Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Tower Construction 2009-11
CITY OF SANDY ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARCHIVING tiff COVER SHEET FOLDER STRUCTURE Si N T Y rim (department) �(1wr�S DOCUMENT NAME: (OwE CiMITICLtcT to ) — I 1 DATRANGE: 201J- t5- 2006-2010 SCANTED 2000-2005 1980-1985 22— J7!_ 1995-2000 1975-1980 1990-1995 1970-1975 1985-1990 Before 1975 RETENTION: None /10 years 1 year V 20 years 2 years Permanent 5 years DISPOSITION OF DOCUMENT AFTER SCANNING: Return to Department tore at ' Recycle BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON Regarding an application for a conditional use permit ) FINAL ORDER to establish a 120 steel lattice telecommunications ) Casefile No. facility in the rural residential farm forest zone. ) Z0101-11-C ) Z0102-11-D ) (City of Sandy) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, City of Sandy, requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an approximately 120 foot tall steel lattice telecommunications facility in the rural residential fann forest 5 acre (RRFF-5) zone. The application would allow the placement of the steel lattice tower and antennas for broadband service to rural residents near the City of Sandy. 2. The subject property is located at 9765 SE 302nd Lane, Boring, Oregon, 97055. The subject property is approximately 22.53 acres in size and would be located near an existing out building. As proposed, the tower would be located within approximately 50 feet of the eastern property boundary. 3. On May 5, 2011, hearings officer Kenneth Helm (the "hearings officer") conducted a public hearing to receive testimony and evidence about the application. County staff recommended approval of the application with conditions of approval. Two parties testified in opposition to the application primarily based on concerns about the location and visibility of the proposed tower. 4. The contested issues in application are: a. Whether the application adequately considered alternative locations on the subject property for the proposed tower under ZDO 835.06. b. Whether lighting would be required for the tower to meet Oregon Department of Aviation requirements under ZDO 835.08(E). c. Whether the gray color of the proposed tower will be obtrusive and inconsistent with ZDO 835.08(C). d. Whether the proposed tower will not alter the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding lands consistent with ZDO 1203.01(D). e. Whether the proposal can comply with Clackamas County Roadway Standards as applied to the private driveway between SE 302nd Lane and the tower site. Hearings Officer Final Order 20101-11-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 1 f. Whether the application demonstrates that an adjustment of the setback requirement of ZDO 835.09(C)(3) is warranted under ZDO 835.11(A). B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on May 5, 2011. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Planning Division, Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer stated that the only relevant criteria were those identified in the staff report, that participants should direct their comments to those criteria, and failure to raise all arguments may result in waiver of arguments at subsequent appeal forums. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected relevant testimony. a. At the hearing, County planner Scott Hoelscher summarized the staff report and the history of the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions. b. He explained that the tower is intended to provide broadband service to residents and businesses in the rural Sandy area, not residents within the city. Access to the site would be by an approximately 3000 foot existing private drive from SE 302nd Lane to the subject property. He stated that the applicant had raised concerns about the County's recommended improvements to the private drive. c. Staff agreed with the applicant's proposal to leave the steel tower in its natural gray color because it would better blend in with existing trees to the extent the tower will be visible to other residents. d. He explained that the applicant was requesting an adjustment of the setback from the eastern property line from 120 feet to 50 feet. Based on the application materials, staff concluded that visual impacts to surrounding properties might be increased by the adjustment, and that the adjustment was not needed to fill a gap in coverage capacity. For those reasons, staff opposed the adjustment. e. At the hearings officer's request, Mr. Hoelscher described how the federal regulations applicable to the location of telecommunications facilities require local governments to presume that the facilities do not emit electro-magnetic radiation ("EMR") at levels harmful to humans. He explained that local land use applications for telecommunications facilities may not denied on the basis of purported harm caused by EMR . 2. Scott Lazenby, speaking on behalf of the City of Sandy explained the city's desire for the new tower. He stated that the existing antennas on the home just to the east of the subject property had been providing service, but that the service was Hearings Officer Final Order Page 2 Z0101-11-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) limited by the height of those antennas. He described the proposed tower as lightweight and unobtrusive. He said the city has taken responsibility for providing broadband service to residents in the rural areas near Sandy, and the proposed tower will be funded at least in part by federal stimulus funds. a. Mr. Lazenby stated that the city was concerned that the required 120 foot setback from the eastern boundary line would cause visual impacts both to the subject property and neighbors. He explained that line-of-sight to the south is needed to allow the tower to function optimally, and that the tower locations in the 120 foot setabck vicinity would require many tall trees to be cut down. In contrast, he stated that the proposed location is at a high point on the property and as a result, many fewer trees would need to be removed at that location. He stated that the city would accept the 120 foot setback, but based on the topography and tree cover of the subject property, the proposed location of the tower would be better for everyone. Exhibit 12. b. On the issue of required road improvements, he stated that after the tower is installed, a service vehicle will travel the private drive about once every three months for monitoring and maintenance. He indicated that the city believes that due to this low number of vehicle trips, recommended conditions 15-18 are unnecessary. 