Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR2002-00003
SDR2002 - 00003 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 ci ornoARD NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER Community(Development SaapingA Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/9/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2002-00003 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2002-00007 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. OWNER: Universus 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue 442 Glenwood Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Oxnard, CA 93030 APPLICANT'S REP: The Alaris Group Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of Greenburg Road. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above Site Development Review request subject to certain conditions of approval. The requested Adjustment was deemed unnecessary and is, therefore, DENIED. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 1 OF 24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Division (Morgan Tracy, 503-639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall provide documentation from a structural engineer that demonstrates that the proposed monopole is self-collapsing. 2. The applicant/owner shall provide an access plan that satisfies the following: A. Elimination of the access gate facing SW Cascade Avenue for the wireless communication facility; B. Provides satisfactory legal evidence, in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint access on the subject parcel; C. Indicates which of the following options for access will be utilized, and shows the proposed circulation through the site; and OPTION #1: Access from SW Greenburg Road, emergency access only from SW Cascade Avenue This option will require that the secondary gate to SW Cascade be locked with an approved Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue lock (Knox Lock or equivalent). No non-emergency access through this gate will be permitted. OPTION #2: Access into the site from SW Cascade Avenue and out through SW Greenburg Road. This option will require that the gate be moved east a sufficient distance to accommodate a parked vehicle outside of the right-of-way. Arrows indicating the direction of travel and appropriate signage will be required. A guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. OPTION #3: Access into the site from SW Greenburg Road and out through SW Cascade Avenue This option will require directional arrows indicating the direction of travel and appropriate signage. A guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. OPTION #4: Access into and out of the site occurring at SW Cascade Avenue This option will require relocating the proposed wireless communications facility site to the southern edge of the property's "flagpole" to provide the minimum 30 foot access width needed for two-way traffic. Additionally, the access gate will need to be relocated east a sufficient distance to accommodate a parked vehicle outside of the right-of-way. Furthermore, a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of- way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. D. Visual clearance areas maintained for the property's secondary access gate as specified in TDC 18.795 (Visual Clearance). 3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows: A. The required 6 foot tall perimeter landscape screening accommodated outside of the visual clearance area and placed around the entire perimeter of the equipment shelter; B. The changes to the location of the access gate(s); and C The method of irrigation that will be used to maintain the required landscaping. If the method requires a new water meter service, approvals shall be obtained from Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) prior to commencing construction. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 2 OF 24 4. The applicant shall submit a revised elevation drawing indicating the color of the proposed monopole. Unless the applicant has been directed by the FAA, the color of the monopole shall be a non reflective galvanized gray finish. 5. The applicant shall provide documentation regarding the noise levels in decibel ratings for the proposed emergency backup generator that shows the levels to be below 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA(night). Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 6. Prior to issuance of a site permit, if the applicant has selected access OPTION # 2, 3, or 4, a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. 7. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a public facility improvement permit will be required if any work is to occur in the public right-of-way. If no work within the right-of- way is necessary, this condition will not apply. 8. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall coordinate with Tualatin Valley Water District, if a new water meter is to be installed. 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform'to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 10. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 11. The applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding (calculated at the amount of $1,375) and any other applicable Systems Development Charges and provide evidence of said payment. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject property and found a number of building permits related to maintenance of the storage units. The site was developed prior to being incorporated into the City of Tigard, and is nonconforming with respect to site landscaping and maximum site coverage requirements. A sign permit was issued in 1992 for a permanent billboard sign on the eastern portion of the property. No other land use cases are associated with this parcel. This parcel and surrounding properties are part of the Washington Square Regional Center plan. This plan incorporates new zoning designations and development standards for this area. The plan was adopted on February 28, 2002 and became effective March 28, 2002. As this application was received on February 13, prior to the effective date of these standards, the previous zoning standards apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 3 OF 24 • Vicinity Information: The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road. The site is surrounded by I-P zoned properties, with the exception of Washington Square Mall, zoned C-G, on the opposite side of Highway 217. With the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center, these properties will all be zoned Multi-Use Commercial (MUC). Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot tall monopole tower for wireless communications service. An adjustment to the setback from a property line equal to the height of the tower has been requested. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No comments were received from nearby property owners. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zoning Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District: Section 18.530.020 Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the I-P: Industrial Park District. The proposed use, a Wireless Communications Facility, is permitted in this zone subject to the limitations of Chapter 18.798. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 4 OF 24 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 158,994 sq.ft. - Detached unit - -Boarding, lodging, rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 100 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft. 45 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots 20 ft. 25 ft. -Side yard Oft [1] 5 ft. -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - -Rear yard 0 ft [1] 12 ft. -Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or - - private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 15 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75% 95 Minimum Landscape Requirement 25% 5% [1]no setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. [2]includes all buildings and impervious area The site is comprised of storage buildings and the balance of the site is all paved, with the exception of a small amount of landscaping at the front entry area. While the site is not in conformance with the Maximum Site Coverage and Minimum Landscape requirement, the site was previously nonconforming with respect to these standards. The proposal will, however, reduce the site coverage and provide landscaping as required by the Wireless Communication Facilities standards, thus decreasing the degree of this non-conformity. The proposed development will also not affect more than 60% of the current value of the structures on the site (presently $1,905,110 per Washington County Tax Assessment Records). It should also be noted that the applicant has proposed a 25 foot street side yard setback where 20 feet is required. As noted subsequently in this report, there is an additional setback that applies to SW Cascade Avenue which requires 30 feet from centerline of the right-of-way. This has the effect of requiring an additional 5 feet of setback in addition to the underlying zoning standards. The applicant's proposal conforms to both the special setback and underlying zoning setback standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfied. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site Development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. Variances and Adjustments (18.370): The applicant originally requested an adjustment to the specific setback standard for wireless communications towers. The proposed setbacks for the 70 foot tall monopole are 34 feet from the southern property line, 12 feet from the northern property line, 50 feet from the west property line, and over 700 feet to the east property line. Tigard Development Code Section 18.798.050 (A)(1) requires towers in the IP zone to be setback from any offsite residence by a distance equal to the height of the proposed tower. Additionally, Section 18.798.050(b)(2) requires that for towers not designed to collapse within themselves, a setback equal to the height of the tower from all property lines be required. While an adjustment is available to reduce the setback to the off site residence, there is no similar adjustment for the setback to the property line for towers not designed to collapse within themselves. A standard variance would be required to reduce this setback requirement. The applicant's narrative responds to the adjustment criteria, but fails to address the criteria for a variance. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 5 OF 24 The applicant has chosen to select a monopole that will be engineered to fold over, and thus collapse within itself. By doing so, the setback from the property line need only meet the underlying base zone standards. Therefore, no variance is necessary. FINDING: The proposed monopole does not require a variance provided it is a self collapsing design. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide documentation of the proposed monopole from a structural engineer that demonstrates that it is self collapsing. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. The applicant has provided plans showing access, egress and circulation for the proposed monopole from SW Cascade Avenue, which is a public street. As discussed in greater detail later in this decision, this portion of SW Cascade is substandard with respect to street improvements, and the proposed separate access for the cell site does not meet safe access requirements. The applicant will either need to completely remove access from this street or provide an acceptable form of guarantee for improving the street and reconfigure the cell site access so that it is interior to the property. As this raises the question as to how the site will be accessed, this standard has not been fully satisfied. FINDING: The access, egress, and circulation standards have not been fully addressed. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall submit a revised site plan that indicates where access will be taken and the proposed circulation through the site. Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. The applicant has proposed to utilize a new access from SW Cascade Avenue, by relocating the existing access gate at this location and having two separate access gates to the property. Engineering staff has commented that entry at the existing and proposed accesses creates an unsafe situation with vehicles waiting in the public right-of-way while someone opens the gates to enable the vehicle to enter the site. Access to the cell tower site will, therefore, need to be shared with the subject property, either through the main gate on SW Greenburg Road or a substantially modified access gate on SW Cascade Avenue The modifications for the SW Cascade access are discussed later under the Street and Utility Improvement section of this decision. An access easement will be required. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The subject site is accessible from SW Greenburg Road and SW Cascade Avenue, both public streets. SW Greenburg Road is improved and meets standards for public streets. This section of SW Cascade lacks adequate right-of-way width, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. As there is an available public street and further conditions will be imposed to address the substandard nature of SW Cascade, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 6 OF 24 Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The proposed site plan shows revisions to the gate opening and location. The existing asphalt driveway approach is proposed to remain. The driveway to the public street is presently not in conformance with City standards. Curbs and sidewalks are lacking in this segment of SW Cascade Avenue As discussed later in this decision, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be required if this access will continue to be used. If the applicant decides to use this driveway approach, it will need to be brought into conformance with City configuration standards when the other improvements are made. FINDING: If the access to SW Cascade continues to be utilized, this development will not meet this standard. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall either restrict the access to SW Cascade for emergency vehicles only, or provide a guarantee for future improvement to bring the driveway and curb cuts into compliance with City Standards. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The proposed facility is a non-inhabited structure and will be fenced off separately from the rest of the site for security purposes. Walkways connecting the uses on site would be impractical. There are no neighboring developments that would be better served with a walkway and existing rights-of-way provide adequate pedestrian access to the site. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety . Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; There are no walkways proposed, therefore, this standard is met. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. There are no walkways proposed, therefore, this standard is met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 7 OF 24 Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The site has its primary access from SW Greenburg Road which is greater than 30 feet wide with more than 24 feet of pavement. The proposed development will not affect any change to the existing primary access point, which is in conformance with the code. The secondary access to SW Cascade Avenue is presently 22 feet wide, but will be reduced to 15 feet. As the primary access satisfies the access standard, this standard is met. However, the narrow width of the secondary access will necessitate that it be used for one way traffic or for emergency vehicle access only. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The existing primary access accommodates two-way traffic. The secondary access has been reduced below the minimum required for two way traffic. The applicant has not indicated which direction the vehicles will travel through this access. Additionally, the engineering staff has indicated that vehicles entering at this location will create a traffic safety concern, as the vehicle would have to wait in the right-of-way, blocking traffic, until the gate could be opened to allow entry unless a queuing area is provided outside the gate. The applicant/owner will need to decide whether to eliminate this access (except for emergency vehicle use) or substantially modify the configuration and bring the street up to standard in order to continue use of this access. FINDING: There is insufficient information provided for staff to determine if this standard has been satisfied. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall either restrict access to SW Cascade Avenue to emergency vehicle use only, improve the access as a one way exit, or modify the gate entry to allow for appropriate vehicle queuing outside the right-of-way. If the access continues to be used for general access or egress, additional street improvements will also be required. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 8 OF 24 The subject site has a very small parking area near the front office (off SW Greenburg) outside the security fence. The site is surrounded by a chain link fence for security purposes. The proposed cell tower will be surrounded by a second fence for additional security. It is impractical to connect, either with a pedestrian or vehicular connection, other adjacent properties. The Director has determined that the access proposed for the cell tower site creates a hazardous condition that would constitute a clear and present danger to the public safety and welfare. As proposed, the two accesses to SW Cascade are too close to one another and the configuration and location of the cell site gate creates a situation where one would park in front of the gate to get out of the vehicle to open the gates, before proceeding into the facility. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: The applicant/owner shall provide satisfactory legal evidence, in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint access. The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised site plan that shows the access gate facing SW Greenburg Road for the wireless communication facility eliminated or relocated to the interior of the site. Environmental Performance,Standards (18.725) The purpose of these provisions is to apply the federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations to development within the City of Tigard. These requirements are intended to prevent or mitigate for adverse environmental impacts to offsite properties from noise, visible emissions, vibration, odors, insects and rodents, and glare and heat. The proposed wireless communication facility will have the mechanical equipment housed within a prefab concrete shelter, limiting potential noise. The use does not generate trash, sewage, wastewater, vibration, odors, or visible emissions. As there will be no trash accumulation, there should be no harboring of insects or rodents. The dull galvanized color will minimize glare. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and continued obligation of the property owner to adhere to these provisions, this standard is met. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 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). This development fronts a public street and is, therefore, required to plant street trees. The road is not fully improved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, therefore, planting of street trees would be premature, as the future improvements would likely require removing these trees. If access is proposed through SW Cascade, the road will need to be brought up to City standards, including street frees. FINDING: The applicant's plans do not meet the requirement for street trees. CONDITION:The applicant/owner shall determine whether the access onto SW Cascade will continue to be utilized. If so, the applicant/owner shall provide a guarantee for future street improvements which includes the planting of street trees. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 9 OF 24 Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 states that buffering, but not screening is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer or screening is required between similar uses. As described previously in this report, all abutting property is presently zoned I-P. Property across Highway 217 is zoned C-G. The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan changes the zoning designation of these properties to MUC, however, as this application was received prior to the adoption of the WSRC Plan, the prior zoning designations apply. According to the buffering matrix (Table 18.745.1) the site is not required to provide additional buffering and screening, although the wireless communication facilities requirements will necessitate a landscape buffer around the facility compound as discussed later in this decision. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E 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 (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The proposed use does not require additional parking. There is no current screening provided for the vehicle storage area, (the parking area is located on the opposite side of the site, off SW Greenburg). The applicant has proposed a parking area to ensure that the once a month technician's visit will not interfere with normal operations of the storage units. The parking area will be located to the east of the monopole and equipment shelter, and will be additionally screened from SW Cascade by the perimeter landscaping and equipment enclosure. The proposed landscape islands are 5 feet wide and will be surrounded by a curb to prevent damage to the landscape materials. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Service facilities are not needed for the proposed use, and have not been proposed. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards of this section have been met. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755): Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. No changes to the site's existing refuse collection area are proposed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 10 OF 24 Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. Therefore, this standard is met. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. Therefore, this standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclables Storage Standards have been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street arking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disable• -accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. No parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard is met. The applicant has nevertheless proposed a parking area to the east of the proposed monopole to ensure that the service technician's once a month visit will not interfere with or obstruct the storage unit operations. Joint Parking_ Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 11 OF 24 • Joint parking is not proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the develo ment, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3 Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in ection 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. The project is not considered a mixed-use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. No parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, no carpool/vanpool stalls are required. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. No parking is required for the proposed use. The facility is not intended for public access and is, therefore, exempt from ADA accessibility requirements. Therefore, this standard has been met. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 12 OF 24 No changes to the primary access are proposed. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. There are no changes proposed to the parking area which is situated on the opposite (east) side of the site and there are no pedestrian destinations that would necessitate pedestrian access from the parking lot. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety . There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. Wien the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to locate the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no bicycle parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. It should be noted that the self storage use is nonconforming with respect to bicycle parking, but as this proposal does not increase the degree of the non conformity (such as creating additional storage units) and the proposed use does not require bicycle spaces, no bicycle parking will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 13 OF 24 Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no bicycle parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. As discussed above, according to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for a Wireless Communication Facility is zero spaces. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for a Wireless Communication Facility is zero spaces. The applicant has nevertheless provided a designated parking area for a single vehicle. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed wireless communication facility occupies an approximate 220 square foot building. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the I-P Zoning District. The proposed plans do not call for any signage. Based on this, this standard is met. FINDING: This standard is met, since the applicant has not proposed any signs. Tree Removal (18.790): Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 14 OF 24 There are no trees on the site or within the immediate vicinity that are greater than 12 inches in diameter. No trees are proposed for removal. Therefore, this standard is met. