recipient or his or her employees or agents In strictly prohibited. It you have received - this facsimile in error, please Immediately destroy It and notify us by telephone, 603-228-1191. 1 I DATE: August 29, 11397 TO: Gary Rossing ( . i Clayton Environmental _ FAX NUMBER: (503) 988-2213 OFFICE NUMBER: (503) 98B-2112 FROM: Kirk Gibson j DOCUMENT: Tigard Municipal Code sections - Noise level3 I PAGES (INCL.. COVER) 4 f i i - i Y i uei=pi97 wo Oatsa FAX Goa 300 7198 ATr WI19L SS ~ooa Thermal Mechanical Inc, 4548 N. Albina AvonuV • Portland, OR 972171 RO. Boa 10598 • Portland,.OR 97210-C595 Phano: 503-282.6131 r Fax:503-287.2988 I August 19, 1997 AT&T Wireless I . Eugene 'Kapp j Eugene, j I have enclosed the necessary paper work for Airefco on these Units. ` 70 Feet 139 DBA 50 Feet 44 DBA 25 Feet 51 DBA i I hope this helps. I will see you b%the morning at 7:00am at'SeUWWd CeU'Site. ' • John F. Witty i Attachments (4) pages • ~ I i 1 i Commercial and /ndus&W Plumbing, Piping acid NVAC Mambas MOCMA teal Contracitors of America andA,ssorI ~ I HgM Go+~~djg;zt ~6T'62'9fk1 6is'd 985.ON _ I ua/'6a/97 WO 09:56 FA= 500 309 7166 ATP WIREMS . TO 939i':~9 P.t~l j E,tJQ-19-392? o"Isi FP.OM A!R£PCO IM t "14V Oaa Note 7611 D.r > 77 F? a.r r I $ 1 l(r r L~ ~P coti+~3iurb ,e.7/~~ i .►f{.1Z,~ P267NN1N~a ;j = ~a~.r 'dui" vr~ / S R J/wJGi r .s PQa }C . vra~ ~ b Bd 1QN FAC?OR.._~ ` o k 1 ®iQQ~ Sound Q toy' e~ G~tc~ 'rC`p(}dYLSr+M o,,,T RASIl4G~~~ a b -4 A, i mA ('Q /"?,o I Ai 7IdI~tld H8M WdLEeZt ,L66Sj6Z'Jw~~ 6i9'd 9ES'ON j 3 ' Y moms" N . ' O CL o . . rw ul 0 • u D o Jr. op Ei } 3 v t 9 g °e ~tp 83~ 2~ `#;F ' e z ~ • EEa,~~a s 1L e x x ~ 3_~s3~'• €f ~g~ sfaG ~aSS~~I~ EE~g:Q#~'~~~~~ t- f us . W EL 3 0 AU0.29.1997 12:32PM W&H PACIFIC NO. S65 P. dig S6 F t - still L lip 5 * 3 t ilia „ t . . jil BUD ~i 900® 998ISifIM ybV ago4 Bog ¢o9 2Vi1 tlr=e0 Q84r Li/oE/yo J NR sg~ P.9 1997 12=32PM t tlUGM29-v_.~. t E ~ T ~ 1Gii iZ t . A Jill i r t 3~ `a { . ~ ~l. v~ 4 app ~P=~ _ - lilt, Yf f ~ 2~ Eogs~~ lit A 6 P L 'Wall 6 L/an _ 68AIElSIN ,I,LY 99tL 909 909 ZYd 00;01 aoom / ~I o i ~ a , m n ~ C M 9 ~ ~ •L• E N ,gip y ~ ~~A ■ e p p~j ~ Im ;t .4 g~'Fpb la i sr &L - P.~ goa~~~~~ psi ' ~l ~l its G Q iV yy a~ Q 17 Y M 0 nV g ~ 8 b ~ . 91 .u ff B a xx 64 n Jag ;A~e•m Jaffe 8 ~,o pp g a~ bb ~1 8 ~~y{ $ b lets lei Ell 2 N Z11 I. l c I MINI 'I cr ;4 Er Z ~o r g a ` a s g c I cm Q h ~ Hit 5 8~p 4 x o I~ U ,o s. {{f o u TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE FIRE PREVENTION 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive . P.O. Box 4755. Beaverton, OR 97076. (503) 526-2469. FAX 526-2538 May 21, 1997 i i i Mark Roberts f City of Tigard Planning Division II 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: AT&T Monopole Tower 13707 S.W. Pacific Hwy. CUP 97-0004 File Number: 1538-97 Dear Mark: This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1994 editions of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and those sections of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) specifically referencing the fire department, and other local ordinances and regulations. Plans for the above noted project are approved as submitted. f If I can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me at 526-2469 referring to the above noted file number. Sincerely, Gene Birchill, DIM Plans Examiner GB:kw i cc: W&H Pacific / 8405 S.W. Nimbus Ave. Beaverton, OR 97008-7120 "Working" Smoke Detectors Save Lives 1 FOR PHOTO'S I SEE COUNCIL MEETING k PHOTO FILE 1997 a DATE: D ljo~lq AGENDA ITEM NUMBER OF PHOTOS: 1 f . r ~rj~l(~7 zo e4 ~ i - -r T z ;l o Q R 25, I FAIRHAVEN ST T 16 ELI 7ti= pp zz' ~FAIRHAVEN WAY l..__.J `L--`-`--{' 50 SUBJECT PARCEL GARDEN PARK PL HILLVIEW ST 1 b, t8 k; •s `s McDONALD ST C°'` .s V LEER POLE PP = PO LIGHT t RO oPr o S = SIGh1AL ONE POLE l R ~TFLEPN TIAL s.. LrS~, RESTDEN '7 E j OVERSIZED DOCUMENTS 3 J bo, MEETING DATE: oqloq)97, a AGENDA I f SEE 35MM ROLL FILM l i:\records\m icrofl m\ta rgets\osdocccm. d oc i t L~