3. City attorney Chris Crean discussed several legal issues related to the concerns the city raised. a. On the issue of required road improvements, he stated that ZDO Section 1007 is a very general grant of authority for the County to ensure the adequacy and safety of the transportation system. That section, he said, did not provide specific standards for unmanned wireless systems. He argued that in part because ZDO Section 1007 does not place specific limitations on the exercise of the County's authority to demand road improvements, it is appropriate to look for a rational relationship between the desired road improvements and the transportation impacts that the proposed use will actually generate. In this case, the road improvements contemplated by recommended conditions 15-18 are excessive, he argued, because the facility will generate a minimal number of additional vehicle trips per month. b. He explained that the city's concern over the requested road improvements seemed too open ended. The city believes that some parts of the private drive are likely to already meet the County Roadway Standards, while other sections may need minor improvement. Without knowing the full scope of upgrades that recommended conditions 15-18 might impose, the city was resistant to accepting the conditions. Instead, he suggested that those conditions be replaced with a single condition generally requiring the applicant and the Traffic Engineering department to consult on necessary roadway improvements to support the use. 4. The hearings officer asked Ken Kent of the Transportation Engineering department to testify on the intent behind proposed conditions 15-18. He stated that the conditions were designed to ensure that the private drive met the County's Roadway Hearings Officer Final Order ZOIOI-II-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 3 Standards, because the use of the road by the broadband company might necessitate heavier equipment trucks and would in essence make the private drive into a private roadway which has more stringent right-of-way and design standards. Mr. Kent stated that most of the private drive appears to meet current roadway standards and it was not the County's intent to require the applicant to reconstruct the entire 3000 feet of private driveway. 5. The owner of the subject property, James Crawford testified that the private driveway has previously supported heavy equipment and log trucks. He thought other equipment trucks and emergency vehicles would place no additional burden on the driveway. a. He explained in more detail which area of the property would need to have trees removed in order to conform to the 120 foot setback. Due to the much lower elevation of the area 120 back from the eastern property line, it was his estimation that most if not all the trees between the proposed 50 foot setback location and the 120 foot setback location would need to be removed. Exhibit 12. He noted that other trees on his property that have been tagged are not intended to be removed. Those trees were tagged to measure their height relative to the proposed tower. 6. Patty Gentry testified in opposition to the application. She stated that the notice of the hearing was inaccurate in that the proposed tower would also serve some residents of Sandy. She generally objected to a new tower in the area because the existing antennas were already in place, and the new tower was a poor use of tax payer dollars. She also stated that fiber optic cable will soon provide service to Sandy, so the tower will not be needed. She further identified concerns with several specific provisions of the ZDO. a. She argued that ZDO 835.06 required the applicant to look at alternative locations for the tower on the subject property and the applicant had not done so. b. She stated that ZDO 835.08(E) could require the tower to be fitted with a light, and she was concerned that the light would be obtrusive to the neighborhood. c. She objected to leaving the tower color in its natural gray (galvanized) state because she felt that it will be visible to neighbors and would not comply with ZDO 835.08(C). She was also concerned about screening for the tower and indicated that the 120 foot setback would provide more and better screening. d. She also argued that the proposal does not meet ZDO 1203.01(D) because the tower will likely be viewed negatively by potential homebuyers, and therefore, decrease the value of her property. Hearings Officer Final Order Page 4 Z0101-1/-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) 7. Estavar Gaona raised the same concerns about the tower's visibility and the potential annoyance caused if the tower were required to be lit. 8. Upon returning to staff, Mr. Hoelscher noted that if the 120 foot setback is used, then the conditions related to screening would not be needed. The screening requirements only apply if the adjustment to a 50 foot setback is allowed. He also warned that if the tower is designed for collocation, which the conditions require, some additional vehicle trips would result. 9. Scott Lazenby and Chris Crean made final comments for the applicant. Mr. Lazenby stated that the city was willing to engage with Traffic Engineering to determine the extent of needed road improvements to the private drive necessary to meet County Roadway Standards. He recommended a general condition requiring the applicant and the County to agree to and implement the needed improvements. a. Mr. Crean noted that because the existing antennas on the adjacent property were already being serviced periodically no new vehicle trips would result from the new tower because the old antennas would be retired. On the issue of alternative locations for the tower, he argued that the opponents had not identified any alternative locations that would meet the service needs of the proposed tower location, and therefore, there was no substantive basis for their arguments. 10. The hearings officer infonned all participants that the record could be left open upon request. No request was made, and the hearing and the record closed on May 5, 2011. C. DISCUSSION 1. Before reaching the contested issues identified above, it is necessary to address some of the testimony which is not relevant to this application. a. The opponent's objection to the notice of hearing does not constitute a procedural error. The notice was sufficient to inform neighbors of the proposal and the time and place of the hearing. The opponents were able to testify. The fact that the proposed tower may also incidentally provide broadband service to some residents within the City of Sandy does not invalidate the notice. b. All testimony, both written and oral concerning EMR cannot be considered and is, therefore, irrelevant. c. Testimony regarding the efficient spending of federal tax dollars on this project, and whether the service is needed because fiber optic networks might be available in the future are also unresponsive to the applicable code criteria. Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-1/-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 5 2. The first contested issue is whether the application adequately considered alternative locations on the subject property for the proposed tower consistent with ZDO 835.06. a. ZDO 835.06(B) states that"[t)he Hearings Officer may require the applicant to provide information about possible alternate locations on the tract." This provision also grants the hearings officer discretion to require placement of the tower in an alternate location if such a location would be in greater compliance with the conditional use criteria in ZDO 1203. However, this provision does not place the burden of proof on the applicant to explore alternative locations. b. At the hearing, the applicant and the property owner explained that consideration was given to placing the proposed tower in other locations. However, the property owner and the applicant determined that the best location to meet service needs, and to limit the tower's visibility to neighbors, in addition to retaining trees on-site, would be at the proposed location in Exhibit 12. The opponents did not provide any specific locations that they alleged would be superior or offer any evidence to support such locations. c. As discussed in more detail below, the testimony objecting to the tower location based on ZDO 1203.01(D) is unpersuasive, and therefore, insufficient to warrant, in this instance, exercise of the hearings officer's discretion to require the tower to be located in an alternate spot. For all these reasons, I find that the applicant has adequately complied with ZDO 835.06(B). 