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 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 clear vision area shall-contain no vehicle, hedge planting, fence, wall structure, or-temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may.be located in this area shall be visually clear between three L3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that ail branches below eight (8) feet are removed). 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 (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The primary access to this property is served by a long driveway. This driveway is in public right-of-way and connects to SW Greenburg. The visual clearance area at the primary access where it meets the driveway is satisfied, as there is no intersection at this point. The intersection of the driveway at SW Greenburg is also clear of visual obstructions. The applicant has proposed modifying the secondary access, nearest to the proposed monopole, from one large gate to two smaller gates. This complicates compliance with the visual clearance requirements. The vision clearance triangles for both proposed access gates encumber a large area of required landscaping around the wireless facility. The landscaping standards state "landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting." This is in direct conflict with the visual clearance standards that limit sight obstructions to three feet in height. Also, engineering staff is concerned that the proposed accesses create a significant traffic hazard, by encouraging vehicles to park perpendicularly in front of the gates, wait while somebody opens the gates, and then proceed into the compound. As a result of these two issues, staff is requiring that these gates for the wireless facility to the public street be eliminated. If they are repositioned to the southern edge of the facility's lease area, they are internal to the site and visual clearance requirements do not apply. The visual clearance area remains a requirement for the modified secondary access gate to the storage yard. Based on previous discussion and findings in this decision, the secondary storage yard access gate will need to be either for one way traffic, or restricted for emergency vehicle access only. If the proposed access is a one way ingress, then the location of the gates will need to be repositioned to allow for a vehicle queuing area. In either case, if the access gate is to be used for general access, the street improvement standards will apply. FINDING: The Visual Clearance Standards have not been met. CONDITION: Revise the landscape plan to indicate how the required 6-foot-tall perimeter screening will be accommodated outside of the visual clearance area should the access gate be utilized for non emergency access. Wireless Communication Facilities (18.798): Chapter 18.798 allows wireless communication facilities in commercial zones, the I-P zone and public rights of way, subject to a Site Development Review process, provided they satisfy the specific criteria outlined in this chapter and are setback from any offsite residence a distance equal to the height of the tower. Aesthetic: New towers shall maintain a non-reflective gray finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; if collocation on an existing is requested the design of any antenna(s), accessory structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors and textures that will match the existing tower or non-tower structure to which the equipment of the collocating provider is being attached; if collocation on an existing non-tower structure is requested, the antennas) and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral color that is the same as the color as the supporting structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003MEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 15 OF 24 The proposed facility is not a collocation. The applicant has not indicated what color the tower will be, nor has the applicant provided information from FAA to determine whether additional flight safety marking will be required. The State Department of Aviation has commented that they have no objections to the proposed facility. Setbacks: Towers designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back in accordance with the setbacks contained in the base zone; towers not designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. The applicant has indicated that the tower will be designed to be self collapsing and has shown the tower in a location that meets the I-P base zone setbacks. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. The nearest existing tower is approximately 1000 feet to the north. Tower height: No tower shall exceed 100 feet for a single user or 125 for multiple users; The proposed tower is for a single user, and will be 70 feet with a total height, including antennae, of 80 feet. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; No lighting has been proposed on the tower. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence; The proposed facility will be enclosed by a six foot chain link fence, the equipment will be wholly enclosed within an equipment shelter. Landscaping and screening: Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting; when adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free- standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The proposed tower is not within a residential zone. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows a continuous hedge comprised of either Fraser Photinia or Emerald Green Arborvitae, to be planted at a minimum 5 foot height. Both plant species will expectedly reach 95% opacity and 6 foot height within three years. The landscape plan has been hand-altered to reflect a revision in the location of the secondary access man gate. Based on findings previously in this decision, the visual clearance area standards are not met with the location of the proposed landscaping. The landscaping plan will need to be revised and resubmitted in order to ensure that the landscaping standard is met and that the visual clearance area is maintained. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. The mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete shelter, with the only external sounds being from the air conditioning unit. The plans show an emergency generator port for hookup when there are power failures, but no information regarding the generator has been furnished. The applicant has furnished information pertaining to the air conditioning units that shows the highest decibel rating to be 60 dBA at 10 feet from the unit. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff cannot determine whether the specific requirements for wireless facilities have been satisfied. However, with the imposition of the following conditions, these standards can be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 16 OF 24 CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit a revised elevation drawing indicating the color of the proposed monopole. Unless the applicant has been directed by the FAA, the color of the monopole shall be a non reflective galvanized gray finish. • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that reflects the changes to the configuration of the secondary access gate and that conforms to the specific landscape requirements for wireless facilities. • The applicant shall provide documentation regarding the noise levels in decibel ratings for the proposed emergency backup generator that shows the levels to be below 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA(night). C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses); 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provisions for the Disabled). Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The proposed wireless communication facility site is located on existing asphalt, in a flat area of the property. No tree removal, land grading, or drainage alteration is required to accommodate the proposed development. Suitable separation is provided between the proposed equipment shelter and any other buildings on or off site, which is adequate for light and air circulation. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 17 OF 24 Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The un-staffed status of the site necessitates added security. Chain link fencing is proposed to surround the monopole and equipment shelter. Radio cabinets will be placed inside the shelter. There is an existing area light on a utility pole that will illuminate the rear of the facility compound. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included to provide for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Cascade and SW Greenburg. While SW Greenburg has a bus route, the proposed development is un-staffed and, therefore, does not generate potential ridership. Moreover, the site work is on the opposite side of the site on SW Cascade Avenue Therefore, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: Provisions of the (I-P) Industrial Park Zoning District have been addressed earlier in this decision under Section 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. This site lies adjacent to SW Cascade Avenue, which is classified as a collector in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The planned right-of-way width is 60 total feet. The applicant has indicated that the 20' setback will be maintained from the ultimate edge of the planned right-of-way width. The applicant has not proposed any right-of- way dedication. To meet this development code standard, the applicant will either need to dedicate this additional right-of-way or provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvement, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 18 OF 24 Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. There are no sidewalks along this portion of the site's frontage. The applicant has proposed modifying the existing access gate to accommodate the communication facility site. Since the frontage is substandard with respect to the required sidewalks and development is being proposed that alters the existing access and requires conformance with the City's standards, this frontage will be required to be brought up to standard, including curbs and gutters, as well as sidewalks. The applicant may alternately provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvement, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. FINDING: The applicants plans do not propose the required level of street improvements for SW Cascade Avenue. CONDITION: Should SW Cascade Avenue continue to be utilized for access (with the exception of emergency access), the applicant/owner shall provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvements, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 12-inch public sewer main located in SW Cascade Avenue. The existing structure is already served by this main line. No additional public sewer line work is necessary for this development. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this is very flat and is served by an internal system of surface drains. These drains discharge into a roadside ditch on SW Cascade. The applicant's onsite storm drainage plan will collect any surface water that would impact this site and convey it to the public system in SW Cascade Avenue Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 19 OF 24 Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). This project will result in a net decrease of impervious area of approximately 675 square feet. CWS design standards provide that if the impervious area of a site is not increased over 5,000 square feet, then onsite detention is not required. Therefore, on-site detention is not required for this project. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Minimum Width: Section 1 8.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 20 OF 24 There are existing overhead utility lines along the opposite frontage of SW Cascade Avenue The applicant's plans show that power will be brought from the overhead lines, with an underground service. It would be infeasible to require the small section of frontage be undergrounded. Therefore, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The value of the fee in-lieu of undergrounding in this case would be $1,375 (50 feet X $27.50). FINDING: The utility standards have not been fully complied with by the applicants proposed plans. CONDITION: The applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding (calculated at the amount of$1,375). ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: This site is located in the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. While the applicant has stated that the facility is unmanned and will, therefore, not require water service, the proposed landscaping will require irrigation. The applicant has not proposed a method of irrigation, nor has he indicated if the subject property has water service available in this location of the site. The applicant will need to indicate what method of irrigation is proposed. Should a new water service be necessary, any approvals needed from TVWD shall be acquired prior to construction. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. The net decrease in impervious area negates the need for additional compliance measures. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. While the subject property is greater than 5 acres, the area of disturbance is limited to approximately 1200 square feet. Since this disturbed area is less than five acres, the developer will not be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A grading and erosion control plan must be submitted to the Building Division during the site permit review phase. The Building Division will review the onsite grading plan during the site permit review. A NPDES permit is not required, as the disturbance area is less than five acres in size. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the Agency Concerns have not been fully addressed by the application materials. Irrigation methods have not been proposed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 21 OF 24 CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall propose an irrigation method to maintain the required landscaping. This shall be shown on the revised landscape plans. If the method requires a new water service, approvals shall be obtained from TVWD prior to commencing construction. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of a site permit. For this project, there is no additional addressing fee, as the existing address will be maintained. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.360.090 states, "The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:' Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The study notes that there will be no impact to the transportation system as the facility will only generate one round trip per month. Bikeways will likewise not be affected, and there are no bikeways in the immediate area. The drainage system will not be adversely impacted either. As the area to be developed is presently covered with pavement, the removal of a portion of the pavement to provide for landscaping will reduce, albeit slightly, the amount of stormwater runoff that is currently being contributed to the system. Parks, water and sewer systems will not be impacted as the proposed monopole is un-staffed and does not require sewer or water hookups. The study notes that the only noise generated will be from the air conditioning units and has provided a noise study to demonstrate compliance with the noise standards. Earlier in this report, the issue about noise from the emergency generator was raised, and a condition imposed that the applicant provides similar documentation regarding compliance with the noise limits. There is no TIF assessment for this use as it generates a limited amount of traffic. FINDING: The proposed development either has no impact or will mitigate the effect of the impact for the above noted public systems through the imposition of conditions. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and notes that building permits are required. The City of Tigard Public Works Department and The City of Tigard Crime Prevention Office of the Police Department have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 22 OF 24 SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and finds that the site is not adjacent to County maintained road sections and thus has no objections to it. Oregon Department of Transportation, Aviation Section has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Washington County Communications (WCCCA) has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: The only thing we are concerned about is any interference [between this site and emergency communications systems] that may be caused by this tower. It is important the WCCCA Technical Services be notified when this tower goes live. If it is determined that this tower causes interference, the tower will have to be shut down until the problem is remedied. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the applicant's submittal and provided the following comments: In order to ensure the adequate protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tigard,. no permitted wireless communications facility operator shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response organization serving the public within the City of Tigard's jurisdictional limits. Additionally, it is noted that federal regulations give priority to communications involving safety of life or property, as follows: 47 CFR § 90.403 (d) provides in relevant part, that communications involving the imminent safety of life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints are fled against the cell tower operator, which allege radio frequency interference, the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 25, 2002 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 23 OF 24 • Appeal: The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON MAY 9, 2002. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. 1 April 25, 2002 PREPARED BY MorgartiTracy DATE Associate Planner April 25, 2002 APPROVED BY: hichard H. B$ ersdorff DATE Planning Mana er 11tig333\usr\depts\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sd2002-00003(nextel)\sdr2002-00003 decision.doc NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 24 OF 24 4.9 A. CITY of TIGARD 1- 0 LEHM• GEOORARNIC INFORMATION SYSTEM / VICINITY MAP o��s so c N 0 SDR2002-00003 yp2 N� ( 11 I VAR2002-00007 il LOCUST .. 'A\ 4111 \ NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER '91. f 0 CO g M N. I unij ' % .\ ,-'4AYI.gRS FER- J 4„, ,fera: ., , 1 ,, ___„:/47-1,__I-;,:t- ----- 1),',.'„„ill LL .. . y \BA / Rnf t I �4SON1Ui R tr D•, _ II q; ! , ..a SHADY LN io■- _ A 1111ri _ & ri „s•. sio •_: • moo_ Q 0 400 KO Feel • 1i11 1".504(eel —,-- IIII WSW OS r..-A A ��N — r— City of Tigard ION �� r Infontlalion on Ihis map Is for general location only and I I 1. , should be verified oath the Development Services Division" U - 13125 SW Hall Blvd I I — — rwR 11 I DAK e \ \ /- a'TH Tigard,OR 97223 DAKOTA (503)639-4171 ■'_■ ,- r I http l/v/wei ci Ggard.or as Community Development Plot date: Mar 6,2002;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR I 1 A N A I I N. a a i I `° °`M1 t B \ \ PROPOSED PROJECT I iI J `[ [, AREA SEE 0 i 1 U _ i Vag[1 t\\ nos[o r r I �► °1 \ \ N 1144 70'2%9E7 NIP/ ••7)]011 WY xY lM6rLYE. i I .10.010 vc-P RI.._p„c„ .ax 0iara [MN u«FENCE S7..vsc f f0 vrwr ' ■ / 0.040 cxnirtue KK is • A CITY OF TIGARD At SDR2002-00003NAR2002-00007 CITY OF hIOARD SITE PLAN N NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER , (Map is not to scale) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 ai! CITY OF TIGARD ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 Community Development Shaping Better Community NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER 120 DAYS = 7/9/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER CASE N08.: alto Development Review (SDR) SDR2002.00003 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2002-00007 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. OWNER: Universus 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue 442 Glenwood Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Oxnard, CA 93030 APPLICANT'S REP: The Alaris Group Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of Greenburg Road. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. SECTION II . DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above Site Development Review request subject to certain conditions of approval. The requested Adjustment was deemed unnecessary and is, therefore, DENIED. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VAI !D FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 25, 2002 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. VA eal: ector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW all Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 9, 2002. I Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Morgan Tracy at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. / / .. III CITY orticnsao Ill .; -NI BI INI M1111 VICINITY MAP °°'' SDR2002-00003 1.11111 ,,,VIII YAR2002-00001 \t0 W 1 NE%TEL ONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER 1 111 MI M 41111111 a? r ,■- 4. 1-1 I � "i" "f '6a t , .v. . 410wirivi to,s. a. .0 , 1A °►V lii O t _ �1m11 -� n,. .7.--.t • =u J �■ -•- ■I Ciry of Tiya,d I. II!IIIhi�isso � ..�SI*r: ���� ���� �. `� I r-- ---- -z----� N N NkN, N s 11 1 _I I ��-, I `, \ N -- I I r----q -, i \ -N \ xAJ3 ' � _ — L .--- ---------------� \ i I Z.' Melt_ CITY OF TIGARD T soRZOOZ-ooaouvaruooz•0000r IIMI PLAN N •� _ N€#fa CC6M OPO 0 (Map I s not to scale;. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping A(Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: March 12, 2002 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 Type II Land Use Application ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 Type I Land Use Application FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON MARCH 26, 2002. All comments should be directed to Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 11, 2001. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: • Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; ♦ Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; ♦ Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: ♦ The application is accepted by the City ♦ Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. ♦ The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. ♦ City Staff issues a written decision. ♦ Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." p /arm CITY OI TyGARD I I .�r / VICINITY HAP 10 �P (/ Mr I I SDR2002-00003 �� � I I I YAR2002-00007 tr, 41• T NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ,. MONOPOLE TOWER a A f•■!ilIh Well'iIAVI -II `. It., N MI IMP NI Will.idhl M■nd ,.30,,. 1■■ o "�,. .m. Iv iI--"-z . . REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CleanWater Services Our commitment is dear. February 12, 2002 Sean Bell The Alaris Group, LLC 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave. Portland, OR 97225 Re: Cell tower & equipment pad located at 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR CWS file 1753 (Tax map 1 S135BA, Tax lot 03300) Clean Water Services (District) has reviewed your proposal for the above referenced site. District staff found that the proposed project is entirely over existing pavement and no new impervious area is proposed. This project is therefore exempt from the Service Provider Letter requirement (Resolution and Order 00-7 Section 3.02.1). All other required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state, and federal law. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 503-846-3613. Sincerely, Heidi Berg Site Assessment Coordinator \\mo_serv_04\eng$\Development Svcs\SP 00-7\Misc Corrospondence\I SI35BA03300-exempt-existing impervious.doc 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270• Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Phone:(503) 846-8621 •Fax: (503)846-3525•www.cleanwaterservices.org 14 A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIOARD Community cDeve(opment Shaping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 ----- 4l es 10'L TO: Brian Rager,Development Review Engin er k 554. 4 ∎6 °-4- FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner(x401) one: (50 l 639-4111/Fax: (503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT(VARI 2002-00001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. ✓ Written comments provided below: J e / ( v� -ck i 1/ 4 eN. . 1C, � e �s .. eK�IP....7 �tL� lt.) 04.11 A 41^4- S A. a Ci eA , 1 J ws-r et c� eK.1 a ro✓a '1te n SeJ C+4Sr a.. a S i� eawS KMAI a 9ov4J P.J.vice . 6SCRae . yL Vat aliowtxi r I ('lease provide the foQowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: I Phone Number(s): 4-1 r z'o2 I AI% WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON v. Department of Land Use and Transportation,Land Development Services 155 North First Avenue,Suite 350-13,Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 (503)846-8761 •FAX:(503)846-2908 April 3, 2002 Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 FAX: 684-7297 RE: Nextcl Communications Monopole Tower City File Number: SDR 2002-0003, VAR 2002-00007 Tax Map and Lot Number: 151 35BA/ 3300 Location: 10585 SW Greenburg Road .:',.' __.._._ ,64.4..., .j ,_::7/ is /_ Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has received notice of the above noted application but will not be submitting any requirements/conditions. Although the County maintains road jurisdiction over Greenburg Road north of Hwy. 217, the County does not have road authority along Greenburg Road on the south side of 217 where the subject property is located. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at 503-846-8131. idt—c--- (10-4-(0., Anne LaMountain Associate Planner 11LUT1IDATA IShar edILDSIWPSHAREITRANSP1TIG\NextelGreenburgNOCOMM.doc T 0 'd O : T T ZOOZ J dd 8O6 -9t78- O :XP j 'naQ 0N11 OD HSl 1'1 03/28.02 THU 13:17 FAX 503 531 0186 WCCCA ADMIN 0 001 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community'Development ShaptngA Better Community DATE: , March 12,2002 TO: Dave Austin,WCCCA FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan racy,Associate Planner[x407) Phone: 15031839-4171/Fax: 15031684-7291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT 3/ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2002-00001 ➢ NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER Q REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: l-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CH'ECK'ITHE'FOLLOWING.''' i E;MS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 1 Th G r• l� -� h,�r, r - �� - tie are CdnC %- P'ci. CiL-vu1- (1\19 l h4�C f-P r-e ore --hcp vy\c, y (7--P CC:k- Pc-1 I r 1 r +1) -e IS m cx-k- u'CCCt1 Sei2U\cess API aver Cays•€°5 1vv_fev terr-ev■rPl c)weri U,), 11 �►1�rv� -� 6-P c 4 ds,LL.: n, WI+r , pric- Lie I S (2' ase provide the following information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): / 5-63- 6ceo- t rU- x �j6-7 I • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY TOFTIGARD Community Deve(opment Shaping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue Fire Marshall MAR 2 8 2002 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY Q.7 7 4ARD STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x4011 Phone: [503)639-4111/Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT IVARI 2002-00001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (cPlease provide thefoflowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: ggoi 60 I Phone Number(s):( •5U3) /AZ.--p 33 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue March 26, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Nextel Telecommunications Tower Dear Mr. Tracy, Emergency service providers,both police and fire,have been experiencing ongoing interference problems with our 800 MHz radio system. As wireless communications providers continue to expand their use of the frequency spectrum,we can expect the problem to get worse. As a result, we have done an extensive amount of research in an attempt to determine what actions might be taken at the local level to protect public safety communications systems. We have determined that our local planning departments can be a key component in the protection of the emergency communication capabilities of their police and fire departments. It is well established that local jurisdictions have the right to attach reasonable conditions to the approval of conditional use permits for communication sites. Within that context, we feel that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to attach conditions that protect the public safety of its citizens. Accordingly,we suggest that clause be included as a condition of approval for the application referenced above: "In order to ensure the adequate protection of the public safety,health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tigard,no permitted cell tower operator, "wireless communication facility"operator, "radio frequency transmission facility" operator, communication site operator, [or however the local code describes a cell tower operator], shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response Administration Office 20665 S.W. Blanton Street,Aloha, Oregon 97007 Phone (503) 649-8577 Fax (503) 642-4814 www.tvfr.com organization serving the public within the City of Tigard's jurisdictional limits." Additionally, you may want to include a clause that makes the federal regulations that require priority be given to communications involving safety-of-life or property as a condition of approval. Such language might read as follows: 47 CFR § 90.403 (d)provides, in relevant part,that communications involving the imminent safety-of-life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints are filed against the cell tower operator,which allege radio frequency interference,the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. Thank you for your consideration of this vital public safety concern. Respectfully, TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE , Off c 41 arY e s Division Chief Mar-26-02 05: 11P Support Services 5036429655 P_01 1111VPAR SDgZ - oov 1 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: (neicGQJ L� FAX NUMBER: ( ) FROM: GJ/4t, alp: S Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 20665 SW Blanton Street Aloha, OR 97007 (503) 649-8577 Support Services Fax #: (503) 642-9655 COMMENTS: e; (Ji g. ,y14.4 42 PAGES FOLLOWING THIS COVER PAGE FOR YOUR INFORMATION INFORMATION REQUESTED PLEASE COMMENT www.tvfr.com Mar-26-02 05 : 11P Support Services 5036429655 P _ 02 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C�no'I'OARD Community Devil pment Shaping,a Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 TO: Tualatin Valley Fire a Rescue Fire Marshall FROM: City ai Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x4071 Phone: [503)6394111/Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT MAR] 2002-00007 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223, PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please pmv�e the foaming information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: 4 tx , e [Phone Number(s):( 503) ( /Z-G Mar-26-02 05: 11P Support Services 5036429655 P .03 111.111Willit Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue March 26, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Nextel Telecommunications Tower Dear Mr. Tracy, Emergency service providers, both police and fire, have been experiencing ongoing interference problems with our 800 MHz radio system. As wireless communications providers continue to expand their use of the frequency spectrum, we can expect the problem to get worse. As a result, we have done an extensive amount of research in an attempt to determine what actions might be taken at the local level to protect public safety communications systems. We have determined that our local planning departments can be a key component in the protection of the emergency communication capabilities of their police and fire departments. It is well established that local jurisdictions have the right to attach reasonable conditions to the approval of conditional use permits for communication sites. Within that context, we feel that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to attach conditions that protect the public safety of its citizens. Accordingly, we suggest that clause be included as a condition of approval for the application referenced above: "In order to ensure the adequate protection of the public safety, health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tigard, no permitted cell tower operator, "wireless communication facility" operator, `radio frequency transmission facility" operator, communication site operator, [or however the local code describes a cell tower operator], shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response Administration Office 20665 S.W. Blanton Street, Aloha, Oregon 97007 Phone (503) 649-8577 Fax (503) 642-4814 www.tvfr.com Mar-26-02 05 : 12P Support Services 5036429655 P.04 • organization serving the public within the City of Tigard's jurisdictional limits." Additionally, you may want to include a clause that makes the federal regulations that require priority be given to communications involving safety-of-life or property as a condition of approval. Such language might read as follows: 47 CFR § 90.403 (d) provides, in relevant part, that communications involving the imminent safety-of-life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints arc filed against the cell tower operator, which allege radio frequency interference, the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. Thank you for your consideration of this vital public safety concern. Respectfully, TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE #1 aryl el s Divisi.n Chief 03/19/02 08:58 FAX 503 640 3525 CLEAN WATER SERVICES 1j 001 r, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF 'GARD Community Development S(apingA Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 [ [] I G e otv) Lee Walker CleanWater Senrlees/SW oi t. 1 3 2002 FRt: To City of Tigard Planning Division By STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x407) Phone: 15(13)639-41 `U Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT Mt I'lll 2002-00001 ➢ NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot 'monopotEl,n tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional :arriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-fool: chain link fenced compound. An Ad ustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower set back from any property .y a •is -- equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 'E•W Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax-Lot ;300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District_ The I-P zonir:i district provides appropriate 'locations for com s fining light manufacturing, office and small-scale comma::rcial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P z+1:ne. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P None have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscai:l�d, and pedestrian-friiendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Cha;_ters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to retum your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigannd, OR 97223. PLEASE Clkl'ECK'T E;;FOILLOWIN,G���lEl'UI�S It i ATiAPi �i� 'Y,�9 I, •4�' ••'i ., 'Jill. We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: OZ. I -15 3 P. ase provide the following infonnatio0Name of Person(s) Commenting: ,L Lc)rte;,J I Phone Number(s): SQ 3 teAu s(.o f U,2 -,v37 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C,n F TIOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Tom Highland,Oregon Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division :.;:-AR 1 9 2002 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CI TY OF T1GARD STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner(x4011 Phone: 15031 639-4111/Fax: (5031 684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT IVARI 2002-00001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (r z'feasepravie the following ujo,,,hnwu)Name of Person(s) Commenting: Thomas Highland,Aviation Planner eV Per Hi Of nVior-li/OBI/ I Phone Number(s): 3-37 - 8G1-5 rc af< 2 I REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF Community DeveCopment Shaping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Gary Lampella,Building Official 1 5 2002 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division C;TY 0.7-TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner 1x4071 Phone: 15031639-4111/Fax: 15031684-7297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT[VAR)2002-00001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: / (T ase provide thefoilowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: I Phone Number(s): j Ao• REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTI<3ARD Community Development Shaping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer MAR 1 5 2002 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF IK'sARD STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner(x401) Phone: (503)639-4111/Fax: 15031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SOR)2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2002-00007 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: / We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (cP&ase provide the following information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: 0 VvO, 'Phone Number(s): (t0 V" T I 40 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C,oFHOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community IVED PLANNING DATE: March 12,2002 RECEN TO: Roy,Property Manager/Public Works Department iIaR 1 2002 CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x4011 Phone: (503)639-4111/Fax: (503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SORT 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2002-00007 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLE E CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: G We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (c 1Tease provide the forth-wing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: I Phone Number(s): I REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CInOFTIOARD Community'Developmen t gulping Better Community DATE: March 12,2002 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner 1x4011 Phone: [5031639-4171/Fax: [5031684-7297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2002-00003/ADJUSTMENT[VARI 2002-00001 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 26, 2002. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (rYTease provide the foffouring information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I CITY TIGARD REQUEST FOR COh :NTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: 51)R2002_00003/✓ .7/0007' FILE NAME: :'d24G( Morlopo1, rot~ CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS 14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO CIT AREA: ['Central ❑East OSouth ❑West IZIProposal Descrip.in Library CIT Book CITY OFFICES _LONG RANGE PLANNING/Barbara Shields,Planning Mgr. f iCOMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. ✓POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official ENGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer_WATER DEPT./Dennis Koellermeier,Operations Mgr_ _� _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder _PUBLIC WORKS/John Roy.Property Manager _PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester v'.PLANNER—POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING! V C.D./Sherman Casper,Permit Coord.(soR/cuP re TIFI SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.* TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE • _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT• v CLEANWATER SERVICES• Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON * _ CITY OF TUALATIN * _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS Planning Manager Planning Manager 2501 SW First Avenue Jennifer Goodridge — Irish Bunnell,Development Services PO Box 369 PO Box 59 775 Summer Street NE PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Portland,OR 97207 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 _ OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING * OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE CITY OF DURHAM * 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 PO Box 23483 _ Bob Knight,Data Resource Center(ZCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris Mel Hule,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPNZOA) Larry French(Comp.Plan Amendments Only) Routing CENWP-OP-G —CITY OF KING CITY * _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional Planner(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager _ C.D.Manager,Growth Management services Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY OR. DEPT.OF ENERGY(Powenines in Areal _OREGON DEPT.OF TRANS.(ODOT) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power Administration Aeronautics Division(Monopole Towers) 155 N.First Avenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO * Routing TTRC–Attn: Renae Ferrera Tom Highland,Planning Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director PO Box 3621 3040 25th Street,SE Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 Salem,OR 97310 Brent Curtis(CPA) Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Gregg Leion(CPA) OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT, REGION 1 * Anne LaMountain(IGNuRp) CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Sonya Kazen,Development Review Coordinator Phil Healy(ycNURe) David Knowles,Planning Bureau Dr Regional Administrator _Carl Toland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) 'Steve Conway(Genera(Apps.) Portland Building 106,Rm. 1002 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Sr.Cartographer tcnwZCoiMS1. 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 Jim Nims(zcA)MS 15 Portland,OR 97204 Doria Mateja(ZCA)Ms 14 WCCCA(911)(Monopole Towers) _ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A Dave Austin Jane Estes,Permit Specialist 17911 NW Evergreen Parkway 5440 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 350 Beaverton,OR 97006 Portland,OR 97221-2414 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Robert I.Melbo, President&General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.RJR _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _AT&T CABLE —TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations Only Pat McGann It Project is Within V.Mile of A Transit Rote) 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY — VERIZON _ QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Jim VanKleek,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. Ken Perdue,Engineering Jeri Cella,Engineering 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _ AT&T CABLE we EornadinovOOW, Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics&Planning Dept. Diana Carpenter 6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 3500 SW Bond Street Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Portland,OR 97232 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500' OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:lpatty\masters\Request For Comments Notification List 2.doc (Revised: 8-Mar-02) MAILING RECORDS A AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING . .IJ CITY OF TIOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community I, cPatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of gigard, Wasfiington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below} El NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2002-00003/VAR2002-00001 — NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER El AMENDED NOTICE (File No,'Name Reference) Z City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on April 25,2002, and deposited in the United States Mail on April 25,2002, postage prepaid. 1 dV-e:-/..iJr ' C PW j 1 :: 3 - --41—*/ (Person that Prepared Notice) SZAI I.L, OAF OtEGON ) County ofWashington )ss. City of'Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3/ 5d ay of �G , 2002. �' OFFICIAL SEAL r :. DIANE M JELDERKS j �� —��/�� , , ■L :r` ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON "' COMMISSION NO.326578 t N PUBLIC OF OREG, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 f My Commission Expire : 0 42..7 XI NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 CITY OFTIGARD NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER Community pingAi3etteveomment Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/9/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2002-00003 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2002-00007 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. OWNER: Universus 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue 442 Glenwood Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Oxnard, CA 93030 APPLICANT'S REP: The Alaris Group Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1 S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of Greenburg Road. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above Site Development Review request subject to certain conditions of approval. The requested Adjustment was deemed unnecessary and is, therefore, DENIED. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 1 OF 24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Division (MorganTracy, 503-639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval: 1 . The applicant shall provide documentation from a structural engineer that demonstrates that the proposed monopole is self-collapsing. 2. The applicant/owner shall provide an access plan that satisfies the following: A. Elimination of the access gate facing SW Cascade Avenue for the wireless communication facility; B. Provides satisfactory legal evidence, in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint access on the subject parcel; C. Indicates which of the following options for access will be utilized, and shows the proposed circulation through the site; and OPTION #1: Access from SW Greenburg Road, emergency access only from SW Cascade Avenue This option will require that the secondary gate to SW Cascade be locked with an approved Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue lock (Knox Lock or equivalent). No non-emergency access through this gate will be permitted. OPTION #2: Access into the site from SW Cascade Avenue and out through SW Greenburg Road. This option will require that the gate be moved east a sufficient distance to accommodate a parked vehicle outside of the right-of-way. Arrows indicating the direction of travel and appropriate signage will be required. A guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. OPTION #3: Access into the site from SW Greenburg Road and out through SW Cascade Avenue This option will require directional arrows indicating the direction of travel and appropriate signage. A guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. OPTION #4: Access into and out of the site occurring at SW Cascade Avenue This option will require relocating the proposed wireless communications facility site to the southern edge of the property's "flagpole" to provide the minimum 30 foot access width needed for two-way traffic. Additionally, the access gate will need to be relocated east a sufficient distance to accommodate a parked vehicle outside of the right-of-way. Furthermore, a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer will also be required to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of- way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. D. Visual clearance areas maintained for the property's secondary access gate as specified in TDC 18.795 (Visual Clearance). 3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows: A. The required 6 foot tall perimeter landscape screening accommodated outside of the visual clearance area and placed around the entire perimeter of the equipment shelter; B. The changes to the location of the access gate(s); and C The method of irrigation that will be used to maintain the required landscaping. If the method requires a new water meter service, approvals shall be obtained from Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) prior to commencing construction. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 2 OF 24 4. The applicant shall submit a revised elevation drawing indicating the color of the proposed monopole. Unless the applicant has been directed by the FAA, the color of the monopole shall be a non reflective galvanized gray finish. 5. The applicant shall provide documentation regarding the noise levels in decibel ratings for the proposed emergency backup generator that shows the levels to be below 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA(night). Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 6. Prior to issuance of a site permit, if the applicant has selected access OPTION # 2, 3, or 4, a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted to assure that future street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and sufficient right-of-way) will occur to bring the frontage into compliance with City Standards. 7. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a public facility improvement permit will be required if any work is to occur in the public right-of-way. If no work within the rig ht-of- way is necessary, this condition will not apply. 8. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall coordinate with Tualatin Valley Water District, if a new water meter is to be installed. 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 10. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 11. The applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding (calculated at the amount of $1,375) and any other applicable Systems Development Charges and provide evidence of said payment. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject property and found a number of building permits related to maintenance of the storage units. The site was developed prior to being incorporated into the City of Tigard, and is nonconforming with respect to site landscaping and maximum site coverage requirements. A sign permit was issued in 1992 for a permanent billboard sign on the eastern portion of the property. No other land use cases are associated with this parcel. This parcel and surrounding properties are part of the Washington Square Regional Center plan. This plan incorporates new zoning designations and development standards for this area. The plan was adopted on February 28, 2002 and became effective March 28, 2002. As this application was received on February 13, prior to the effective date of these standards, the previous zoning standards apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 3 OF 24 Vicinity Information: The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road. The site is surrounded by I-P zoned properties, with the exception of Washington Square Mall, zoned C-G, on the opposite side of Highway 217. With the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center, these properties will all be zoned Multi-Use Commercial (MUC). Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot tall monopole tower for wireless communications service. An adjustment to the setback from a property line equal to the height of the tower has been requested. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No comments were received from nearby property owners. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zoning Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District: Section 18.530.020 Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the I-P: Industrial Park District. The proposed use, a Wireless Communications Facility, is permitted in this zone subject to the limitations of Chapter 18.798. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 4 OF 24 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 158,994 sq. ft. - Detached unit - - Boarding, lodging, rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 100 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft. 45 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots 20 ft. 25 ft. -Side yard 0 ft [1] 5 ft. -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - - Rear yard 0 ft [1] 12 ft. - Distance between front of garage& property line abutting a public or - - private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 15 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75% 95 % Minimum Landscape Requirement 25% 5% [1]no setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. [2]includes all buildings and impervious area The site is comprised of storage buildings and the balance of the site is all paved, with the exception of a small amount of landscaping at the front entry area. While the site is not in conformance with the Maximum Site Coverage and Minimum Landscape requirement, the site was previously nonconforming with respect to these standards. The proposal will, however, reduce the site coverage and provide landscaping as required by the Wireless Communication Facilities standards, thus decreasing the degree of this non-conformity. The proposed development will also not affect more than 60% of the current value of the structures on the site (presently $1,905,110 per Washington County Tax Assessment Records). It should also be noted that the applicant has proposed a 25 foot street side yard setback where 20 feet is required. As noted subsequently in this report, there is an additional setback that applies to SW Cascade Avenue which requires 30 feet from centerline of the right-of-way. This has the effect of requiring an additional 5 feet of setback in addition to the underlying zoning standards. The applicant's proposal conforms to both the special setback and underlying zoning setback standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfied. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site Development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. Variances and Adjustments (18.370): The applicant originally requested an adjustment to the specific setback standard for wireless communications towers. The proposed setbacks for the 70 foot tall monopole are 34 feet from the southern property line, 12 feet from the northern property line, 50 feet from the west property line, and over 700 feet to the east property line. Tigard Development Code Section 18.798.050 (A)(1) requires towers in the IP zone to be setback from any offsite residence by a distance equal to the height of the proposed tower. Additionally, Section 18.798.050(b)(2) requires that for towers not designed to collapse within themselves, a setback equal to the height of the tower from all property lines be required. While an adjustment is available to reduce the setback to the off site residence, there is no similar adjustment for the setback to the property line for towers not designed to collapse within themselves. A standard variance would be required to reduce this setback requirement. The applicant's narrative responds to the adjustment criteria, but fails to address the criteria for a variance. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 5 OF 24 The applicant has chosen to select a monopole that will be engineered to fold over, and thus collapse within itself. By doing so, the setback from the property line need only meet the underlying base zone standards. Therefore, no variance is necessary. FINDING: The proposed monopole does not require a variance provided it is a self collapsing design. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide documentation of the proposed monopole from a structural engineer that demonstrates that it is self collapsing. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. The applicant has provided plans showing access, egress and circulation for the proposed monopole from SW Cascade Avenue, which is a public street. As discussed in greater detail later in this decision, this portion of SW Cascade is substandard with respect to street improvements, and the proposed separate access for the cell site does not meet safe access requirements. The applicant will either need to completely remove access from this street or provide an acceptable form of guarantee for improving the street and reconfigure the cell site access so that it is interior to the property. As this raises the question as to how the site will be accessed, this standard has not been fully satisfied. FINDING: The access, egress, and circulation standards have not been fully addressed. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall submit a revised site plan that indicates where access will be taken and the proposed circulation through the site. Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. The applicant has proposed to utilize a new access from SW Cascade Avenue, by relocating the existing access gate at this location and having two separate access gates to the property. Engineering staff has commented that entry at the existing and proposed accesses creates an unsafe situation with vehicles waiting in the public right-of-way while someone opens the gates to enable the vehicle to enter the site. Access to the cell tower site will, therefore, need to be shared with the subject property, either through the main gate on SW Greenburg Road or a substantially modified access gate on SW Cascade Avenue The modifications for the SW Cascade access are discussed later under the Street and Utility Improvement section of this decision. An access easement will be required. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The subject site is accessible from SW Greenburg Road and SW Cascade Avenue, both public streets. SW Greenburg Road is improved and meets standards for public streets. This section of SW Cascade lacks adequate right-of-way width, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. As there is an available public street and further conditions will be imposed to address the substandard nature of SW Cascade, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 6 OF 24 Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. The proposed site plan shows revisions to the gate opening and location. The existing asphalt driveway approach is proposed to remain. The driveway to the public street is presently not in conformance with City standards. Curbs and sidewalks are lacking in this segment of SW Cascade Avenue As discussed later in this decision, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be required if this access will continue to be used. If the applicant decides to use this driveway approach, it will need to be brought into conformance with City configuration standards when the other improvements are made. FINDING: If the access to SW Cascade continues to be utilized, this development will not meet this standard. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall either restrict the access to SW Cascade for emergency vehicles only, or provide a guarantee for future improvement to bring the driveway and curb cuts into compliance with City Standards. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The proposed facility is a non-inhabited structure and will be fenced off separately from the rest of the site for security purposes. Walkways connecting the uses on site would be impractical. There are no neighboring developments that would be better served with a walkway and existing rights-of-way provide adequate pedestrian access to the site. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; There are no walkways proposed, therefore, this standard is met. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. There are no walkways proposed, therefore, this standard is met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 7 OF 24 Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The site has its primary access from SW Greenburg Road which is greater than 30 feet wide with more than 24 feet of pavement. The proposed development will not affect any change to the existing primary access point, which is in conformance with the code. The secondary access to SW Cascade Avenue is presently 22 feet wide, but will be reduced to 15 feet. As the primary access satisfies the access standard, this standard is met. However, the narrow width of the secondary access will necessitate that it be used for one way traffic or for emergency vehicle access only. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The existing primary access accommodates two-way traffic. The secondary access has been reduced below the minimum required for two way traffic. The applicant has not indicated which direction the vehicles will travel through this access. Additionally, the engineering staff has indicated that vehicles entering at this location will create a traffic safety concern, as the vehicle would have to wait in the right-of-way, blocking traffic, until the gate could be opened to allow entry unless a queuing area is provided outside the gate. The applicant/owner will need to decide whether to eliminate this access (except for emergency vehicle use) or substantially modify the configuration and bring the street up to standard in order to continue use of this access. FINDING: There is insufficient information provided for staff to determine if this standard has been satisfied. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall either restrict access to SW Cascade Avenue to emergency vehicle use only, improve the access as a one way exit, or modify the gate entry to allow for appropriate vehicle queuing outside the right-of-way. If the access continues to be used for general access or egress, additional street improvements will also be required. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist-which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 8 OF 24 The subject site has a very small parking area near the front office (off SW Greenburg) outside the security fence. The site is surrounded by a chain link fence for security purposes. The proposed cell tower will be surrounded by a second fence for additional security. It is Impractical to connect, either with a pedestrian or vehicular connection, other adjacent properties. The Director has determined that the access proposed for the cell tower site creates a hazardous condition that would constitute a clear and present danger to the public safety and welfare. As proposed, the two accesses to SW Cascade are too close to one another and the configuration and location of the cell site gate creates a situation where one would park in front of the gate to get out of the vehicle to open the gates, before proceeding into the facility. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: The applicant/ owner shall provide satisfactory legal evidence, in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint access. The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised site plan that shows the access gate facing SW Greenburg Road for the wireless communication facility eliminated or relocated to the interior of the site. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725) The purpose of these provisions is to apply the federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations to development within the City of Tigard. These requirements are intended to prevent or mitigate for adverse environmental impacts to offsite properties from noise, visible emissions, vibration, odors, insects and rodents, and glare and heat. The proposed wireless communication facility will have the mechanical equipment housed within a prefab concrete shelter, limiting potential noise. The use does not generate trash, sewage, wastewater, vibration, odors, or visible emissions. As there will be no trash accumulation, there should be no harboring of insects or rodents. The dull galvanized color will minimize glare. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and continued obligation of the property owner to adhere to these provisions, this standard is met. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 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). This development fronts a public street and is, therefore, required to plant street trees. The road is not fully improved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, therefore, planting of street trees would be premature, as the future improvements would likely require removing these trees. If access is proposed through SW Cascade, the road will need to be brought up to City standards, including street trees. FINDING: The applicant's plans do not meet the requirement for street trees. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall determine whether the access onto SW Cascade will continue to be utilized. If so, the applicant/owner shall provide a guarantee for future street improvements which includes the planting of street trees. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 9 OF 24 Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 states that buffering, but not screening is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer or screening is required between similar uses. As described previously in this report, all abutting property is presently zoned I-P. Property across Highway 217 is zoned C-G. The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan changes the zoning designation of these properties to MUC, however, as this application was received prior to the adoption of the WSRC Plan, the prior zoning designations apply. According to the buffering matrix (Table 18.745.1) the site is not required to provide additional buffering and screening, although the wireless communication facilities requirements will necessitate a landscape buffer around the facility compound as discussed later in this decision. Screening: Special P-rovisions: Section 18.745.050.E 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 fo 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 (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy.effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The proposed use does not require additional parking. There is no current screening provided for the vehicle storage area, (the parking area is located on the opposite side of the site, off SW Greenburg). The applicant has proposed a parking area to ensure that the once a month technician's visit will not interfere with normal operations of the storage units. The parking area will be located to the east of the monopole and equipment shelter, and will be additionally screened from SW Cascade by the perimeter landscaping and equipment enclosure. The proposed landscape islands are 5 feet wide and will be surrounded by a curb to prevent damage to the landscape materials. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Service facilities are not needed for the proposed use, and have not been proposed. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards of this section have been met. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755): Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. No changes to the site's existing refuse collection area are proposed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 10 OF 24 Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for stora e. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. Therefore, this standard is met. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. No mixed solid waste collection or recyclables storage is needed for this use. Therefore, this standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclables Storage Standards have been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. No parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard is met. The applicant has nevertheless proposed a parking area to the east of the proposed monopole to ensure that the service technician's once a month visit will not interfere with or obstruct the storage unit operations. Joint Parking_ Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 11 OF 24 Joint parking is not proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the develo ment, at 90% of the ark g parking required vehicle re for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3 Subsequent use or d uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in ection 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. The project is not considered a mixed-use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. No parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, no carpool/vanpool stalls are required. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked-as required by these regulations. No parking is required for the proposed use. The facility is not intended for public access and is, therefore, exempt from ADA accessibility requirements. Therefore, this standard has been met. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 12 OF 24 No changes to the primary access are proposed. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. There are no changes proposed to the parking area which is situated on the opposite (east) side of the site and there are no pedestrian destinations that would necessitate pedestrian access from the parking lot. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to locate the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no bicycle parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. It should be noted that the self storage use is nonconforming with respect to bicycle parking, but as this proposal does not increase the degree of the non conformity (such as creating additional storage units) and the proposed use does not require bicycle spaces, no bicycle parking will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 13 OF 24 Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. There are no changes proposed to the parking area and no bicycle parking is required for the proposed use. Therefore, this standard has been met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. As discussed above, according to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for a Wireless Communication Facility is zero spaces. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for a Wireless Communication Facility is zero spaces. The applicant has nevertheless provided a designated parking area for a single vehicle. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed wireless communication facility occupies an approximate 220 square foot building. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the I-P Zoning District. The proposed plans do not call for any signage. Based on this, this standard is met. FINDING: This standard is met, since the applicant has not proposed any signs. Tree Removal (18.790): Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be rovided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 14 OF 24 There are no trees on the site or within the immediate vicinity that are greater than 12 inches in diameter. No trees are proposed for removal. Therefore, this standard is met. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 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 clear vision area shall-contain no vehicle, hedge pplanting, fence, wall structure, or-temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may.be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that afl branches below eight (8) feet are removed). 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 (2), 30-foof distance points with a straight line. The primary access to this property is served by a long driveway. This driveway is in public right-of-way and connects to SW Greenburg. The visual clearance area at the primary access where it meets the driveway is satisfied, as there is no intersection at this point. The intersection of the driveway at SW Greenburg is also clear of visual obstructions. The applicant has proposed modifying the secondary access, nearest to the proposed monopole, from one large gate to two smaller gates. This complicates compliance with the visual clearance requirements. The vision clearance triangles for both proposed access gates encumber a large area of required landscaping around the wireless facility. The landscaping standards state "landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting." This is in direct conflict with the visual clearance standards that limit sight obstructions to three feet in height. Also, engineering staff is concerned that the proposed accesses create a significant traffic hazard, by encouraging vehicles to park perpendicularly in front of the gates, wait while somebody opens the gates, and then proceed into the compound. As a result of these two issues, staff is requiring that these gates for the wireless facility to the public street be eliminated. If they are repositioned to the southern edge of the facility's lease area, they are internal to the site and visual clearance requirements do not apply. The visual clearance area remains a requirement for the modified secondary access gate to the storage ard. Based on previous discussion and findings in this decision, the secondary storage yard access gate will need to be either for one way traffic, or restricted for emergency vehicle access only. If the proposed access is a one way ingress, then the location of the gates will need to be repositioned to allow for a vehicle queuing area. In either case, if the access gate is to be used for general access, the street improvement standards will apply. FINDING: The Visual Clearance Standards have not been met. CONDITION: Revise the landscape plan to indicate how the required 6-foot-tall perimeter screening will be accommodated outside of the visual clearance area should the access gate be utilized for non emergency access. Wireless Communication Facilities (18.798): Chapter 18.798 allows wireless communication facilities in commercial zones, the I-P zone and public rights of way, subject to a Site Development Review process, provided they satisfy the specific criteria outlined in this chapter and are setback from any offsite residence a distance equal to the height of the tower. Aesthetic: New towers shall maintain a non-reflective gray finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; if collocation on an existing is requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors and textures that will match the existing tower or non-tower structure to which the equipment of the collocating provider is being attached; if collocation on an existing non-tower structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral color that is the same as the color as the supporting structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 15 OF 24 The proposed facility is not a collocation. The applicant has not indicated what color the tower will be, nor has the applicant provided information from FAA to determine whether additional flight safety marking will be required. The State Department of Aviation has commented that they have no objections to the proposed facility. Setbacks: Towers designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back in accordance with the setbacks contained in the base zone; towers not designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. The applicant has indicated that the tower will be designed to be self collapsing and has shown the tower in a location that meets the I-P base zone setbacks. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. The nearest existing tower is approximately 1000 feet to the north. Tower height: No tower shall exceed 100 feet for a single user or 125 for multiple users; The proposed tower is for a single user, and will be 70 feet with a total height, including antennae, of 80 feet. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; No lighting has been proposed on the tower. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence; The proposed facility will be enclosed by a six foot chain link fence, the equipment will be wholly enclosed within an equipment shelter. Landscaping and screening: Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting; when adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free- standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The proposed tower is not within a residential zone. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows a continuous hedge comprised of either Fraser Photinia or Emerald Green Arborvitae, to be planted at a minimum 5 foot height. Both plant species will expectedly reach 95% opacity and 6 foot height within three years. The landscape plan has been hand-altered to reflect a revision in the location of the secondary access man gate. Based on findings previously in this decision, the visual clearance area standards are not met with the location of the proposed landscaping. The landscaping plan will need to be revised and resubmitted in order to ensure that the landscaping standard is met and that the visual clearance area is maintained. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. The mechanical equipment will be housed within a concrete shelter, with the only external sounds being from the air conditioning unit. The plans show an emergency generator port for hookup when there are power failures, but no information regarding the generator has been furnished. The applicant has furnished information pertaining to the air conditioning units that shows the highest decibel rating to be 60 dBA at 10 feet from the unit. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff cannot determine whether the specific requirements for wireless facilities have been satisfied. However, with the imposition of the following conditions, these standards can be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 16 OF 24 CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit a revised elevation drawing indicating the color of the proposed monopole. Unless the applicant has been directed by the FAA, the color of the monopole shall be a non reflective galvanized gray finish. • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that reflects the changes to the configuration of the secondary access gate and that conforms to the specific landscape requirements for wireless facilities. • The applicant shall provide documentation regarding the noise levels in decibel ratings for the proposed emergency backup generator that shows the levels to be below 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA(night). C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses); 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provisions for the Disabled). Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The proposed wireless communication facility site is located on existing asphalt, in a flat area of the property. No tree removal, land grading, or drainage alteration is required to accommodate the proposed development. Suitable separation is provided between the proposed equipment shelter and any other buildings on or off site, which is adequate for light and air circulation. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 17 OF 24 Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The un-staffed status of the site necessitates added security. Chain link fencing is proposed to surround the monopole and equipment shelter. Radio cabinets will be placed inside the shelter. There is an existing area light on a utility pole that will illuminate the rear of the facility compound. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included to provide for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Cascade and SW Greenburg. While SW Greenburg has a bus route, the proposed development is un-staffed and, therefore, does not generate potential ridership. Moreover, the site work is on the opposite side of the site on SW Cascade Avenue Therefore, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: Provisions of the (I-P) Industrial Park Zoning District have been addressed earlier in this decision under Section 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. This site lies adjacent to SW Cascade Avenue, which is classified as a collector in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The planned right-of-way width is 60 total feet. The applicant has indicated that the 20' setback will be maintained from the ultimate edge of the planned right-of-way width. The applicant has not proposed any right-of- way dedication. To meet this development code standard, the applicant will either need to dedicate this additional right-of-way or provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvement, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 18 OF 24 Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. There are no sidewalks along this portion of the site's frontage. The applicant has proposed modifying the existing access gate to accommodate the communication facility site. Since the frontage is substandard with respect to the required sidewalks and development is being proposed that alters the existing access and requires conformance with the City's standards, this frontage will be required to be brought up to standard, including curbs and gutters, as well as sidewalks. The applicant may alternately provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvement, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. FINDING: The applicants plans do not propose the required level of street improvements for SW Cascade Avenue. CONDITION: Should SW Cascade Avenue continue to be utilized for access (with the exception of emergency access), the applicant/owner shall provide a guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure future right-of-way dedication and street improvements, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 12-inch public sewer main located in SW Cascade Avenue. The existing structure is already served by this main line. No additional public sewer line work is necessary for this development. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this is very flat and is served by an internal system of surface drains. These drains discharge into a roadside ditch on SW Cascade. The applicant's onsite storm drainage plan will collect any surface water that would impact this site and convey it to the public system in SW Cascade Avenue Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 19 OF 24 Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). This project will result in a net decrease of impervious area of approximately 675 square feet. CWS design standards provide that if the impervious area of a site is not increased over 5,000 square feet, then onsite detention is not required. Therefore, on-site detention is not required for this project. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 20 OF 24 There are existing overhead utility lines along the opposite frontage of SW Cascade Avenue The applicant's plans show that power will be brought from the overhead lines, with an underground service. It would be infeasible to require the small section of frontage be undergrounded. Therefore, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The value of the fee in-lieu of undergrounding in this case would be $1,375 (50 feet X $27.50). FINDING: The utility standards have not been fully complied with by the applicants proposed plans. CONDITION: The applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding (calculated at the amount of$1,375). ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: This site is located in the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. While the applicant has stated that the facility is unmanned and will, therefore, not require water service, the proposed landscaping will require irrigation. The applicant has not proposed a method of irrigation, nor has he indicated if the subject property has water service available in this location of the site. The applicant will need to indicate what method of irrigation is proposed. Should a new water service be necessary, any approvals needed from TVWD shall be acquired prior to construction. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. The net decrease in impervious area negates the need for additional compliance measures. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. While the subject property is greater than 5 acres, the area of disturbance is limited to approximately 1200 square feet. Since this disturbed area is less than five acres, the developer will not be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A grading and erosion control plan must be submitted to the Building Division during the site permit review phase. The Building Division will review the onsite grading plan during the site permit review. A NPDES permit is not required, as the disturbance area is less than five acres in size. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the Agency Concerns have not been fully addressed by the application materials. Irrigation methods have not been proposed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 21 OF 24 CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall propose an irrigation method to maintain the required landscaping. This shall be shown on the revised landscape plans. If the method requires a new water service, approvals shall be obtained from TVWD prior to commencing construction. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of a site permit. For this project, there is no additional addressing fee, as the existing address will be maintained. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.360.090 states, "The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:' Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The study notes that there will be no impact to the transportation system as the facility will only generate one round trip per month. Bikeways will likewise not be affected, and there are no bikeways in the immediate area. The drainage system will not be adversely impacted either. As the area to be developed is presently covered with pavement, the removal of a portion of the pavement to provide for landscaping will reduce, albeit slightly, the amount of stormwater runoff that is currently being contributed to the system. Parks, water and sewer systems will not be impacted as the proposed monopole is un-staffed and does not require sewer or water hookups. The study notes that the only noise generated will be from the air conditioning units and has provided a noise study to demonstrate compliance with the noise standards. Earlier in this report, the issue about noise from the emergency generator was raised, and a condition imposed that the applicant provides similar documentation regarding compliance with the noise limits. There is no TIF assessment for this use as it generates a limited amount of traffic. FINDING: The proposed development either has no impact or will mitigate the effect of the impact for the above noted public systems through the imposition of conditions. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and notes that building permits are required. The City of Tigard Public Works Department and The City of Tigard Crime Prevention Office of the Police Department have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 22 OF 24 SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and finds that the site is not adjacent to County maintained road sections and thus has no objections to it. Oregon Department of Transportation, Aviation Section has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Washington County Communications (WCCCA) has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: The only thing we are concerned about is any interference [between this site and emergency communications systems] that may be caused by this tower. It is important the WCCCA Technical Services be notified when this tower goes live. If it is determined that this tower causes interference, the tower will have to be shut down until the problem is remedied. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the applicant's submittal and provided the following comments: In order to ensure the adequate protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tigard, no permitted wireless communications facility operator shall operate the permitted facility in any way that impedes, impairs, or negatively impacts the communication abilities of any public safety or emergency response organization serving the public within the City of Tigard's jurisdictional limits. Additionally, it is noted that federal regulations give priority to communications involving safety of life or property, as follows: 47 CFR § 90.403 (d) provides in relevant part, that communications involving the imminent safety of life or property, are to be afforded priority by all licensees. If interference complaints are filed against the cell tower operator, which allege radio frequency interference, the cell tower operator shall provide documentary evidence from the FCC that the cell tower operator has complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and resolution of such complaints, and confirming that the communications involving the public safety provider have been given priority by the cell tower operator. SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 25, 2002 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 23 OF 24 Appeal: The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.6.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON MAY 9, 2002. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. ,/t April 25, 2002 PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy DATE Associate Planner ------7--, -ic___:,_ /e • Ap ril 25, 2002 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Be ersdorff DATE Planning Manager \\tig333\usr\depts\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2002-00003(nextel)\sdr2002-00003 decision.doc NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2002-00003/NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE PAGE 24 OF 24 A Q' AIM it ��� CITY of TIGARD mLEHM• cEOCP�PNic IN SOP M/,TION SVSIEM ill VICINITY MAP III a N SDR2002-00003 G a y `� I I I VAR2002-00001 > LOCUST NEXTEL COMMUNICATION allIMMIIII p . MONOPOLE TOER D o v Ilitillilliik. Ili m j\-., .\ II R9... xYi I----65 . ---- ,Ai . ill" g \ 411 ,,,t4____ �` ■ ,. � o<. i RONIT A RD fi j� -I• 0.D'. . DUNhIN.t RD 2 4 � VIFS1 Tigard Area Map �_ qyE r. SHADY LN 'il 1 • 1 1111/1101- _. s ' �� r 0100 800 Feet •—• ■ J. 1"=504 feet ■ Na I N11111d 44 1111 iiI 4H1 !L /^l■ =f \ / / ` DAKOTA Tigard,OR 97223 MENEM f (503)839-4171 hrip://www.ci I I //www.ra.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Mar 6,2002;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR i Iz I \ As i \ PROPOSED I 18 6 I \_°` ETht Vt `E>61 �. \� PROJECT i I i" J °NG 1 `\ \ \ AREA SEE 0 1 I U \_ R9.El c I \\?\ ,IOfK Ii1N9 `JO AI N `CI 1 510HZGE� \ \ " JO ME - I 8110.Lif1C \ 90w1E � ��- z �q:V _ - - - - _ _ - - _ _ N wF61rt IDLE.9Ef Neay]Cw ele.92 / Nww 1RN6FGRIER PROPOSED 10'_0' (6)6•-P (E7 MAKE NORMAL Opp.UWt FENCE R3AIN�C I. (E)VMO / (E)MOD 4/9093 C..OENE CITY OF TIGARD t SDR2002-00003NAR2002-00007 CITY OF TIGARD SITE PLAN N NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER (Map is not to scale) • 1 ,XITIr IT Nextel Communications, Inc. SDR2002-00003/VAR2002-00007 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE Beaverton, OR 97008 TOWER Universus 442 Glenwood Drive Oxnard, CA 93030 The Alaris Group Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Avenue Portland, OR 97225 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CI O TIGARD Community(Development Shaping A'BetterCommunity I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City ofTigard;Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: IChec,Approphate Box(s)8ebw) E3 NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: SDR2002-00003/VAR2002-00007 — NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on March 12,2002, and deposited in the United States Mail on March 12,2002, postage prepaid. / ,414., . zr7L (Person that Prep: -• Notic-) STAR./(±, OF O1EEGON ) County of`Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) f Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 , S day of --- .� i G , 2002. r OFFICIAL SEAL 'Ak —,#:, DIANE M JELDERKS / I ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 4. A /dI / / ,_ 4....d I _.COMMISSION NO 326578 ' I I I I JI ' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 My Commission Expit : 3 EXHP NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE.IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER, NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW '` T CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping BetterCommumtti DATE OF NOTICE: March 12, 2002 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 Type II Land Use Application ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 Type I Land Use Application FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON MARCH 26, 2002. All comments should be directed to Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 11, 2001. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: ♦ Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; ♦ Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; ♦ Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: ♦ The application is accepted by the City ♦ Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. ♦ The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. ♦ City Staff issues a written decision. ♦ Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." ,pP \ if e•CITY nlr o.GORD P HM 41 il .'■■ VICINITY MAP âIIIIII VAR2002-00007 $. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS :1* 141111111111 MONOPOLE TOWER ■ IIM4 i'''',. /-f, dr:&116, Aiol. Ago 14 Mall unt0 • NMI.i AM Mild Imo. �_ ,a a, ;� _� -I �� ��"� ir _._ �. -.t Is ii= EXIII) I 1 S 135BA-03300 1 S 135BC-00200 ACKERLY COMMUNICATIONS OF GTE NORTHWEST INC THE NORTHWEST INC GARY N WILLIAMS 3601 6TH AVE S GTE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS SEATTLE,WA 98134 PO BOX 152206-HQCO2E26 IRVING,TX 75015 1 S 1358 B-00501 1 S 135BD-00300 AMB PROPERTY L P HAZEL INTERNATIONAL INC BY GEORGE MCELROY&ASSOC BY NORRIS&STEVENS RE 3131 S VAUGHN WAY STE 301 520 SW 6TH#400 AURORA,CO 80014 PORTLAND,OR 97204 35BC-00600 1S 135BD-00200 AMB "•PERT - HUGGINS DONALD L&MARLENE R BY GEOR ' 'iCELROY&ASSOC 9785 SW SHADY LN 313 AUGH 4 AY STE 301 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORA,CO 8001 1S 13513C-00201 1 S 135 BA-02800 BELANICH ROGER M LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC BY SOUTHLAND CORP ATTN:DOUG MEATH PO BOX 711 12520 SW CANYON RD DALLAS,TX 75221 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1S1 35BC-00202 1S 1358A-03302 BELANICH ROGER M MARX ERNEST L&BARBARA R 22020 17TH AVE SE#200 TRUST BOTHELL,WA 98021 2140 VELOZ DR SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108 1S135BB-00500 1S135BA-03303 CASCADE BLVD CENTER LLC& ' ERNEST L&BAR:•'.• R CORNELL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRUST BY ELLIOTT ASSOC INC 2140 V • D' 50 SW PINE STE 200 • 'TA BARBARA,CA • '8 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1 S 1358 C-00500 1 S 135BA-00101 E E W ENTERPRISES LLC PPR SQUARE TOO LLC BY DESTINATION HARLEY DAVIDSON BY MACERICH COMPANY 10770 SW CASCADE AVE ATTN:JANET FISHER TIGARD,OR 97223 401 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 700 SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 1S135BB-00800 1S135BA-00100 FOURIER GEORGE&JAN AND '-' SQUARE TOO LL LARSON ALAN W TRUSTEE BY MA e ICH CO. -ANY 349 W 71ST ST#1 ATTN:JANE - .ER NEW YORK, NY 10023 401 W IRE BLVD E 700 'TA MONICA,CA 90401 S135BB-00700 1 S 126C0-01108 F• 'IER GEORGE z .• 1 AND SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO LARS• e _• .1 TRUSTEE DEPT 768TAX B2-116A 349 T ' :1 3333 BEVERLY RD • YORK, NY 11.'3 HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60179 1S 135B B-00600 1 S 135BC-00100 FOURIER GEORGE PER TOSCO CORP FOURIER JAN JACOB PROPERTY TAX DEPT-DC17 LARSON ALAN W PO BOX 52085 109 N LOTUS BEACH DR PHOENIZ,AZ 85072 PORTLAND,OR 97217 iS135BC- 0300 UNITED STATES BAKERY PO BOX 14769 PORTLAND,OR 97214 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 8405 B SW NIMBUS AVENUE BEAVERTON OR 97008 UNIVERSUS 442 GLENWOOD DRIVE OXNARD CA 93030 THE ALARIS GROUP ATTN: SEAN BELL 3600 SW RIDGEWOOD AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97225 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 4114 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CIS FTIdARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community I, cPatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropnale Box(s)Below) iI © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2002-00003/VAR2002-00007 — NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked ExhIbit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit'B", and by reference made a part hereof, on April 25,2002, and deposited in the United States Mail on April 25,2002, postage prepaid. bd,47-eef's ( (Person that Prepared Notice) STJ4f1(E.OF OckEGON ) County of`Was ington )ss. City of rgard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 / day of / ( , 2002. OFFICIAL SEAL K'^ DIANE M JELDERKS // .,.ems•-+ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.326578 I /l / MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 11 1 ' 1 ' I • I I 'I `I r r My Commission jt/es: . EXHP 'I' NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 CITY OF TIGARD ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 Community Devetopment Shaping A Better Community NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER 120 DAYS = 7/9/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2002-00003 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2002-00007 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. OWNER: Universus 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue 442 Glenwood Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Oxnard, CA 93030 APPLICANT'S REP: The Alaris Group Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. The subject site is located between Highway 217 and SW Cascade Avenue, north of Greenburg Road. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. SECTION II . DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above Site Development Review request subject to certain conditions of approval. The requested Adjustment was deemed unnecessary and is, therefore, DENIED. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted hi the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON APRIL 25, 2002 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Area l_: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 9, 2002. Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Morgan Tracy at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. I L/ VICINITY MAP my� I SDR2002-00003 VIIIII 111 SDR2002-00007 \°' I/C7 NEXTEL COMMUNICATION :` MONOPOLE TOWER di limn11111 •, r #_1111. ('� S p VIfit,, `� a•Mar W to , wu1i .:- .4 ■ N pig1_ �- ja.gli MAIM 1111 IP-ea NEIN MN Ili il iNE E=1MI1♦IMIR w A iI■I ••uu .i.: ..- -ESE- 1 r 1- ---\\--' "-- I,- ',ix—, , N, N,N. ��,_ N`. x7 3.' cJ7r .1 7 .ice- /lL ----..�.-----------\_- -\ f * AVA„ CITY OF TIGARD t SDR2002.00003NAR2002.00007 SITE PLAN N NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER (Map Is not to scale) 1 S 135BA-03,200 1S 1358 C-00200 'OBIT 8 ACKERLY COMMUNICATIONS OF GTE NORTHWEST INC THE NORTHWEST INC GARY N WILLIAMS 3601 6TH AVE S GTE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS SEATTLE,WA 98134 PO BOX 152206-HQCO2E26 IRVING,TX 75015 1 S 135BB-00501 1S 135BD-00300 AMB PROPERTY L P HAZEL INTERNATIONAL INC BY GEORGE MCELROY&ASSOC BY NORRIS&STEVENS RE 3131 S VAUGHN WAY STE 301 520 SW 6TH#400 AURORA,CO 80014 PORTLAND,OR 97204 356 C-00600 1 S 135BD-00200 AMB •'•PERT - HUGGINS DONALD L&MARLENE R BY GEOR ' •,iCELROY&ASSOC 9785 SW SHADY LN 313 : AUGH 4 AY STE 301 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORA,CO 8001• 1 S 135 BC-00201 1S 135BA-02800 BELANICH ROGER M LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC BY SOUTHLAND CORP ATTN:DOUG MEATH PO BOX 711 12520 SW CANYON RD DALLAS,TX 75221 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1 S 135BC-00202 1 S 135BA-03302 BELANICH ROGER M MARX ERNEST L&BARBARA R 22020 17TH AVE SE#200 TRUST BOTHELL,WA 98021 2140 VELOZ DR SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108 is 135BB-00500 1S 135BA-03303 CASCADE BLVD CENTER LLC& ' ERNEST L&BAR: • R CORNELL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRUST BY ELLIOTT ASSOC INC 2140 V • D• 50 SW PINE STE 200 ' ' A BARBARA,CA • 78 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S135BC-00500 1S135BA-00101 E E W ENTERPRISES LLC PPR SQUARE TOO LLC BY DESTINATION HARLEY DAVIDSON BY MACERICH COMPANY 10770 SW CASCADE AVE ATTN:JANET FISHER TIGARD,OR 97223 401 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 700 SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 1 S 135B B-00800 1 S 135BA-00160 FOURIER GEORGE&JAN AND •• ' SQUARE TOO LL LARSON ALAN W TRUSTEE BY MA :ICH CO. -ANY 349 W 71ST ST#1 ATTN:JANE " .ER NEW YORK, NY 10023 401 W IRE BLVD E 700 'TA MONICA,CA 90401 S135BB-00700 1 S 12600-01108 F• RIER GEORGE : • ' AND SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO LARS• tLs• I TRUSTEE DEPT 768TAX B2-116A 349 T - :1 3333 BEVERLY RD N YORK, NY 1.6'3 HOFFMAN ESTATES,IL 60179 1313513B-00600 1 S 135BC-00100 FOURIER GEORGE PER TOSCO CORP FOURIER JAN JACOB PROPERTY TAX DEPT-DC17 LARSON ALAN W PO BOX 52085 109 N LOTUS BEACH DR PHOENIZ,AZ 85072 PORTLAND,OR 97217 1 S1 a5BC-0030 UNITED STATES BAKERY PO BOX 14769 PORTLAND,OR 97214 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpinlsetup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 \ CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM AREA NOTIFIED (500') / 3 0 N� FOR: Sean Bell ,t _ RE: 1S135BA, 3300 ii....13,2 �Q tEdlWEtl Property owner information — is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. IMIIMINIIIM D kc co 11166„ C) > a m \`cz a=j \ • 11. Ilmirki 21 to/ • N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1'=346 feet. I• .='. \ ISINNIMNS III 1 museum 4 r ■nsafxetw •� . "=4,. City of Tigard AVE SHADY LN Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd .4 . Tigard.