3. The second question is whether lighting would be required for the tower to meet Oregon Department of Aviation requirements under ZDO 835.08(E). a. ZDO 835.08(E) forbids lighting on telecommunication towers unless required by state or federal regulations. The record shows that the Oregon Department of Aviation was provided notice of the proposal and did not respond. The applicant is not proposing lighting for the tower. A condition of approval will also forbid lighting on the tower. This criterion is met. 4. The third question is whether the proposed gray color of the tower would be obtrusive and inconsistent with ZDO 835.08(C). a. ZDO 835.08(C) requires telecommunication towers to be painted or coated in a way that makes the tower"as visually unobtrusive as possible." Staff found that the unpainted steel gray lattice tower is typically the most unobtrusive color and blends well in the surrounding environment. The opponents object to the color, but provided no alternative based on substantial evidence. I find that staff's past experience in implementing this section constitutes substantial evidence that, in this instance, the steel gray galvanized color will blend best with the surrounding environment. This criterion is met. Hearings Officer Final Order Page 6 Z0101-11-C&Z0102-I1-D(City of Sandy) 5. The fourth question is whether the proposed tower will not alter the sun-ounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding lands consistent with ZDO 1203.01(D). a. The opponents generally suggested that having the tower in the vicinity will impact their use and enjoyment of their property. They state that they moved to the rural area to enjoy the views and be away from human made infrastructure. The hearings officer understands and is sympathetic to this point of view. However, past hearings officers' decisions implementing ZDO 1203.01(D) have consistently held that this section does not require proof of"no impact"to surrounding property owners. This record shows that while there may be some visual impacts to neighboring properties caused by the tower, it will not substantially limit, impair or preclude the residential or faun forest use of surrounding properties. The hearings officer inquired of Ms. Gentry whether the tower would be in her view shed of Mt. Hood which would be the most significant view to be preserved in the area. Her response was no. For these reasons, I find that the application adequately complies with ZDO 1203.01(D). 6. The fifth question is whether the proposal can comply with Clackamas County Roadway Standards as applied to the private driveway between SE 302nd Lane and the tower site. a. The County's Traffic Engineering department reviewed this application and recommended conditions 15-18 to ensure that the private drive off of 302nd Lane could be improved to Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The applicant responded that if conditions 15-18 were interpreted to require a complete reconstruction of the driveway to those standards, then the conditions could not be justified given the very low number of new vehicle trips that will be generated by the proposed use. Ken Kent stated at the hearing that much of the driveway probably already met the County's standards and he felt Traffic Engineering could work with the applicant on a reasonable scope of work to bring the rest of the driveway into compliance. b. In general I agree with the applicant's position that the almost non- existent number of new vehicle trips generated by the proposed tower does not provide sufficient justification to impose conditions of the sort recommended by the Traffic Engineering department. Even at two trips per month, which is what the Planning Division estimated as possible, that negligible amount of impact does not warrant significant road improvements. However, both the applicant and Ken Kent stated at the hearing that a condition requiring the applicant to consult with Traffic Engineering about needed road improvements and undertake those improvements would be acceptable. Based on that agreement, I find that a general condition to that effect will ensure the County Roadway Standards are satisfied to the extent they are applicable. 7. The final question is whether the application demonstrates that an adjustment to the setback requirements of ZDO 835.09(C)(3) is warranted under ZDO 835.11(A). Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-11-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 7 a. As staff notes, ZDO 835.11 provides two routes to obtaining an adjustment of the required one-to-one setback requirements applicable to telecommunications towers. ZDO 835.11(A)(1) allows an adjustment if the change would remedy a gap in coverage or capacity of the telecommunications system. That is not alleged here. ZDO 835.11(A)(2) allows the hearings officer to grant an adjustment: "*** when the proposed adjustment would utilize existing site characteristics to minimize demonstrated or potential impacts on the use of surrounding properties. For the purposes of this subsection, site characteristics shall include,but need not be limited to, those identified in Subsection 1203.01(B).Applicants for an adjustment under this provision must demonstrate that the adjustment will result in a lower level of impact on surrounding properties than would be generated if the standard were not adjusted." The hearings officer is allowed to take into account visual impacts, impacts on views, impacts on property values and "[o]ther impacts that the Hearings Officer finds can be mitigated by an adjustment so that greater compliance with Subsection 1203.01(D) occurs." b. The applicant and the owner of the subject property provided additional evidence at the hearing with regard to their preferred location of the tower as shown in Exhibit 12. Their unrebutted testimony indicated that if a 120 setback is imposed, a significant area behind the owner's outbuilding will need to be cleared of trees to provide line of sight for the tower—which is needed to provide coverage to the service area. In contrast, the applicant's proposed adjustment would locate the tower on an area of higher elevation and require very little tree clearing to allow adequate service coverage. c. There was testimony by the subject property owner and neighbor opponents that removing large trees from the subject property was undesirable. While such impacts are not sufficient in and of themselves to trigger a denial of the application based on ZDO 1203.01(D), it is reasonable to assume that an area cleared of trees will have negative visual impacts for neighbors. Based on the new information provided by the applicant and owner, the proposed adjustment and location indicated on Exhibit 12 appears to have less of a visual impact on surrounding lands since fewer trees will need to be cut. It is true that for the neighbor immediately to the east, the lower portion of the tower may be visible at a 50 foot setback, but the recommended conditions 4 and 8 will mitigate part of that visual impact. In addition, Exhibit 12 shows that the area between the proposed tower location and the home to the east is vegetated and appears to support several large trees. This will also help to screen the tower. d. For the reasons stated above, I find that an adjustment of the one-to- one setback standard of ZDO 835.09(C)(3) can be allowed consistent with ZDO 835.1 t(A)(2). Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-11-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 8 D. CONCLUSION Based on the above findings and discussion, the hearings officer concludes that conditional use applications Z0101-11-C and Z0102-11-D should be approved. E. DECISION Based on the findings, discussion and conclusions provided or incorporated herein and the public record in this case, the hearings officer hereby APPROVES applications Z0101-11-C and Z0102-11-D subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development, Building Services Division, approval of a building permit and related plumbing, electrical, mechanical permits, if applicable, are required for this facility. 2. The lattice tower shall observe a minimum setback of 50 feet from the eastern property line and 120 feet from all other property lines. 3. No lighting or marking shall be placed on the tower except as required by state or federal regulations. 4. Landscaping shall be planted along the east perimeter of the fenced lease area. Evergreens such as arbor vitae spaced at 3 foot on center and a minimum of 4 feet tall at planting shall be planted to form a continuous, sight-obscuring landscaping strip. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the facility, a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the Land Use and Zoning Division for review and approval. 5. The lattice tower shall not exceed 120 feet above ground level. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Utility Placement Permit prior to commencement of utility work within the County right-of-way. 7. The applicant shall remove the facility from the site when the applicant or any other successor in interest ceases to use it as a communications facility. 8. The wireless broadband facility shall be located within an area that is enclosed on all sides. The enclosure must be at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. 9. The wireless broadband facility shall be designed and built to accommodate collocation of the additional equipment identified in Subsection 835.08.B of the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance. 10. Maintenance of the leased area and the landscaping is the responsibility of the owner/operator of the wireless communication facility. The owner/operator shall Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-1l-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 9 prevent the facility from entering into a state of disrepair due to negligence, vandalism, natural hazard, or any other source. 11. This Conditional Use permit is approved for the specific use and facility described in the application to the extent it is consistent with the conditions of approval. 12. This Conditional Use permit is granted subject to the conditions of approval. Non-compliance with any of these conditions constitutes a violation of this permit and shall be cause for revoking this permit. 13. This Conditional Use shall expire in the event the approval is not implemented within two (2) years of the final written decision. The Conditional Use approval will be considered implemented when all necessary permits for development have been secured and are maintained. Development Engineering Conditions of Approval 1) The applicant shall consult with the Department of Transportation Development, Traffic Engineering on the scope of needed roadway improvements on the private drive from 302nd Lane to the tower site. The applicant and the County shall agree and implement needed roadway improvements consistent with the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. 2) Consistent with condition (1), to the extent roadway improvements are determined to be needed on the private driveway between 302nd Lane and the tower site, the applicant shall design and construct the private road/driveway, between SE 302nd Lane and the lease area to standards contained in the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The private road/driveway shall meet the following standards: a) The minimum width for the driving surface shall be 12 feet and shall be centered in a 20-foot wide clear zone. Wherever the private road is paved, minimum two- foot wide compacted gravel shoulders shall be provided. Wherever the private road is surfaced with gravel, minimum four foot wide compacted earthen shoulders shall be provided. b) The private road shall be constructed in accordance with Roadway Standards drawing R100, with a minimum of 9 inches of 3/4"minus crushed, graded and compacted rock on a compacted base and sub grade, over geotextile fabric, and shall be able to support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus. Wherever the private road is to be paved, the aforementioned gravel section shall also require a three inch thick asphalt pavement section over the gravel, placed in two one and one-half inch lifts. Any sections of the private road that exceed 15 percent slope shall be paved. For the gravel portion of the existing access road, pull out areas shall be identified and improved as necessary to meet the minimum standards provided in Road Standards Drawing C350. The onsite parking space and Hearings Officer Final Order ZO 101-ll-C&Z0102-ll-D(City of Sandy) Page 10 turnaround area shall provide the same structural section as the private road. c) Written verification must be received from the local Fire District that the private road will support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus, that road grades and surfacing materials are acceptable, that a sufficient turnaround exists or will be constructed, that corner radii are acceptable, and that vertical (13.5 feet) and horizontal (20 feet) clearances are acceptable. Attention must be given to weight limits of culverts. All culverts shall be cleaned and maintained in a clean condition. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the road construction plans from the local Fire District prior to issuance of a Development Permit. d) Positive drainage must be provided for surface water to an acceptable outfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction process. (ZDO section 1008) 3) Construction or reconstruction of the private road/driveway requires plans prepared and stamped by an Engineer registered in the State of Oregon and a Development Pen-nit. To obtain a permit the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans to Deana Mulder, who works in the County's Engineering section. The applicant shall also provide a Performance Guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction plus a 25% contingency and pay an Inspection Fee. DATED this 6th day of June, 2011 14,004,-e We-L. Kenneth D. Helm Clackamas County Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-1 l-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page /I ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT NOTICE The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not a criterion for approval of this application. The County has reviewed the approval standards in light of the requirements of the ESA, believes that the criteria for approval are consistent with the terms of the ESA and has submitted the Development Ordinances for consideration for a "4(d)" programmatic limitation. However, the analysis included in this decision does not include an evaluation by the County of the applications for consistency with the ESA nor does the decision reach any conclusions concerning that federal law. The applicant are responsible for designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the activities allowed by an approval of this application in a manner that ensures compliance with the ESA. Any question concerning this issue should be directed to the applicant, their consultants and the federal agencies responsible for administration and enforcement of the ESA for the affected species. APPEAL RIGHTS ZDO 1304.01 provides that, with the exception of an application for an Interpretation, the Land Use Hearings Officer's decision constitutes the County's final decision for purposes of any appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). State