(503)fi 9-41713 1-> http:l Mvvw.c i.tiga rd.or,us Community Development Plot date:Jan 8,2002;C:lmagicVAAGIC03.APR 18135BA-03300 1S135B0-00200 ACKERLY COMMUNICATIONS OF GTE NORTHWEST INC THE NORTHWEST INC GARY N WILLIAMS 3601 6TH AVE S GTE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS SEATTLE,WA 98134 PO BOX 152206-HQCO2E26 IRVING,TX 75015 1513588-00501 1 S 135BD-00300 AMB PROPERTY L P HAZEL INTERNATIONAL INC BY GEORGE MCELROY&ASSOC BY NORRIS&STEVENS RE 3131 S VAUGHN WAY STE 301 520 SW 6TH#400 AURORA,CO 80014 PORTLAND,OR 97204 35B C-00600 1 S 1358 D-00200 AMB "•PERT - HUGGINS DONALD L&MARLENE R BY GEOR • •-4CELROY&ASSOC 9785 SW SHADY LN 313 : AUGH AY STE 301 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORA,CO 8001• 1S 135BC-00201 1 S 135 BA-02800 BELANICH ROGER M LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC BY SOUTHLAND CORP ATTN: DOUG MEATH PO BOX 711 12520 SW CANYON RD DALLAS,TX 75221 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1S135B0-00202 1S135BA-03302 BELANICH ROGER M MARX ERNEST L&BARBARA R 22020 17TH AVE SE#200 TRUST BOTHELL,WA 98021 2140 VELOZ DR SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108 15135BB-00500 1S135BA-03303 CASCADE BLVD CENTER LLC& • ' ERNEST L&BAR:•'• R CORNELL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRUST BY ELLIOTT ASSOC INC 2140 V • D' 50 SW PINE STE 200 • 1TA BARBARA,CA • )8 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S135BC-00500 1S135BA-00101 E E W ENTERPRISES LLC PPR SQUARE TOO LLC BY DESTINATION HARLEY DAVIDSON BY MACERICH COMPANY 10770 SW CASCADE AVE ATTN:JANET FISHER TIGARD,OR 97223 401 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 700 SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 1S135BB-00800 1S1358A-00100 FOURIER GEORGE&JAN AND '-' SQUARE TOO LL LARSON ALAN W TRUSTEE BY MA e ICH CO' ANY 349 W 71ST ST#1 ATTN:JANE - • .ER NEW YORK, NY 10023 401 W : IRE BLVD E 700 ITA MONICA,CA 90401 S135BB-00700 1S126C0-01108 F• RIER GEORGE : • I AND SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO LARS• tLo• ''TRUSTEE DEPT 768TAX B2-116A 349 T - :1 3333 BEVERLY RD N YORK, NY 1•I•'3 HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60179 1S13588-00600 1S135BC-00100 FOURIER GEORGE PER TOSCO CORP FOURIER JAN JACOB PROPERTY TAX DEPT-DC17 LARSON ALAN W PO BOX 52085 109 N LOTUS BEACH DR PHOENIZ,AZ 85072 PORTLAND,OR 97217 1 S 1358 C-00300 UNITED STATES BAKERY PO BOX 14769 PORTLAND,OR 97214 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD RECEIVED PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JAN 07 2002 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HAIL BOULEVARD CITY OF TIGARL Community Shaping munity TIGARD, OREGON 91223 PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-684-1291(Ann: Patty or Shirley/Planning) REQU.E& FOQ1I . I F .IP °{OP lilY WNIMIULING1USJ Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. ISI34AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW and INCLUDE A MAP OF ALL LOTS FOR THE PROJECT (preferably assessor's tax map): /05S 4.7) /5/,45:69-i �3. J (r7C .0 Olt INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE REQUESTING 2 OR 3 SETS OF LABELS: S� (NOTE: A minimum of 2 sets of labels will be provided to place on your 2 sets of envelopes that applicants are required to submit at the time of application submittal. If a neighborhood meeting is required and you have not yet held that meeting, you should request 3 sets) NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: SCSAAI �_�_ PHONE: 522 'j gj(991- 7 S-Z-7 This request may be mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request in "Will Call" by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list, plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. *EXAMPLE * * * COST FOR THIS REQUEST * * 4 sheets of labels x $2/sheet = $8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 _-,sheet(s) of labels x $2/sheet = $ x . sets = cY 2 sheets of labels x $2/sheet for CIT area x 2 sets = $ 4.00 _I sheet(s) of labels x $2/sheet for CIT area = $, x sets = All GENERATE LIST = $11.00 GENERATE LIST = TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL = APPLICANT MATERIALS C_*o & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ' ii! TYPE II APPLICATION ECID CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 PkE-atn■ -0/0° L1' GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP.HELD WITH: DATE OF PRE-APP.: Property Address/Location(s): /OS-SS" S tai FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map &Tax Lot#(s): ' D • Oa—ctED `1 i S 1 3 '-g/ - 3 3w Other Case No.(s): ittfatidia -/'in Receipt No.: (-- (�� Site Size: -SAPS A CCLE S : �t Applications pted Applicant*: 1�6.x TE(.- 1� 4 ui•((CAf od S (4 C Date: Address: 3L(OS R Std KiixtQuc As& ���0 Date Determined Complete: City/State: j�{�t iz l 19,7, Zip �, Rev.8/21/2001 iAcurpinlmasters\revised■sdra.doc Primary Contact: S fe,G(,t_- CA-L44-2,■c, C►lLasP) Phone: (c-(,..))3\\ C I(.99- -7 1 1 Fax: (sN-2, Va.,- 7 c REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) 0/■1(0611- uC Address: GI L(2.- Gz .. t<lcx3 7�. Phone: )' 9e -1Z�3 ❑ Application Form City/State: 0 .p.S■ ,'z., C-+4 Zip: G3t�3 0 ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization E Title Transfer Instrument or Deed When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant Copy of Pre Application Conf. Notes must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Site/Plot Plan must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this (#of copies based on pre-app check list) form or submit a written authorization with this application. d Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'11"x 11") PROPOSAL SUMMARY Applicant's Statement (#of copies based on pre-app check list) The owners of record of the subject property request Site CWS Sewer Use Information Card Development Review approval to allow (please be specific): (Distributed/completed at application submittal) CWS Service Provider Letter .-t ,4 -ru�c � s� S66 � QA-L,�..Anti 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property Owner List Generated by the City ❑ Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits&Notes ❑ Filing Fee: (under$100.000) �$ 800.00 ($100,000-$999,999) .�1 p,600.00 ($1 Million&Over) $1,780.00 (+$5/$10,000 over the first million) Urban: (See Washington County fee schedule) 1 . List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 20 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature p24, 2 ADJUSTMENT .,rf,�,,e:I°�a TYPE II APPLICATION „ O 1 G 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 • CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APP. HELD WITH: 'M-.T.- GENERAL INFORMATION DATE OF PRE-APP.: Pro erty Address/Location(s): /0056- SJ 6, -e-ik(gC t-, 77(7,-4469 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map &Tax Lot#(s J S 13c A - 0 3S0 Site Size: 3. (DS ACRE& Case No.: V pte-p'v c — Applicant*: Alr,c;Et— Cean.c ANA,/(G4710•✓S JA(C. ( ) ��,r�/l�1f Address: 3 LIOf i , S U- 4 u, u S r, Other Case No. s : xCJ- City/State: R r6,A&eivit./ na. Zip: OCro Receipt No.: a( - Primary Contact: $6„4,/ ZELL- �,�Q(� Phone: tea)--s cacti- - Z"1 Fax: �j�) 25Z �S`i 3 Application Acce ed 13T. I!� Propegrty Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) Date: a. l lJa-- Ui I I/r?lLSlf S Address: 4L-12- 1 Phone:`$O .") 9$3 -1 2.73 City/State: p,�tii, -.0 (A . Zip: 91010 Date Determined To Be Complete: * When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written Comp Plan/Zone Desi nation: authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) E must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this C form or submit a written authorization with this application. CIT Area: PROPOSAL SUMMARY Recording Date and Number: The owners of record of the subject property request permission for an Rev.11/1/01 istcurpin�masterskevisedladjustment-2.doc Administrative Adjustment to the following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): :Special Adjustments: • Access and Egress Standards Adjustment ' REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS • Parking Adjustments-Reduction in Minimum Parking • Parking Adjustments-Increase in Maximum Parking • Parking Adjustments—Reduction in Required Bicycle Parking • Parking Adjustments—Reduction in Minimum Parking for Transit Improvements/New Dev. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: • Parking Adjustments—Use of Altemative Parking Garage Layout �Appl ication Form • Sign Code Adjustment • Street Improvement Requirements Adjustment [II/ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization • Wireless Communication Facility Adjustments—Distance From Off-Site Residential ,/ E Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Please state the reason for the Adjustment request: 172/ Site/Plot Plan (6 copies) _ (-CA c 4: Stt-e A--Trwu-h3/� gAv_2,4r l tiE a ite/Plot Plan (reduced 8'h"x 11") /Applicant's Statement (Addressing Criteria Under Section 18.370.020) d d Filing Feet W.00 2 ei /' 1 • r • APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request,for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 20 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 L/kr First i__,terican Title Insurance _ dikpany of Oregon ,:.:!'y'• � ` An assumed business of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON v 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 • FAX (503) 790-7856 Preliminary Title Report August 17, 2001 ALTA Owners Lsehld Cov. $75,000.00 Premium $380.00 ALTA Owners Ext. Coy. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Stand. Coy. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Ext. Coy. $ Premium $ Order No. : 932411 Indorsement Premium $ Re : Universus/ Other Cost $ Nextel Communications Govt. Serv. Charge Cost $ 50.00 A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in con- nection with this order will be provided at closing. Nextel Communications 8405B SW Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, OR 97008 Attention: Manon Burke We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring title to the following described land: For legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and as of August 13, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in: UNIVERSUS, a California General Partnership; Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and the following: 1 . Taxes for the fiscal year 2001-2002 a lien not yet payable. 2. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. Note: There are no liens as of August 17, 2001 . 3. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. 4. These premises are within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and are subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 5. Relinquishment of Access as contained in Suit No. 27-128 in the Circuit Court, Washington County, provides rights of access to a frontage road from the Southeast corner of the herein described property to a connection with Greenburg Road. 6. Non-Occupancy Agreement, including the terms and provisions thereof, Dated : January 25, 1974 Recorded : February 12, 1974 in Book 962, page 571 Executed by : Washington County This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy and shall become void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium paid. Page 2 Order No. 932411 7. Conditions and Restrictions contained in Ordinance No. 90-07, of the City of Portland, a copy of which was Recorded : April 18, 1990 as Fee No. 90-18982 8. Right, title and interest of ACKERLY COMMUNICATIONS OF THE NORTHWEST INC, as disclosed by Washington County Tax Roll, 9. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any. 10. The following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only: (a) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein. (b) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. NOTE: This report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the office of the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the office of the County Clerk (Recorder) covering fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular survey system or by recorded lot and block. NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount $26,769.72 Code No. 023.81 Map & Tax Lot No. 1S135BA-03300 Account No. 273340 NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount $372.55 Code No. 023.81 Map & Tax Lot No. 1S135BA-03300A1 Account No. 2032399 (Affects Improvements only) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON p . Ito KATY OBERG Commercial Title Examiner Voice (503) 219-8742 Fax (503) 790-7856 E-Mail koberg @firstam.com KO:ko THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE We look forward to assisting you in all of your title and escrow needs Page 3 Order No. 932411 Recording Information: Filing Address: Washington County 1 55 North 1st Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087 Recording Fees: $5.00 per page $6.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund) $11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee) $5.00 for each additional document title $20.00 non-standard fee THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE We look forward to assisting you in all of your title and escrow needs Order No. 932411 EXHIBIT "A" A tract of land in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of a 50 foot access road, which point is South 32°34'50" East 1361.22 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section 35, said point being North 89°23'30" West 10 feet, more or less, from the Northwest corner of the tract described in deed to Ralph Coan et ux, recorded in Book 475, page 185, Deed Records of said county; thence South 89°23'30" East 494.88 feet along the North line of said Coan tract and a Westerly extension thereof, to a point in the Southerly line of the Oregon State Highway Commission right-of-way as described in Final Judgment, Suit No. 27-128, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon; thence following said right-of-way South 52°03'10" East 173.50 feet to a Highway Commission monument; thence South 41 °27'50" East 206.28 feet to a Highway Commission monument; thence South 34°56'50" East 97.56 feet to a Highway Commission monument and a point on the South line of said Coan tract; thence leaving said right-of-way North 89°23'30" West 816.91 feet along said South line, to a point in the East line of a 50-foot access road; thence along said East line, North 1 °14' West 338.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to W.S. DuBose et ux, by deed recorded March 11, 1968, in Book 684, page 379, Washington County deed records. • . Aft E , `� c9 � \ , First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon =\ ,`Li�° SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLICY(10/17/92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs.attorneys'lees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law,ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to budding and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations)restricting,regulating,prohibiting or relating to(i)the occupancy, use,or enjoyment of the land;(ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(iii)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part;or(iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,liens.encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a) created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant poor to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(except to the extent that this policy insures the pnonty of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services,labor or material or the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments tor street improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy);or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy,or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage,or claim thereof,which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services.labor or materials(or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services,labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage)ansing from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any claim,which anses out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,stale insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that is based on. (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination;or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer;or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgement or lien creditor. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(10/17/92) _ The following ma tters-are•e,Ypssly,emhrl d icon ruerxwerage of this policy-and the Company will not 13ayioss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise by reason of: • • t. (a) Any law,ordinancsici wi s;accagralregolz..ttno(includingbut not limited to building and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations)restricting.regulating,prohibiting or relating to(i)the occupancy, pw use oc.er of�,.._+: i. tr- s:'J'_c5i'b .:.^ra1iine.,s*-?nr>os lr ation of any imorovernentihow,gt hereafer erected on the land;(iii)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the lanur.,r_-iny-r.;;a:,:•exI t';'.� nuiarsi,sur wasa part;or(iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to the • • - extent that a notice-r•is:tii eireo€,nsunriitieraof or-a-notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Ppficy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above.except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred pnor to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a) created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors' rights laws,that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer,or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgement or lien creditor SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS The ALTA standard policy form will contain in Schedule B the following standard exceptions to coverage: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records:proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts.rights,interests,or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements,encumbrances,or claims thereof.not shown by the public records,unpatented mining claims,reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights,claims or title to water. 4. Any lien,or right to a lien,for services,labor,or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 6 Discrepancies.conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area,encroachments,or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. NOTE:A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM(OR FORMS)WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST. TI Rev.5199 • THIS MAP IS FURNI..rtED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROPS,.,f AND THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCLOSED BY ACTUAL SURVEY yT AMF. R/C :':::'--,.• .,« ::i- First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon _ _ An assumed business name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 MAP 1S135BA Ix I I I I I I V \\ I j I I � I I I I., I��atl°gi��C� J 20I 21 22 231 I 1+ • cs= 97_<i� t'J04 iiJPSk<i,�C��9Ei �ci� 251 26 I 27 mns�•tcw GU , • r�L A in s0 u ' 3f i 1 in Ea. ,,n e"`a I y I 2800 2.14 Ac. .1,JX c- . .k1 M. W • R7 ).O bI' Q 1 I = al« \ ti I Z « \ •Ao r t/_ s 2e• w W I X I _ w ^1 (C.S. No.12874 1 �, 4' Cq/�Ro ,,� in 4) I r cl Li:s ' : 3303 3300 — I Q i i6Ac. J.65 -Ic . _ I U 3300 Al ° . .„ . ,. Q e « U « I-. tCSNo.10838) i x o��\ I In L _ J2o_ J. I' s,a•: _� �b X 1 _ MB•29'• t f///// .IL.3' 3302 � I i .4JAc. I X ■ . 2,0 Ns • T I I `5 \ \ .)LL r,, IS I 35B ■ .IA.TT.',,..aLrl r tjfyl T•��.y�. ;C•L _y-}-_.uxr•i I 0 r' IOIM•N•.ell—WAJLAhIY dell Ilwa1.4A.aI.,C..101.10l. '+r.awrw.• a er.•nw r ., . , �6 -CORFORATI'- ;ht - 'DIIL ! :8E.L 7 18 I- ambi WashIngtae cou,uy S Mfr" KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRES.INTS, That J.►NA!ERSUS.._Zt`l:,•..........„„........._....... - 'hereinafter called the grantor,for the consideration ilerainafter stated,to grantor paid by UNIVERSUS, .A.....,............ t7G -......California_General_Partnersh p hereinafter tolled -- rx_as the grantee, does hereby grant, bargain, tell and convey unto the said ,',rat.tee end grantee's heirs. successors and �r.(e:i • assigns,that certain read.propetty,with the tenements,hereditamenta and appurtenances thereunto-belonging or ap. r-- pertaining,situated in the County ol. _Washington__ and State of Orngon,described as follows,to•wit: ' 1.7:7'' i A tract of lend in Section-35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridi >rs Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: tdr_' • Beginning at a point on the East line of a fifty-foot access road, which point is South ';ew- 32 degrees 34' 50" East 1361.22 feet from the Northwest corner of sold Section 35, said -.'"= point being North B9 degrees 23' 30" West 10 feet, more or less, from the Northwest II-24t -- po deg ,` :=tea.::: corner of the tract described in deed to Ralph Coah, et ux, recorded in Bock 475, page 1 �c1'..:-. ______ 185, Deed Records of said County; thence South 89 degrees 2D' 3C" East 494.88 feet along R „- the North line of said Coah tract and a Westerly extension, thereof, to a point in the i:k^: --- - Southerly lire of the Oregon State Highway Commission right-of-way as described in Final p' -.`�:: ._-_-= Judrrent, Suit No. 27-128, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon; thence - folloeling said right-of-way South 52 degrees 03' 11r." East 173 50 feet to Highway '�� ' ._�__ Commission monument; thence South 41 degrees 27' 50" East 200.28 feet to a Highway tr.fit:: . ---. Commission monument; thence South 34 degrees 56' 50" East 97.56 feet to a Highway rr-_-. Clxrmission monument and a point on the South line of said Conh tract; (CONTINUED P--7.-° ::_--.-_-::..-•; DN REVERSE SIDE) car seed u,SU ICIVO.Canl„ut ottC.,Crror, ou ltvuu von I'"' '-"'-? To Nava and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and granter's heirs, successors and esigns forever. •'r. --":':1 And said grantor hereby covenants to and with said grantee and granter's heirs, successors and assigns,that ,,.s}ta- grantor is lawfully seized in fee simple of the above grant.d premises.leer Iron.all encumbrances except the !Zt• ..q=i prcni.ses herein described are within 6 subject to the statutory powers, includi:.g the I fe- -! , power of assessment of the Unified Set.erage Agency of wasp. Co.; right of the public ;,. __ in streets, roads 6 highways; access restrictions. and that ych� __ .. grantor wiz'warrant and forever defend the surd premises read every p.,N rend parcel!.•,erenl against the lawful•:Inims 1 4!Fg7.• _I and demands of all persons whomsoever,except those claiming under the above de scribed encumbrances. J ;Ty, u ;= I The true and actual consideration paid for N,is transfer,stated in terns of dnflnrs,is S 273,154 ^le OHowrv!r, the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is A p ."...710.17.:'... ?_� t COnsiderat ion)ptdF%1f1 'L1UWt7Lj?C`t lIgCC,PP PI-sti!c7 .F.M;t.9PLQW {fX.L7�.Ylci,xXY�«S)OR6c021:ttLy ' ''•' .°_•ae,a.Ii In construing this deed rend:.here the context so requires: the singular includes the plural Lind all grammatical ,rare:' ■: m changes shall he implieo to make the provisions hereof apply or/catty to corporations and to individuals. II �'-+m� „�SSB 2, ID-s:;uc: In Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed tills instrument this is tdoy of Apr i 1 ,1988 .; __- it u corporate grantor,it!sons caused its name to be signed and self nllixed by its officers,duly authorized thereto by •_•_°- ceder 01 its board of directors. =_`- -.f';e THIC INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY CE UNIVERSUE, INC. . .. i_, __ ,`a; -'r SCRIBED IN Tilts INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LINO J/�1 ��J —_—. se•%•car USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING -L U'. !J .. l',. -7- �yT'';6 THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACOIIINING FEC TITLE TO THE $ ..OF .4"..q."7":. a•r7tsi PROPERTY EIIOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR / �,y 1- �;w:,,i COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO .EmIFY APPROVED USES. I RLEY F ECOFF w hJ -" '— STATE OF oaC6JON, o -"">o STA7F. OF OREGON. ) v'mrr l ...........suss.._.suss Jae. -^— ...fin. !9 '. ▪»v I County' of .. __Jo- ..•. Pr.sore fly appeared _.. .. ... _suss...... and �-_- suss. _suss.. gr" ._. . . suss.. .who. Lain( duly worn. <._.._ -^'tam each tar A. II Attu'not cane fn, the ether,chef soy fAat :Ae fornNI ie the --' ';"� Persaratiy aaaeared eh•r ins naeW _ r:•,j;;� . .. presld.nr alai that the hater ie Ma �,• e1sC:ellen ......_......................................._................... _. �:a...•>• •Kra fats el.. r-- �...-.� ... .. ... ... ............suss. _p_` . .. . a carpwerlon, . ,. ant mein.,l,JgeJ the loreta''. in.tru• and that the aced alined to the foregoing na,rument it tn. corporate seal went to be . voluntary eV rend deed et ash/eorp..rnt,an nod glut raid few/oaten,WA.firmed and waled in be. a: . hall of said corparalron Or surf...my of it,beer.'.)director.;and each of —'• i wl them acFnoi■ledted said ,nalru.,,ent to be its vsluntary net and deed. - Delore me. Drforo me: —•� -' (OFFICIAL .. .. (OFFICIAL - SE,IL) _suss._suss _ ._ _. suss. SEAL) _____ Notary PYW,c Inr Oregon Notary Public for Oregon -.- •_ My comnuvron arpin r: My cnmmivion expire., P,•••..,• N.nno.n.a, . UNIVERSOS, INC. _'� STATE OF OREGON, Is,. �i ...4.42 Glenwood Drive ...Oxnard, CA 93030 County of h e•w.•.o•ow •• • l certify that the within insrru- I - UNIVERSUS A California General Partner-hip men, wan received for record on the I `- ._.442 Glenh d Drive day of ,/9 , Oxnard, CA 93030 at o'clock M.,and recorded suss...•..a:.won.0.•r.' V•.....Grua -- An..n•.d't..4.n, rs. in book/reel/volume No on FAIRFIEiD, MCDCNA D, SULLAR.D, STRAUSS 8 RI.P.CI-)'.caaon•u.. Page or as lee/life/insrru• ___ men,/microfilm/reception No........_......., _. '3585 Maple Street, Suite 278 _. ...................Ventura, CA 93003 Record of Deeds of said county. - - - rel - - Witness y hand and seal of ,w.ca n•ne.•••..n.Aw 0.w..�,...'b,t..,,..a.,.,, County allied. 1.11,..„.....•b saw« .'-' Steve Eccff - ._.. 142 Glenwood Delve . _....._._. "•�• nns __ -.Oxnard; CA 93030 .a 0..a•oAtle•.lie 2 By.................... ......-.................Deputy � - ----------------° -- - -- - I ..� I "7-• - . 511 , atarsa Rea.:.a .c......--e. �.r=:. :c----- - .. .' ti—'T ---nee =----------- -•--■.....��� .--..•r........ r ..► IG^% M Il - 'jr NOV71IY."'i.... .• t t1r. 1• 'r nw.....:. „*.�•- tyr ww.. - > :''��r., 1 tsi�'.«:... .� ,_tom_ :_... ti . LEGAL DESCIiIPTICIN CCx1TINUED: trenee 1^rtvirtg said right-of-way North 89 degrees 23' 30" West 816.91 feet along said ; Sc.:th lire, to a ;,.lint in the East line of a 50 foot access road; thence along said East line, North 1 degree 14' West 336.00 feet to the point of beginning. -im EXr'' THERZF.OM that oDr:icc conveyed to W.S. DuHose, at ux, by deed recorded March 11, 1968 in Hook 684, page 373, Wasit.t.gton County Records. zi .ro=e i .. Iii :; --• '4ttiS.T::Li na:caw • w.... MI. . - nuta+t•a e:ea... rt r 1�"': Rill CA7.WO. 1-31 :�r'�sM!! - TO 114►C•1a-a4) .—: i31SS 1 , (Cdrporauon) J TICOR TITLE INSURANCE r--..