law and associated administrative rules promulgated by LUBA prescribe the period within which any appeal must be filed and the manner in which such an appeal must be commenced. Presently, ORS 197.830(8) requires that any appeal to LUBA"shall be filed not later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed becomes final." ZDO 1304.02 provides that this decision will be "final" for purposes of a LUBA appeal as of the date of mailing (which date appears on the last page herein). Hearings Officer Final Order Z0101-11-C&Z0102-11-D(City of Sandy) Page 12 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that on the date set forth below I mailed a copy of the above HEARINGS OFFICER FINAL ORDER by first class mail to the following participants at the address shown: Chris Crean Patricia Gentry 1750 SW Harbor Way, Ste 380 PO Box 749 Portland, OR 97201 Boring, OR 97009 Scott Lazenby Estevan Gaona 39250 Pioneer Blvd 9890 SE 302nd LN Sandy, OR 97055 Boring, OR 97009 James Crawford Boring CPO/Les Otto 9765 SE 302nd Ln PO Box 391 Boring, OR 97009 Boring, OR 97009 The original of this decision has been filed with the Planning Division, Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development. DATED this 6th day of June, 2011 a.�-4._/r1 d a m Linda J. May, Permitsialist Z0101-1 I-C&Z0102-I I-D HO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING /14 y ,,...___ ---� Ise ��o(/ , , 0 c MX: A _ e Construction Co. °"-`- BLACKTOP PAVING 12825 SE Scott Creek Lane,Happy Valley,Oregon 97086 (503)698-2312 fax(503)698-2332 Estimate 26 July 2011 John Francis&Neighbors 9733 SE 302nd Boring, Oregon 97009 Jobsite: Paving repairs to existing paved areas on 302"d from SE Waybill to end and also private shared driveway as per sketch dated 14 July 2011. Option A—SE 302nd from SE Waybill to end. Paving repairs using fibermat to 7 areas that are cracked/broken with alligator appearance and various sizes. a. Clean area as required. b. Apply liquid asphalt tack coat as required(acts like glue). c. Apply fibermat on cracked and/or broken areas as required (prevents cracks from re- occurring). d. Pave with approximately 1 Y2" (+/-) hot mix blacktop over fibermat, and compact, tapering and thinning at edges as required to match existing grade. $ 1,270.00 Optiop!S-�Private shared drive off 302nd up hill. • Same as Option A above,6 areas. $4 634.00 Total if both Option A and Option B are done at same time $5,904.00 Option C—SE 302"d from Waybill to end. Fill all singular longitudinal cracks (not repaired in Option A above) with Crofco DF Hot Pour Crackfill. $400.00 Option D—Private shared drive off 302nd up hill. Same as Option C above. $400.00 Option E All existing pavement on 302"d from SE Waybill to end and private shared drive. Clean all moss, dirt, and debris from pavement surface and sealcoat with one coat of LockTop Emulsified Sealer. $4,240.00 GCB#75681 Notes: Some traffic disruption will be required during any of this work. We will try to minimize as much as possible. We recommend that this work-if it is to be done-be done soon to take advantage of the better summer weather and longer daylight hours.One person needs to be responsible to obtain other neighbors approval and collect all fees and monies. Payment Terms: Progress payments to be determined. Note: Due to rising and fluctuating oil prices,the price quoted is only guaranteed accurate for the date listed above. Since we have no control of oil prices, the actual price may vary. If the price for fuel and material increases (or decreases)then the actual price will be adjusted accordingly for fuel and material purchased at that time. We are in our 55'h year of business,serving the Portland Metropolitan Area since 1956. Fair weather required for paving.Allow lead time to schedule. Actual price may vary. A proposal will be prepared upon acceptance. CCB#75681 er0 e bot,od , c l2XlzQ-1 �, 1 v .-=t 13) x 5X 35 t , 0 r � I r ')) gxt5 2( iLt6 r �X2Zr SE 30 tz ivlQ boxes - -- _ HEARINGS OFFICER'S EXHIBIT LIST IN THE MATTER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT#Z0101-11-C AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT#Z0102-11-D Ex. Date of Author or source Subject No. Exhibit 1 4/28/11 Scott Hoelscher, Clackamas County _ Staff Report 2 4/28/11 Clackamas County Tax Assessor _ Tax Assessors Map 3 4/28/11 City of Sandy Vicinity Map 4 3/21/11 Ugo Dilullo, DTD Engineering Preliminary Statement of Feasibility 5 4/11/11 Lee & Meredith Wayt Email to Scott Hoelscher 6 4/13/11 Kay Francis Email to Scott Hoelscher 7 4/18/11 Ronald Cox Letter of Comment 8 4/24/11 Nikky Oldham _ Email to Scott Hoelscher 9 4/26/11 Kenneth Kent, Clackamas County Memorandum to Scott Hoelscher * Exhibits received during hearing ** Exhibits received during open record after hearing *** Oversize exhibits itf-, (t-e•Gpy • - r- / ry-/ Greg &Nikky Oldham 9771 SE 302nd Lane Boring, OR. 97009 (503) 663-6109 May 20, 2010 To: Clackamas County Planning & Zoning Department: Since 2003 we have allowed the City of Sandy to place and maintain roof-mounted antennas on our home to provide SandyNet wireless Internet service to the homes and businesses in our area. We support the City of Sandy's application to construct a wireless Internet antenna tower on our neighbor's property immediately west of our home. Our home is oriented to the east(Mt. Hood view), with a carport and driveway retaining wall on the west side of our property. The tower will not be very noticeable with its backdrop of tall trees, and it will allow more homes and businesses to be served by SandyNet's wireless Internet service. We also support the City of Sandy's request for adjustments on the tower height(120 feet) and setback from our property line (50 feet). A lower tower, deeper into the woods on the top of our hill, would require the removal of many trees, which we would not be in favor of The tower location proposed by the City of Sandy is more compatible with the natural topography and vegetation surrounding our home. We also understand that the kind of tower proposed by SandyNet is more narrow and less visually obtrusive than a typical cell phone tower, and we encourage you to allow this tower without requiring the City of Sandy to build a cell tower. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Greg&Nikky Oldham /110 1 James Crawford 9765 SE 302nd Lane Boring, OR. 97009 (503) 663-6109 May 20, 2010 To: Clackamas County Planning & Zoning Department: As the owner of the property containing the site of the City of Sandy's proposed wireless Internet tower, I support the City's application for land use approval. I am familiar with the application, and also support the adjustments to County cell tower standards that the City is requesting. I have worked with the City of Sandy to negotiate a utility easement for the tower site, including easements for access and for extension of an electric line. I appreciate the efforts of the City of Sandy and Clackamas County to make affordable high speed Internet available in our rural area. James Crawford. Land Use and Zoning Development Services Building Mike McCallister, Manager 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 742-4500 fax: (503) 742-4550 CLACKAM S► e-mail: zoninginfo@co.clackamas.or.us C O U NT Y Web: http://www.clackamas.us/transportation/planning/ Land Use and Zoning Staff Report and Recommendation To the Hearings Officer This document represents the Land Use and Zoning Staff recommendation to the Clackamas County Hearings Officer for application file no. Z0101-11-C /Z0102-11-D as cited below. It contains three parts: Section 1 —Summary, Section 2—Conditions of Approval and Section 3 —Findings. SECTION 1 —SUMMARY DATE: April 28, 2011 HEARING DATE: May 5, 2011 CASE FILE NO.: Z0101-11-C & Z0102-11-D STAFF CONTACT: Scott Hoelscher, (503)742-4524, scotthoe(ZI co.clackainas.or.us LOCATION: 9765 SE 302nd Lane; T1S R4E Section 30, Tax Lot(s) 01901, 1910 APPLICANT: City of Sandy; 39250 SE Pioneer Blvd., Sandy, OR 97055 OWNER: James Crawford, 9765 SE 302nd Lane, Boring, OR 97055 TOTAL AREA: Approximately 22.53 acres ZONING: Rural Residential Farm Forest 5-Acre (RRFF-5) CITIZENS PLANNING ORGANIZATION: Boring CPO; Les Otto, P.O. Box 391, Boring, OR 97009 PROPOSAL: Telecommunication facility consisting of a 120-foot steel lattice structure and antennas for broadband service to rural Sandy residents and businesses. SITE DESCRIPTION: The five acre subject property is zoned Rural Residential Farm Forest— 5 acre and is currently developed with a single family residence and shop building. The site includes two tax lots. The tower is proposed to be located on tax lot 1910 and a portion of the I Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 1 of 22 access drive will be across tax lot 1901. The property owner also owns three adjacent tax lots for a total site area comprising approximately 22 acres. The single family residence is located in the central portion of tax lot 1901. The wireless broadband facility is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of tax lot 1910,just south of the existing shop building and 50 feet from the east property line. The parcel consists primarily of timber stands with some lawn/pasture areas near the existing residence. The site is accessible via a shared easement extending from 302nd Ave. The subject property sits on a hilltop which is approximately 900 feet above sea level. SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: The properties to the south and east of the subject site are also zoned RRFF-5. Zoning to the north and west of the subject site is EFU: Exclusive Farm Use. The hilltop where the subject property is located is predominantly forested. Beyond the hilltop, the surrounding area consists of rural residential acreage and farm land. Hwy. 26 is approximately %2 mile to the south of the subject property. SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Sewer: The subject property is not located within a public or private sewer district. Sewage disposal is accommodated by an on-site sewage disposal system. 2. Water: The subject property is not located within a public or private water district. 3. Surface Water: The subject property is located outside the boundaries of any Surface Water Management Agency. Surface water management is subject to Section 1008 of the ZDO as administered by the Clackamas County Engineering Division. 4. Fire: Boring Rural Fire Protection District#59. RESPONSES REQUESTED: 1. Boring Rural Fire Protection District#59. 2. Boring CPO 3. DTD, Traffic Engineering 4. Oregon Dept. of Aviation 5. Clackamas County C-Comm. (911) 6. Property Owners within 750 feet OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RECORD: A copy of the Land Use and Zoning staff report and all evidence submitted with this application is available for inspection, at no cost, at the Land Use and Zoning office during normal business hours. Copies of all documents may be purchased at the rate of 10-cents per page. The staff report contains the findings and conclusion upon which the recommendation is based along with any condition of approval. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Sections(s) 309, 835, 1007, 1009, 1022, 1102 and 1203. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 2 of 22 Location Map ■ .,t• trc u iii ,, I 1I v J I Site i L ____ck- a r L. 1 z S Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 3 of 22 Site Plan I: d o 4.? ir E u1 O r——1 r I ri 1-- ,-. I P F- LI :-.) U.1 4 1?. O 8 a z . .. 0 ‹ •ct 0- _. .. 0 F- cn LI < L•3 CC b ' LC). °¢ a 75 r ca i r2 alc‘14/tu . .. .. . .... .. _._ . _........._ g -,r . ; 8 : Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 4 of 22 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SECTION 2 —CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of application file Z0101-11-C /Z0102-11-D subject to the following conditions: Land Use & Zoning Conditions of Approval 1. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development, Building Services Division, approval of a building permit and related plumbing, electrical, mechanical permits, if applicable, are required for this facility. . The lattice tower shall observe a minimum setback of 120 feet from all property lines. 3. No lighting or marking shall be placed on the tower except as required by state and/or federal regulations. 4. Landscaping shall be planted along the east perimeter of the fenced lease area. Evergreens such as arbor vitae spaced at 3 foot on center and a minimum of 4 feet tall at planting shall be planted to form a continuous, sight-obscuring landscaping strip. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the facility, a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the Land Use and Zoning Division for review and approval. 5. The lattice tower shall not exceed 120 feet above ground level. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Utility Placement Permit prior to commencement of utility work within th County fight-of-way. 7. The applicant shall remove the facility from the site when the applicant or any other successor in interest ceases to use it as a communications facility. 8. The wireless broadband facility shall be located within an area that is enclosed on all sides. The enclosure must be at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. 9 -- e wire ess broadband facility shall be designed and built to accommodate collocation of the additional equipment identified in Subsection 835.08.B of the Clackamas County Zoning �nd Development Ordinance. 10. Maintenance of the leased area and the landscaping is the responsibility of the owner/operator of the wireless communication facility. The owner/operator shall prevent the facility from entering into a state of disrepair due to negligence, vandalism, natural hazard, or any other source. 11. This Conditional Use permit is approved for the specific use and facility described in the application to the extent it is consistent with the conditions of approval. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 5 of 22 12. This Conditional Use permit is granted subject to the conditions of approval. Non- compliance with any of these conditions constitutes a violation of this permit and shall be cause for revoking this permit. 13. This Conditional Use shall expire in the event the approval is not implemented within two (2) years of the final written decision. The Conditional Use approval will be considered implemented when all necessary permits for development have been secured and are maintained. 14. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not a criterion for approval of this application. The County has reviewed the approval standards in light of the requirements of the ESA and believes that the criteria for approval are consistent with the terms of the ESA and has submitted the Development Ordinances for consideration for a "4(d)" programmatic limitation. However, the analysis included in this report does not include an evaluation by the County of the application for consistency with the ESA nor does the report reach any conclusions concerning that federal law. The applicant is responsible for designing, construction, operation and maintaining the actives allowed by an approval of this application in a manner that ensures compliance with the ESA. Any question concerning this issue should be directed to the applicant, its consultants and the federal agencies responsible for administration and enforcement of the ESA for the affected species. Develo ment Engineering Conditions of Approval N 15. All frontage and on site improvements shall be in conformance with the �� fr 16. The applicant shall maintain adequate intersection sight distance at the intersection of the driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. In addition, no plantings at maturity, retaining \ walls, embankments, fences, signs, structures, parked vehicles, or any other objects shall be allowed to obstruct minimum required sight distances. Minimum intersection sight distance shall be 205 feet both northerly and southerly, along SE 302nd Lane, measured 14.5 feet back from the edge of the travel lane at the intersection of the site driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. 