- -44.44,18; • STATE Or CALIFORNIA - EIH COUNTY or y_gf.t ig6 SS. i> ` ,.0 1,2104; On ry Pry a I I 14° before mc, th dmigncd, a Notary Public in and for _ •1 114 T =-� . saki Sutc,pcnuhally appeared ".1!eV l n P EGU t id personally known to me ur proved to me un the basis -:- :�1 . of satisfactory evidence to be the person who execute) iiat!'r C the within instrument as t c lc i;� �:rilti 2 t'residCRI,and i rl f' r,• — iP;:t- unall known to me or sue""- �•� proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence tube "� • the rcnon who executed the withir. instnrnhent at the t ��� CRYSTAL D.yEAGEA �:�;_. Q_ notate,Re1lC tatllaerW 1,'r, ,i Sccrctaty of rho Curpuratiun �s1 ;_ b', that executed the within instrument and acknowloigni PNINC•atb!lltaln 1. .. '. t /4), NMiI'aA tO1MtY aFr-_s .""1;� ro mt trio such corpunswn execut.:J the witain imtru• �* . Yt Caaegyal Gs Lot I.MI 0 r S! -, s .. tncnr pursuant to its by-laws in a resolution of its , Ilsklaer,- e board of Jircctnf/"� •,- Ott WITNESS my f•5ntl a n Ici . a ti. / iS Q,4-�p,,� ai►ati alp° 11 Signature 17hb.rc.for official notarid scJ1 S `r: j T 'i idtaif>i . -:a:+C»Tef __ f■#E .__� ■tt• . r• =` STATE OF OREGON ' z -- County of Wunlnptoo J SS -▪--•_•_ I.Oonaw W.Moron,puoclor of Asaessmunl - and Tuallon and E,OIRdo Records of Con• veyonces for said county,do hereby certify that '--- trio within k111niment IN wilting wes rocoived •—_-. and mooniest In bask of rocnrdJ of said county. H-7.W. Mason, Director of - Asaenment and Tuafon, Ex. - Offitlo County Clerk 1988 APR 26 PH 4:27 ;< 2. V...':•2...- '.411M 1 .. .. . •- .-r. -sleet m6 _..:-.•4 , l 01/31/2002 68:55 805-991A-1223 STEVE ECOFF PAGE 02 January 30, 2002 City of Tigard Land Ulm Planning Buikdi Department 13125W Hall Blvd. Tigard,,OR 97223 Regarding Land Use and Building Permit Applications for a Nextel Communications, Inc. Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon. Nextel reference; Metzger / Safeguard 080232-5 To Whin It May Concern: The Alaris Group, LLC is hereby authorized by Universus, a California general partnership, with an office at 442 Glenwood Drive, Oxnard, CA 93030, to submit Land Use and Building Permit Applications for the above referenced development. Should you have any questions, please contact either Steve Ecoff or Joel Gisler at the telephone numbers listed below. Thank,you. A , •afir _ _ 1 - 3c> Steve toff Date Unit' s, Managing Partner (805) 83-1223 Joel sler Date Univ us, Managing Partner (541) 317-8717 Jan 30 02 03: 08p .' -,1#Gisler 154 ' 9221836 p. 1 January 30, 2002 City of Tigard Land Use Planning Building Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • Regarding Land Use and Building Permit Applications for a Nextel Communications, Inc. Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon. Nextel reference; Metzger I Safeguard OR0232-5 To Whom It May Concern: The Alaris Group, LLC is hereby authorized by Universus, a California general partnership, with an office at 442 Glenwood Drive, Oxnard CA 93030, to submit Land Use and Building Permit Applications for the above referenced development. Should you have any questions, please contact either Steve Ecoff or Joel Gisler at the telephone numbers listed below. Thank you. Steve Ecoff Date Universus, Managing Partner (805) 983-1223 Vie! Gisler ^- -._ _ —� Date Universus, Managing Partner (541) 317-8717 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILLGIPOSTING NEIGHBORHOI/D MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE, TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT & COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, at1.v �u— , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the /C' = day of- 'tu,4;,Z4_- 20 01-, I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a propOsed development at(or near) I OSti',`; S� C-,,ZE Bc�c��� i�-�ai� 1-16+.4,1 ,a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 372S SW (6.--1 7=" Ai.,6 riParL kh cwt.- , with postage prepaid thereon. utCy— slr.Pe „/ , '17ZZS I Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: oac sS VAC-4u rte. I, Ce44AJ roSE L.(._ , o affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating'interest in a proposed affecting the land located at (state the approximate locations) IF no ad ress(s)and/or tax lot(s)current registered) t OS65 SAS C-106,51.1 Ru j?& !? r r I r-,A2/) c9 z2, and did on the 1 Off` day of Ar1/41Utl17--q , 20 OZ personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a i y pc ir '66VEL�PMEA(T"/ application, and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sin was posted at I `mac Ste( (. ' -� j 2 '���>♦ ' D k _.c-- (RD (fASC. 6 3L►,a1 • Pt4' 417-AC 67 (s - e location you posted notce on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF ) County of / ) ss. r - Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the < i day of ,r►.r. I4./ , 20 OZ ( ,� OFFICIAL SEAL l)) MANON B.BURKE r)) NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 0 COMMISSION NO.333536 (()) ' w- ,COMMISSION DIMES MAY 23,2004 l) ,Q.4)/ NO ARY PU LIC OF OREGON My mission Expires: 5:43 /04 Applicant, please complete the information below: NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject Property: Subject Property Tax Map(s)and Lot#(s): h:Vogin\pattylmasterslaffidavit of mailing-posting neighborhood meeting.doc January 10, 2002 Ackerly Communications of the Northwest, Inc. 3601 6th Ave S. Seattle, WA. 98134 RE: Type II Development Review Application for Nextel Communications, Inc. Dear Interested Party: Nextel Communications Inc. (Nextel), on behalf of the property owner, is in the process of filing a Type II Development Review Application for the property located at 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon, 1 S135BA— 03300. Nextel is proposing the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility, a cell site which will consist of a 70' steel monopole structure and a 12' x 24' equipment shelter adjacent to the monopole. The entire development will be enclosed within a 12' x 50' fenced compound in the interior of the existing fenced parent property. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: January 24, 2002 At The Richard Brown Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon From 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm Please notice this will be an informal meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal for the application to the City. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this proposal in more detail. Should you have questions, please call me at (503) 969-7527. Sincerely ' Sean C. Bell The Alaris Group Consultant to Nextel Communications, Inc. CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM AREA NOTIFIED (500') lila FOR: Sean Bell ry RE: 1S135BA, 3300 co Property owner information Is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. 11175NNSN C) > Cii.) jlll Ililir CO 0 11135M81188 D 0 m '�\\\\\ .a•NrNa ` ,� 41 „ SITE,�\\\�\ \\\ • N nt>raeeNN RMNNIN .p•N4N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet _1 41 1"=346 feet WINI14 fMNMIN tgN• iM Ii 4, City of Tigard IIIIL- AVE 110 SHADY LN Information on this map is for general location only and should be venfied with the Cevelopment Services Division. ` 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http//wvwd Ti tigard or.us Community Development Plot date:Jan 8, 2002;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR 1 S 135BA-03340 1 S 135B C-00200 ACKERLY COMMUNICATIONS OF GTE NORTHWEST INC THE NORTHWEST INC GARY N WILLIAMS 3601 6TH AVE S GTE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS SEATTLE, WA 98134 PO BOX 152206-HQCO2E26 IRVING,TX 75015 1S135BB-00501 1S135BD-00300 AMB PROPERTY L P HAZEL INTERNATIONAL INC BY GEORGE MCELROY&ASSOC BY NORRIS&STEVENS RE 3131 S VAUGHN WAY STE 301 520 SW 6TH#400 AURORA,CO 80014 PORTLAND,OR 97204 35BC-00600 1S 1358D-00200 AMB "•PERT - HUGGINS DONALD L&MARLENE R BY GEOR • •vCELROY&ASSOC 9785 SW SHADY LN 313 . AUGH 4 AY STE 301 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORA,CO 8001• 1S135BC-00201 1S135BA-02800 BELANICH ROGER M LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC BY SOUTHLAND CORP ATTN: DOUG MEATH PO BOX 711 12520 SW CANYON RD DALLAS,TX 75221 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1813513C-00202 1 S 135BA-03302 BELANICH ROGER M MARX ERNEST L&BARBARA R 22020 17TH AVE SE#200 TRUST BOTHELL,WA 98021 2140 VELOZ DR SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108 1S135B0-00500 13135BA-03303 CASCADE BLVD CENTER LLC& • = ERNEST L&BAR:•'.• R CORNELL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRUST BY ELLIOTT ASSOC INC 2140 V • D- 50 SW PINE STE 200 ' A BARBARA,CA - 38 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1 S 135BC-00500 1S135BA-00101 E E W ENTERPRISES LLC PPR SQUARE TOO LLC BY DESTINATION HARLEY DAVIDSON BY MACERICH COMPANY 10770 SW CASCADE AVE ATTN:JANET FISHER TIGARD,OR 97223 401 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 700 SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 15135BB-00800 1S135BA-00100 FOURIER GEORGE&JAN AND '-' SQUARE TOO LL LARSON ALAN W TRUSTEE BY MA ' CH CO, ANY 349 W 71ST ST#1 ATTN:JANE ' :ER NEW YORK, NY 10023 401 W . IRE BLVD: E 700 'TA MONICA,CA 90401 S13583-00700 1S126C0-01108 F• 'IER GEORGE : • 1 AND SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO LARS• 1L,• TRUSTEE DEPT 768TAX B2 116A 349 T ' :1 3333 BEVERLY RD • YORK, NY 110 3 HOFFMAN ESTATES,IL 60179 1S135BB-00600 151358C-00100 FOURIER GEORGE PER TOSCO CORP FOURIER JAN JACOB PROPERTY TAX DEPT-DC17 LARSON ALAN W PO BOX 52085 109 N LOTUS BEACH DR PHOENIZ,AZ 85072 PORTLAND,OR 97217 1 S i 35BC-0G3Gv UNITED STATES BAKERY PO BOX 14769 PORTLAND,OR 97214 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 Neighborhood Meeting Sign-Up Sheet January 24, 2002 The Richard Brown Auditorium 6:30pm-8:OOpm Subject: Type II Site Development Review Application to be submitted to the City of Tigard, Oregon, for a Nextel Communications, Inc. Wireless Telecommunications Facility Development Location: 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon Name (Please Print) Address Phone Number 1/4-"::: 1,.G hti� 04 S r` t,- C 0 Neighborhood Meeting Comment Sheet January 24, 2002 The Richard Brown Auditorium 6:30pm-8:OOpm Subject: Type II Site Development Review Application to be submitted to the City of Tigard, Oregon, for a Nextel Communications, Inc. Wireless Telecommunications Facility Development Location: 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon Comment Name 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Page 1 s r rathv€. TYPE II SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT: 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard Oregon 97223 Submitted to the City of Tigard, Oregon Applicant: Nextel Communications 8405 B SW Nimbus Ave Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Applicants Representative: The Alaris Group Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave. Portland, OR 97225 (503) 969-7527 Proposal Summary File Number: Subject Property Address: 10585 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 Parcel Number: 1 S135BA-3300 Property Owner: Universus, A California General Partnership 442 Glenwood Drive Oxnard, CA 93030 Request: Type II Site Development Review for proposed 70' monopole with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for at two additional carriers and Nextel's future antenna requirements, and accessory equipment shelter located in a 20' x 50', fenced compound. Applicant: Nextel Communications, Inc 8405 B SW Nimbus Ave. Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Applicant Site Reference: Metzger— Safeguard OR0232-5 Applicants Representative: The Alaris Group (Primary Contact) Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 (503) 969-7527 Office (503) 292-8593 Fax Land Use Designation: Industrial Park (I-P) Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 Type II Site Development Review Package Table of Contents I. Project Description Narrative II. Impact Study (TMC Chapters 18.390.40 & 18.390.50) III. Access (TMC Chapters 18.705 & 18.765) IV. Walkway Requirements (TMC Chapter 18.705.303) V. Special Setbacks (TMC Chapter 18.730.040) VI. Buffering and Screening (TMC Chapter 18.798.050) VII. Landscaping (TMC Chapter 18.745) VIII. Recycling (TMC Chapter 18.755) IX. Parking (TMC Chapter 18.765) X. Clean Water Services Buffer Standards XI. Clear Vision Area (TMC Chapter 18.795) Nextel Communications Metzger-Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 3 Type II Site Development Review Package I. Project Description Narrative Introduction Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) seeks to expand its Pacific Northwest Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) network to include the proposed wireless communications facility ("Facility") to be located at 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon in the Industrial Park (I-P) District. Nextel is requesting the review of a Type II Site Development Review for the aforementioned facility as described below. The Facility is considered permitted use with restrictions identified in table 18.530.1 of the Tigard Municipal Code Titlel8. Proposal The proposal consists of mounting five (5) ten-foot (10') omni-directional whip antennas on top of a 70' steel monopole. The monopole will be designed to hold additional antennas for up to 2 colocating carriers and for Nextel's future panel antennas. A 12'x 20' accessory equipment structure will be placed at the base of the monopole to house Nextel's radio equipment. The lease area is approximately 1,000 square feet (20'x 50') and will be set in the North West corner of the subject property. A six-foot chain link fence topped with twelve inches of barbed wire will provide security for the Facility. The facility will not require parking nor create noise or noxious odors. The proposed additional Facility will not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses. The Facility will not be a source of interference with existing electronic equipment, including radios, televisions and telephone transmissions. Non-interference is ensured by the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) regulation of radio transmissions. The Facility will be unmanned and, therefore, will not require water, waste treatment or management of hazardous waste. Minimal traffic will be generated during the 40-day construction phase while the crew is traveling to and from the site. After construction is completed, there will be approximately one visit per month by a Nextel field engineer for routine maintenance. The site will be in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nextel Communications Metzger-Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 4 Type II Site Development Review Package Current Site Description The site is currently 3.65 developed acres. The primary business of the parcel is the operation of Safeguard Mini-Storage. Property to the North is commercial. The property is bordered by SW Cascade Avenue to the West and bordered by the Greenburg off-ramp off of Hwy. 217 to the East. Property to the South is commercial. Nextel and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Nextel is the largest domestic operator of ESMR systems in the United States. ESMR is an advanced form of wireless communications, which offers a combination of features and services not previously available from cellular telephone or other wireless communications companies. The integrated digital communications system combines a digital cellular phone, group communication, a two-way radio, and an alphanumeric pager and voice mail in one handset. Like cellular telephone calls, ESMR calls are handed off from one facility, or "cell" to another as the caller moves through the area. This allows for reuse of a finite number of frequencies at low power levels. Need and Purpose for the Proposed Facility Nextel is continuing to build out its Pacific Northwest ESMR network, in compliance with the requirements of its FCC license. The need for a new site is dictated by market demand, capacity, coverage requirements for a particular geographic area, and the radio frequency hand-off from one site to another in order to achieve the objective of seamless communications coverage. Once the need for a new ESMR site in a particular geographic area has been established, Nextel's system engineers identify a target area, or "search ring," in which to locate the facility. The required site location and antenna height is determined by a propagation study. This study evaluates the expected radio-frequency (RF) signal from the proposed site at a given location and height. The RF signal must be strong enough to provide adequate coverage within the desired coverage area, however, emissions will never exceed 100 watts per channel. The selection and design of a specific ESMR site is further refined by considering local topographic and geographic factors, tree canopy, buildings, mountains, Nextel Communications Metzger-Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 5 Type II Site Development Review Package water bodies, the ability to mitigate the antenna support structure's visual impact, compatibility of the facility with existing land uses, and the ability to negotiate a mutually beneficial lease with a landlord. Because ESMR signals must travel in an unobstructed path from the facility to the user, the presence of any one or all of these can negatively influence the quality of transmissions and reception. The height and location of each Nextel site is, therefore, based upon the ability of the site to effectively function despite those obstacles. The purpose of the proposed Metzger - Safeguard facility is to provide in-vehicle and in-building coverage along the SW Cascade Avenue and Highway 217 corridors and primary coverage in the surrounding area. The proposed facility would "hand off' calls to the nearest surrounding Nextel sites. It is crucial for Nextel to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve its customers, and to comply with its Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license obligations. II. Impact Study (TMC Chapters 18.390.40 and 18.390.50) Pursuant to TMC Chapters 18.39040 and 18.390.50, the applicant must provide an impact study evaluating the following: 18.390.40 B. e) States e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Transportation System. The proposed development will not have any impact upon the current transportation system. After construction is completed, there will be approximately one visit per month by a Nextel field engineer for routine maintenance. Bikeways. The proposed development will not have any impact upon the bikeway system. Currently, this area does not have a dedicated bike path or bikeway network. Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 6 Type II Site Development Review Package Construction and maintenance will be completed without impacting or utilizing the Tigard bikeways system. Drainage System. The Facility will not generate nor add to the existing drainage system. The proposed location for the development is currently asphalt pavement. Pursuant to TMC Section 18.798.050 Nextel will remove a portion of asphalt, replacing it with soil, thereby decreasing the overall parcel runoff and drainage. Park System. The Facility will not have any impact on the current park system. Currently, there are no parks in the area. Water System. The Facility is unmanned and will not require additional utility services including water. Sewer System. The Facility is unmanned and will not require additional utility services including sewer. Noise Impacts. The only equipment that will create noise will be the air-conditioning units that will be affixed to the exterior of the equipment shelter. Please refer to the attached schedule of decibel ratings for the air conditioning units. III. Access (TMC Chapters 18.705 & 18.765) The parent parcel is currently in compliance with access requirements pursuant to TMC Section 18.705.030 General Provisions and TMC Table 18.705.3. Existing access for the primary use of the property extends off of SW Greenburg Road. The access gate is 30' in with and has adequate turn radius and no dead ends. Primary access for the Facility will be through the main entrance to the property. The Facility will be in compliance with TMC Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements and Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements. Table 18.765.2 states that there are no minimum requirements for off street parking for Wireless Communication Facilities. However, one designated parking stall will be located immediately to the east of the proposed compound. IV. Walkway Requirements (TMC Section 18.705.303) TMC Chapter 18.705.303, F. states; Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 7 Type II Site Development Review Package F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi- building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Response: This section does not apply to the proposed development. 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; Response: This section does not apply to the proposed development. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; Response: This section does not apply to the proposed development. As the proposed development is not a dwelling, ADA requirements are not required. 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: This section does not apply to the proposed development. Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 8 Type II Site Development Review Package The proposed development will not create, cross, or impact any existing or potential walkways in the area. V. Special Setbacks (TMC Chapter 18.730.040) Pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.730.040 Additional Setback Requirements and TABLE 18.730.1 Additional Centerline Setback Requirements the proposed development is required to be set back from the centerline of SW Cascade Blvd. The proposed development meets this criterion and will be set back 30' from the centerline of SW Cascade Blvd. VI. Buffering and Screening (TMC Chapter 18.798.050) B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Site Development Review per Section A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. Aesthetic: a. New towers shall maintain a non-reflective grey finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements; Response: The proposed development will consist of a new tower which will be finish with a non-reflective galvanized finish which will blend into the skyline. b. If collocation on an existing tower is requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors and textures that will match the existing tower or non-tower structure to which the equipment of the collocating provider is being attached; c. If collocation on an existing non-tower structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral color that is the same as the color as the supporting structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. Response: Proposed facility is a new tower. This section does not apply. 2. Setbacks: a. Towers designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back in accordance with the setbacks contained in the base zone; b. Towers not designed to collapse within themselves shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. Response: The proposed Facility does not meet a 1 to 1 setback as required in this code section. Please see the attached Type II Adjustment Application to address the setback requirements. Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 9 Type II Site Development Review Package 3. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. lf, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.798.080 without success, the provider will be required to build a tower less than 500 feet from an existing tower, it will be required to obtain a Type I adjustment governed by 18.370.020 C8b; Response: There are no towers within 500 feet of the proposed Facility. The proposal meets this criterion. 4. Tower height: No tower shall exceed 100 feet for a single user or 125 for multiple users; The proposed Facility meets this criterion. The monopole structure is 70 feet tall. 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA; Response: Nextel will light the monopole only if required by the FCC/FAA or other governing authority. 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence; Response: The proposed Facility will be surrounded by chain link on the north, east and west sides. The south side of the Facility will be partially fenced 25 feet from the existing fence along Cascade Avenue to the equipment shelter, where the fence will be terminated. A 6 foot chain link fence will continue from the south east corner of the equipment shelter and meet the east fence line. 7. Landscaping and screening: a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting; Response: The proposed landscape plan meets this criterion. Please see sheet L-1 of the attached drawings. b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless Nextel Communications Metzger-Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 10 Type II Site Development Review Package facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses; Response: The proposed Facility is not adjacent to residential uses, therefore this section dies not apply. 