17. The applicant shall design and construct one on site turnaround, near the lattice tower lease 4y IT area, consistent with Roadway Standards drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the Fire District and Engineering staff. •\� 1 . P � nor to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify existing access easements, and obtain new easements as necessary to provide a minimum 20-foot wide easement from SE 302nd Lane to the lease area, for ingress, egress, and utilities, except where the easement is required to be wider to accommodate turnouts, radii, the turnaround, etc. . CP‘' ip;) 111■1) v•CP).<)j Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 6 of 22 �_ A ,/',�v 19. The applicant shall design and construct the private road/driveway, between SE 302nd Lane +i� V�' and the lease area, to standards contained in the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The fir. private road/driveway shall meet the following standards: vO ' a) The mini dth for the driving surface shall be 12 feet and shall be centered in a 20- ��a5 s' z 1 oot wide clear e. Wherever the private road is paved, minimum two-foot wide /� compac e gravel shoulders shall be provided. Wherever the private road is surfaced -Foy _ with gravel, minimum four foot wide compacted earthen shoulders shall be provided. -j - p/. b) The private road shall be constructed in accordance with Roadway Standards drawing R100, with a minimum of 9 inches of 3/4"minus crushed, graded and compacted rock on a compacted base and sub grade, over geotextile fabric, and shall be able to support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus. Wherever the private road is to be paved, the aforementioned gravel section shall also require a three inch thick asphalt pavement section over the gravel, placed in two one and one-half inch lifts. Any sections of the private road that exceed 15 percent slope shall be paved. For the gravel portion of the existing access road, pull out areas shall be identified and improved as necessary to meet the minimum standards provided in Road Standards Drawing C350. The onsite parking space and turnaround area shall provide the s me structural section as the private road. 0.) 11 o L Y f' L97-r c) Written verification must be received from t local Fire Dist ct that the private road will support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus, that roa g surfacing materials are acceptable, that a sufficient turnaround exists or will be constructed, that corner radii are acceptable, and that vertical (13.5 feet) and horizontal (20 feet) clearances are acceptable. Attention must be given to weight limits of culverts. All culverts shall be cleaned and maintained in a clean condition. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the road construction plans from the local Fire District prior to issuance of a Development Permit. d) Positive drainage must be provided for surface water to an acceptable outfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction process. (ZDO section 1008) e) Construction or reconstruction of the private road/driveway requires plans prepared and stamped by an Engineer registered in the State of Oregon and a Development Permit. To obtain a permit the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans to Deana Mulder, who works in the County's Engineering section. The applicant shall also provide a Performance Guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction plus a 25% contingency and pay an Inspection Fee. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 7 of 22 SECTION 3 —FINDINGS This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Section(s) 1203, 835, 309, 1007, 1009, 1022 and 1102. The Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Staff has reviewed this Section of the ZDO in conjunction with the home occupation proposal and makes the following findings and conclusions: ZDO SUBSECTION 1203 A. Section 1203.O1A: The use must be listed as a Conditional Use in the underlying zoning district. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential Farm Forest— 5 acre (RRFF-5). Section 309 of the ZDO controls land uses in the underlying RRFF-5 zoning district. Section 309.06.A of the ZDO lists the conditional uses allowed in the RRFF-5 zoning district. Section 309.06.A (11) specifically lists "Wireless telecommunication facilities listed in Subsection 835.06(A), subject to Section 835." Section 835.03H defines a Wireless Telecommunication Facility as "An unmanned facility for the transmission of radio frequency (RF) signals, consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices." The City of Sandy proposes to construct an unmanned wireless facility consisting of a 120- foot tall lattice tower. Antennas for the City of Sandy rural broadband service will be placed on the top of the tower. There will be no ground-mounted equipment for the proposed facility; instead small utility cabinets will be mounted on the actual tower. The proposed use meets the definition of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility and is listed as conditional use in the underlying zone. This criterion is met. B. Section 1203.01B: The characteristics of the site must be suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, existence of improvements and natural features. Size and Shape: The subject property consists of six tax lots which total approximately 22 acres. The communications facility will be situated on two of the tax lots: the actual tower will be located on tax lot 1910, while the access driveway will traverse a portion of tax lot 1901 as well as part of tax lot 1910. The entire 22 acre site is essentially a rectangular shaped parcel with a"panhandle" in the southeast corner. The two tax lots where is the communications facility will be located is also rectangular in shape. The lattice tower will be located on a 12' x 12' concrete foundation pad. A small utility cabinet will be mounted on the tower; no equipment shelter will be located on the site. The property is of adequate size to accommodate the lease area for the facility as well as parking for the occasional maintenance vehicle. The large size of the property would also allow the monopole to be set Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 8 of 22 back a distance not less than its height from all property lines. However, the applicant has requested an adjustment to the setback standard and has proposed a setback of 50 feet from the east property line. A discussion of the setback adjustment is on pages 17 and 18 of this report. The size and shape of the subject property are suitable to accommodate the siting of the proposed tower facility. Topography: The subject property is northwest of the City of Sandy and sits on a hilltop which is several hundred feet above sea level. According to the contour information provided on the submitted site plan, the area