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when adjacent to a noise- sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. Response: The proposed Facility meets this criterion. The only noise generated from the facility will be the intermittent use of the air conditioning units, specifically during the summer months. The closest the A/C units will be located to an adjacent property line is approximately 5 1/2'. During operation of the A/C units the majority of the noise is directed straight out the front of the unit in a conical pattern at approximately 45°, not perpendicular to the unit. As a result the nearest point of noise generation will be approximately 10' to the nearest property line. At 10 feet the dBA rating for the NC units is 58.1. Additionally, landscaping will be placed on the north side further dissipating any noise generated. Please see attached measurement sheet and sheet L-1 of the attached drawings. C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and Building Codes and FAA. Response: The Applicant will apply for and receive necessary licenses, permits, and any other required authorizations prior to commencing construction. VII. Landscaping (TMC Section 18.745) TMC Section 18.745 Landscaping and Screening states; The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming (Section 18.760.040C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Nextel Communications Metzger-Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 11 Type II Site Development Review Package Response: The proposed Facility will not increase on-site parking or loading requirements nor will it change access requirements. Although, TMC Section 18.745.040 Street Trees applies, it would be impractical for the Applicant to plant street trees along Cascade Avenue. The addition of trees along the west end of the proposed development would impair visibility of vehicles exiting the property onto Cascade Avenue. Additionally, the addition of street trees would block the gates at the west end of the subject parcel thereby rendering them inaccessible. VIII. Recycling (TMC Chapter 18.755) Pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste And Recyclable Storage Although this section . . . shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. The proposed Facility will not generate any mixed solid waste or recyclable material. The Facility is unmanned and visited once approximately every 45 days by an electronics technician. Aside from any miscellaneous litter from surrounding uses, there will not be any trash generated. A wastebasket will be placed inside the equipment shelter for the technicians use. IX. Parking (TMC Chapter 18.765) TMC Chapter 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS does not specifically address parking for unmanned wireless facilities. However, one designated parking place will be allocated for the Nextel technician. ADA parking requirements do not apply. X. Clean Water Services Buffer Standards Please refer to the attached letter from Clean Water Services dated February 12, 2002, stating that the proposed project is exempt from the Service Letter Requirement (Resolution and Order 00-7 Section 3.02.1). XI. Clear Vision Area (TMC Chapter 18.795) The proposed development meets the criteria outlined in TMC Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas. From the facilities new gate exiting onto SW Cascade Avenue, a clear vision triangle measuring 30', both north and south, as measured from the centerline of the driveway from the building setback, 25' east of the west property line of the parent parcel, is maintained. Nextel Communications Metzger- Safeguard Facility OR0232-5 12 Type II Site Development Review Package TYPE II ADJUSTMENT STATEMENT FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT: 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard Oregon 97223 Submitted to the City of Tigard, Oregon Applicant: Nextel Communications 8405 B SW Nimbus Ave Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Applicants Representative: The Alaris Group Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave. Portland, OR 97225 (503) 969-7527 Proposal Summary File Number: Subject Property Address: 10585 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 Parcel Number: 1S135BA-3300 Property Owner: Universus, A California General Partnership 442 Glenwood Drive Oxnard, CA 93030 Request: Type II Adjustment Statement for proposed 70' monopole with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for at two additional carriers and Nextel's future antenna requirements, and accessory equipment shelter located in a 20' x 50', fenced compound. Applicant: Nextel Communications, Inc 8405 B SW Nimbus Ave. Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Applicant Site Reference: Metzger — Safeguard OR0232-5 Applicants Representative: The Alaris Group (Primary Contact) Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave Portland, OR 97225 (503) 969-7527 Office (503) 292-8593 Fax Land Use Designation: Industrial Park (I-P) Type II Adjustment Statement Pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.370.020 Adjustments, the applicant is required to apply for a special adjustment for the setback requirements for wireless communications towers. TMC Chapter 18.370.020, 8. a. states By means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located; Response: The proposed Facility including the monopole, meet the setback requirements for the Industrial Park (I-P) zone pursuant to TMC Table 18.530.2 Development Standards In Industrial Zones which are as follows; Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 35 ft. Side Yard 0150 ft. [3] Rear yard 0150 ft [3] [4] [3] No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4] Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. Response: Front Yard Setback The proposed facility meets the Front Yard setback requirements. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks The underlying parcel is not adjacent to a residential use and is not abutted to the Rolling Hills neighborhood. The property is bordered by SW Cascade Avenue to the West and bordered by the Greenburg off-ramp off of Hwy. 217 to the East. Property to the South is commercial. Therefore, the minimum Side Yard setback is 0 ft. Other potential locations on the underlying parcel were evaluated, however no other location was identified that met the requirements of both the property owner and the applicant. Due to the nature of the property owners business, a mini- storage facility, unused land for a development of this nature is limited. This was the only location available. • CleanWater Services Our Cnnin1ilnlCni i, ,ic,II. February 12, 2002 Sean Bell The Alaris Group, LLC 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave. Portland, OR 97225 Re: Cell tower & equipment pad located at 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR CWS file 1753 (Tax map 1S135BA, Tax lot 03300) Clean Water Services (District) has reviewed your proposal for the above referenced site. District staff found that the proposed project is entirely over existing pavement and no new impervious area is proposed. This project is therefore exempt from the Service Provider Letter requirement (Resolution and Order 00-7 Section 3.02.1). All other required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state, and federal law. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 503-846-3613. Sincerely, Heidi Berg Site Assessment Coordinator \\mo_serv_04\eng$\Development Svcs\SP 00-7\Misc Corrospondence\I S135BA03300-exempt-existing impervious.doc 155 N First Avenue,Suite 270• Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Phone: (503)846-8621 •Fax:(503)846-3525•www.cleanwaterservices.org February 5, 2002 Clean Water Services Attn.: Chuck Buckallew 155 N. First Avenue Suite 270 Hillsboro, OR 97124 VIA US MAIL RE: Clean Water.'services File Number 1753 Land Use Application for a Nextel Communications, Inc. Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at 10585 SW Greenberg Road, Tigard, OR. 1 S1358A-03300 Nextef reference; Metzger/Safeguard OR0232-5 Dear Mr. Buckallew: Pursuant to the attached Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment, Nextel Communications, Inc. is required by Clean Water Services to provide a Site Certification prior to the issuance of a Service Provider Letter. Please evaluate t1 a following additional information for this request. The proposed 12'x 50' facility will consist of one 12'x20' prefabricated equipment shelter directly adjacent to a 70' steer rnonopole. The entire tac,ility will be located entirely on an existing asphalt surface. No additional impervious surfaces will be aided. Landscape screening will be added to the east, south, and north perimeters of the fenced compound, thereby eliminating approximately 580 square feet of existing asphalt. The facility will not contribute to nor increase existing runoff. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me via telephone at (503) 969-7527 or via email at sear @belldesignin:corn. Very Truly o s Sean C. Bell on behalf of Next&Communications, Inc The Alaris Group, L LC 3600 SW Ridgewood Ave. Portland, OR 97226 Enclosures: 81/2"x 11"Site&Land:;cape Plan Photos of existing development area LSI Adapt Site&Exploration Plan a i - - - - - - - - wnYJ0'W 33..r - ----� N ' r- 1 \N \N NOEL a Al 1 I .%48'''44.4. 6705 5W POROUS AVE.3RD FLOOR I r ■ \ \ BEAVERION,OR.97008 -,RCUECT INFORMATION: a METZGER/SAFEGUARD 1 r r ``I�`0N" h OR0232-4 PROPOSED I ' I \_(E)dro EcE 81� G �� NNN O585 SW OREENBURC RD. T4GARD, OR.27723 IS ^1 8j ny�[, \ WASHINGTON CWN1Y PROJECT IJ J aw Owc \ \ \ r AR® ( 1 r 01/30/02 �J SEE 1 —� 1 var.......A (�_..\ \ VEER'! • t , ZONING SUBMITTAL Tnlo.osm"°' • LAN hit A Nf ICI STORAGE POWER �F �' \ --- . , =. III E V -►a GMr I R m 1 \11,4,, \\ 1 I YoRY�.-Ea Rr..RC. _ 6f,r,-- /1 L -.—� �0 sung 5`ry PgER M �r — — — — — — — — — — — — KDC Rot a T,ITaR[, NM TRwYwYCR IAwlY]o'r OW; /'''' / I XO....lr aS P t�R_� [I UR.c[ C jC� NYa1i ( i /i `MT` ` ([)YRRT (CI 20.02 � aa�o / /N ewfaO[a�w 11% S'S U%>-'--- E - RECEIVED SITE PLAN ,r„Lz1•.atr 1 1 - - _ _ ■ FEB 13 2002■°"O ao \ r N N.\ CITY OF TIGARD -RE�V.. DATE- DE CPoP N--B. •a i PLANNING/ENGINEFRING /°\ ,.., Pa TO, AOl NN NOT USED 5 A 0,/30702 ' `°'°^ N TOR.[ +.. 1 N \ Mtn TO ORr r+E MOM USW Yam Pm[. .ER I I I� N TRra[YIRrn m 0E s[0..uTRm we \ \ MIER TO R[ROOTED L000ACROM TO ERKTMC YOUM a�( \ POLL LOOMED AI Or AMMO COIRa Or m aL*MY .7 \ PoR[A To 1 RoYr[o C 0 0 To e[+unm Turn To OE ROUTED 60 06023 TO TRY YTWTT RAG I I \ \ OW MONO TEEa MID/9023 \\ N '°`mow. I ` POWER/TELCO NOTES 4 ,_N I I n. r Rm�roO'r ��. - _ .'N'• N SITE PLAN w.n• ���1 wnrao'r :RO.ov �`{ >.PEW. w«Tn.AE sw[u,m..R[° GEM.-tr YeRGPOLL � ••nER."vrccTa['a,ro.nPORTm+ERTu wi•xY�o mo.or - - - - - - &Ila SuPPpoolT"R"' r ryoT, SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: 0r-r SMACK E ro J A-1 BOUNDARY PLAN SCALE 1.48.4. 2 ZONING NOTES 1 3 2015057 MT MIAMI r i saw i .� v i . [182112 0 RELE111:ED c waits 'FP M m� i s Palle A-ADDE 0 15'-10' RCAF 1r GS • -- m SUN MANUFACIVADIC Dle. IMO 8 ADDED 40'-100' READINGS _•, ;a ihi--e4 MOM Ai0A0lI 02/01/94 M4A c.: , 1E..±----- - i ', WARM— .116 MOP DECIBEL. RATINGS _.___ -- -1-—t- C° r CT Z - - - --- - -- - - Vtr — 45 - 2.0 TOM \ . 7/ /D / Q i ' \N. FEET 13 I FEET Dli_ lO' 58.1 10' t Sea 15' 54.9 ! 15' 55.F w •20' 53.4 20' 53.E 25' 52.2 iT_ET DO 25' 52.9 f; 30'50.8 10' -60.0 30' 51.5 15• 57.5 2D' 56.1 (N .25' f 54.5 �- 3e' 53.2 . 40' 52.1 m' S0 51.3 --. 60' 50.3 . 70' 49.5 -4' 80' 487 ° 90' 47 7 "' 100' 464 n, Q m NOTEt Measured with a Hand held Brruel S. Kjaer 2232 l:reclslom digital so and aeter. cm e v : 002112 0 ; Rfr.1. = :w.imens P at cb NM C;3191 NMI MB Pat A ADDED 151-?A` RCAT INGS 04/63/ m Steir 11418771071111.110 MU ADDED 40'--100' READINGS .54 , 02/01:94 JMc_A _ DECIBEL r RATINGS _� `�_' .._.-1-- = c. o. • d - ...--"K Ar . _ _______ i 1.5 - s?.D Tom Z _--- ----- \\45. i w 7 I \ FEET D3 FEET 1 DB 10' 58.1 10' / 58.1 0 20' 53.4 1 5 55.€ FEET DB 2A' 53.6 30' 5O.( W' 60.0 38' 51.5 15` 57.5 :t 20' 55.1 NI 25' 3 54,5 cp. 3l.:' 53.2 tD - 40' 52.1 50' 513 60` 50:3 ,__ - 70' 495 $0' 48.7 90' 47.7 100' i 464 M Q NOTEI Measured with o Rand held Bruet S. K joer 2232 preL Isien digital. so Ind ;Teter. m CITY OF TIOARD Community Development Snaping A Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = 7/9/2002 FILE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2002-00003 Type II Land Use Application ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2002-00007 Type I Land Use Application FILE TITLE: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. OWNER: Universus 8405 B SW Nimbus Avenue 442 Glenwood Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Oxnard, CA 93030 PHONE/FAX: 503-969-7527/503-292-8593 805-983-1223 APPLICANT'S The Alaris Group REP. Attn: Sean Bell 3600 SW Ridgewood Avenue Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 70-foot monopole tower with 5, ten-foot whip antennas mounted on top, structural integrity for up to two additional carriers and future antenna requirements, and an accessory equipment shelter located in a 20 x 50-foot chain link fenced compound. An Adjustment has also been requested to the requirement that the tower be set back from any property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. LOCATION: 10585 SW Greenburg Road; WCTM 1S135BA, Tax Lot 3300. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, CRITERIA: 18.745, 18.765, 18.795 and 18.798. CIT AREA: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ['TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: MARCH 12, 2002 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: MARCH 26, 2002 ❑HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ® STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 15, 2002 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION 1 ® VICINITY MAP ® LANDSCAPING PLAN ® IMPACT STUDY ® SITE PLAN ® SITE ELEVATIONS ❑ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Z NARRATIVE ❑ GEOTECH REPORT Z OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171, Ext. 407 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON February 19, 2002 Sean Bell c/o The Alaris Group 3600 SW Ridgewood Avenue Portland, OR 97225 RE: Completeness Review-Nextel Wireless Facility, Case File No. SDR2002-00002 Dear Mr. Bell: The City has received your application for Site Development Review (SDR2002-00002) to construct a 70 foot tall wireless telecommunications facility in the Safeguard Storage site. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the following additional information is necessary before the application can be deemed complete: 1. There is no landscape plan included with the application. Once this additional information is submitted, staff will deem the application complete and begin the formal review process. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 639-4171, extension 407. Sinc- ely, Morga Tracy Associate Planner Enclosure C: Nextel Communications, Inc., Attn. Sean Bell SDR2002-00002 Land Use File is\curp1n\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2002-00003(nextel)\sdr2002-00002 incomplete.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 (--- CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 11 , 2002 Sean Bell do The Alaris Group 3600 SW Ridgewood Avenue Portland, OR 97225 RE: Notice of Complete Application Submittal — SDR2002-00003 Dear Mr. Bell: The City has received the information necessary to begin the review of your Site Development Review application (SDR2002-00003). Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as complete and will begin the review process. The estimated time for rendering a decision from the date an application is deemed complete is 5-6 weeks. If you have any questions regarding your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely, CItA----)/ Morga Tracy Associate Planner C: SDR2002-00003 Land Use File i:\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2002-00003(nextel)\sdr2002-00003 complete.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 saloN DNEflI4MOD lNiOI ,I,VDI'IddV ilild CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION OF TIGARD,OREGON Community CONFERENCE NOTES shaping A setter Community (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) NON-RESIDENTIAL REAR NIG CAE TWA- � A- APPLICANT: WCX 41 6orroi✓n r titi/6 t S AGENT: Sean &-rl (4/0(05 tin) Phone: (9-213) 46' Phone: (co)d 96 4- Z1- PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: 1059 5 SLJ f?reed y TAX MAP(S)/LOT#(S): IS 13 $fF - 03300 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: S+4 alve.(q ere Fe✓+ct,� 1pe-2ri Air uc. er - PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: 704 t I-r.I( r'1 0, 74. for I pceeseritai-a 4! COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Lt7M- IncluS 1-ricd ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: 17 (I n otv3 Fe' (Po-r L) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.)AREA: Ect.,,4' ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. 530 I MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 0 sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: So ft. Max. building height: 'lb ft. Setbacks: Front 715 ft. Side� ft. Rear 0 ft. Corner 20 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: '75 %� Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: ? %. 7fid' ncrl,. 4 10% F(Ahai c- cftl{+Ct t) IF Slo )SO- g arz, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S) of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 NON-Residential Applicabon/Planning Division Section NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. Q IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 2 ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765] Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: 7-11 All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: [71 WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.105.030] WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. No} flu, p;'N"1 ✓x, 6,.h u.Ao riot- in{uklc, i t' any! �tiyf lad or 1�k."1u( w4ttcway,. 1 Mr SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 ) > STREETS: 30 feet from the centerline of 5 iw s c'a-af > LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: ,," feet, along the site's boundary. > FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. FJ//4- �// from i1 vi( tLI�CLf Inc r!t. c- '(O. r Tr Y064 Lett u-re- ? 't1/1,51,/11 ez7� C.�. I SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.BJ BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: > A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; > All actual building setbacks will be at least half (1/2) of the building's height; and > The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter $ l S °]9 . 050_3. In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to yourproposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.105] STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. Fi RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Please aao4Y.s5 ►^ eu-rruh vc- fu.ivAt a� s�C gGnu�fah Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. 0 PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.165.040] REQUIRED parking for this type of use: ? cc, niaj- /efvlutn AWL tICILL Ikr0 ,,1 ( Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): 5�N►c ty �on4r4f- c- 4A Cr Ga w�41k. t loS�r`c- ',hoa/ t14 CLPtAL oft yI IG-A�7. Or SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: 1 Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. :- Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3)feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: k 7 1+ All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. I I LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.765.080) Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Fri BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code section 18.765) BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. 1 I STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.715.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. Se,v vi c.1, L Re etrc tk 1 1 CLEARWATER SERVICES(CWS)BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA 4 CORRIDOR PER SIDE • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 15 feet 10 to <50 acres >50 to <100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 30 feet • 10 to <50 acres >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25%slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet,if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Restrictions in the Vegetate corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. a-CWS Service Provider Letter: I j L - (Jo_ I (_c_JS' PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. H SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.CJ A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. ❑ MITIGATION [Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.E.1 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: * The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. N CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.195) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. [ I WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT [Refer to Code Section 18.797.030) The WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs). ➢ Major streams in Tigard include FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). ➢ The standard TUALATIN RIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ The MAJOR STREAMS RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Cleanwater Services (CWS) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. I RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.797.1001 The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.100 that demonstrates all of the following: • Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; • The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; • That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.797.100 regulating removal of native plant species; • That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and • The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. I I ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 21/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1Y2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330(Conditional Use) 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loading Standards) Requirements) 18.340(Director's Interpretation) 18.630(Washington Square Regional 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) 7 Center) 18.350(Planned Development) 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) 18.780(Signs) `7/ 18.360(Site Development Review) 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) V 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) 18.715(Density Computations) /18.790(Tree Removal) 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) 'r/ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) V/18.725(Environmental Performance 18.797 (Water Resources (WR) Overlay Standards) District) V 18.390(Decision Making 18.730(Exceptions To Development 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) Procedures/Impact Study) Standards) 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) 18.740(Historic Overlay) / 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) 18.420(Land Partitions) 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) 18.430(Subdivisions) 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 7. 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 NON-Residental Application/Planning Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: i) 5d-i,tcks r weir -'7198.050,8.2) rtod'n ' T Pc el jvs �/�(vie rept 2� Pro,�[t,1s- {Dwu'v rd(or S/7to/ wJJ Cc,.fc5 A/ieJy is wi{tr app of wig b.p. 5v4,a,k1 a*,Rea-val. 0vc cktj FOLA/Gr rvt.cd4 ki l a v n dc,r5 r*OA 44 _t. Sv v• �. (or feu_ �lr.,.�lo'n+wrJ�acca c)12rvvuIC. no1� to 9 �q p *� 9 1� �� l�ol� r.►��-ru./l�tn ✓( wun C1`t L Z.,n/ua r / f 6) Cg, 4th, Pta` 'iv 9404., acs✓ aye I� 10 of ', ureaso!` e?Ctsh/Jd larldSCa, 0ASi1. 7� ti✓idi,t \��p�•LF +v (Yp 1 A.d jcist r*cr�1l'� evaL4I kI a �>territiw . 10 {zon5 �/( Stk dL l,omv� ,A,L��f (=1 S/it NG1c.1L S�it4 te.JAAA, vtsv(A [MPctc!-'(or 10(41-(.tt� rtiorc/.nf o1 11 et^ Q/o ck /�u�-�ara'�t Au-4c tocJJ7or4 5 Aft, t.nreaSl12(L• / of 9) Le,.�•t c p l n re. t rr r1 cc/1904 l so-silt' of e°✓1 L[o 4 U Pc_ 6 r 4.1111-PI % °P-Ale--- `n K) t satAkt.L of t,,e4t- Wptriii L ,t PROCEDURE / j" Administrative 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. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS 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. The Planning counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 81/2" x 11" 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. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section 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. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appe I period follows II land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard flec`r t/11 s OWILef . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended thai a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: Morq .iri CITY OFIGARD PLANING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503)639-4171 FAX: (503)684-7297 E-MAIL:(staffs first namel @ci.tigard.or.US TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: ci.tigard.or.us H:Ipattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 18-Jan-2001 (Engineering section:preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Secfion ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ;o — g RECEIVED PLANNING January 10, 2002 JAN 1 1 2002 CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard Current Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Type II Development Review Application for Nextel Communications, Inc. Dear Interested Party: Nextel Communications Inc. (Nextel), on behalf of the property owner, is in the process of filing a Type II Development Review Application for the property located at 10585 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon, 1S135BA — 03300. Nextel is proposing the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility, a cell site which will consist of a 70' steel monopole structure and a 12' x 24' equipment shelter adjacent to the monopole. The entire development will be enclosed within a 12' x 50' fenced compound in the interior of the existing fenced parent property. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: January 24, 2002 At The Richard Brown Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon From 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm Please notice this will be an informal meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal for the application to the City. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this proposal in more detail. Should you have questions, please call me at (503) 969-7527. Sincere) Sean C. Bell The Alaris Group Consultant to Nextel Communications, Inc.