for the lattice tower slopes gradually uphill to the north. Although sloped, the site for the telecommunications facility is not excessively steep and is suitable to accommodate construction and placement of the tower. Location: This facility is intended to improve wireless internet service to the surrounding rural community. The City has utilized a roof-mounted antenna on an adjacent parcel since 2003. In order to improve broadband service, a taller site is needed. The applicant has submitted a propagation study demonstrating the need for the tower to provide coverage in this area. This location is suitable for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. Improvements: The tower will be located in the northeast corner of the property. Existing improvements of the subject property include a single family house and a shop building. A significant portion of the site is comprised of cedar and fir trees. As shown on the submitted drawings, several trees will need to be removed in order to construct the facility. The proposed tower will not require the removal or modification of any existing improvements on the property. In order to access the telecommunication facility, the existing driveway will be extended to the tower site. The proposed site will not interfere with any of the existing improvements. Natural Features: According to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) maps, the subject property does not contain any regulated geologic hazards. According to the FEMA Floodplain maps, the subject property is not located within a designated floodplain. The subject property does not contain any regulated wetlands identified on the National Wetland Inventory(NWI). There are no streams regulated under the River and Stream Conservation Area Ordinance (Section 704) located on the subject property. Summary: The size, shape, topography and locational characteristics of the subject property are suitable to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed use will not impact the function of the existing improvements on the property. There are no natural features located Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 9 of 22 on the subject property or adjacent and nearby properties which would be impacted by the proposed use. This criterion is met. C. Section 1203.01C: The development must be consistent with Section 1022 of the ZDO and the safety of the transportation system must be adequate to serve the proposed development. Section 1022 of the ZDO outlines the Concurrency Standards for sanitary sewer, surface water management, water service and minimum standards for transportation facilities. a. Section 1022.03;Sanitary Sewer Service: Approval of a development that requires public sanitary sewer service shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the sanitary sewage treatment service provider and the collection system service provider. The statement shall verify that sanitary sewer capacity in the wastewater treatment system and the sanitary sewage collection system is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more than one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve sanitary sewer system capacity for the development. The subject property is not located within a public sanitary sewer district. The proposed facility will be unmanned and will not require sanitary sewer service. This criterion is not applicable. b. Section 1022.04;Surface Water Manajement: Approval of a development shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the surface water management regulatory authority. The statement shall verify that adequate surface water treatment and conveyance is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more than one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve surface water treatment and conveyance system capacity for the development. The subject property is located outside all Surface Water Management Agencies of Clackamas County. Therefore, the Clackamas County Engineering Division is required to review the project and submit the Statement of Feasibility. The Statement of Feasibility is dated March 21, 2011. The Engineering Division states that the surface water impact will be minimal after construction and will not impact adjoining properties. This criterion is met. c. Section 1022.05; Water Service: Approval of a development that requires public water service shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the water system provider. The statement shall verify that water service, including fir flows, is available in levels appropriate for the development and that adequate water system capacity is available in source, supply, treatment Staff Report—File No.Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 10 of 22 transmission, storage and distribution. Alternatively, the statement shall verify that such levels and capacity can be made available through improvements completed by the developer of the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more that one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve water system capacity for the development. The proposed facility will be unmanned and not require water service. This criterion is not applicable. d. Section 1022.07; Transportation Facilities: Section 1022.07A states "Approval of a development shall be granted only if transportation facilities are adequate or will be made adequate in a timely manner. "Adequate"as defined in Section 1022.07B means a Level-of-Service(LOS)D, except in certain areas of the County identified in Section 1022.07E (5-9). The proposed use is considered an unmanned utility facility. These facilities are exempt from Section 1022.07.A. This criterion is not applicable. The second portion of Subsection 1203.01.0 states that the safety of the transportation system must be adequate to serve the proposed development. The primary transportation safety concern for this type of development is the provision of adequate intersection sight distance for the access road serving the subject site. The Development Engineering staff visited the site and measured the intersection sight distance at the intersection of the access driveway/private road and SE 302"d Lane. As indicated in the April 26, 2011 memorandum from Kenneth Kent of the Engineering Division, the existing intersection of the private road/driveway with SE 302"d Lane exceeds the minimum sight distance requirements. Summary: This proposal complies with the applicable requirements of Section 1022 and the safety of the transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development. This condition is met. D. Section 1203.O1D; The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying zoning district. The properties surrounding the subject site are zoned EFU: Exclusive Farm Use and RRFF- 5: Rural Residential Farm Forest— 5 Acre. The primary uses allowed in the EFU zoning district are listed in Section 401.04 of the ZDO and primarily include, but are not limited to, farm uses and forest uses. The primary uses allowed in RRFF-5 district are listed in Section 309.03 of the ZDO and include, but are not limited to, single family dwellings, farm uses and propagation of forest products. The proposed telecommunications facility is a passive use that does not emit odors, vibrations or a significant amount of noise. The proposed use has not been shown to Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 11 of 22 preclude farm or forest activity from occurring on nearby lands. The RF/electromagnetic emissions generated by this facility are regulated by federal law. At the levels proposed, there is not a basis for concluding that such fields will affect human health. Further, federal law prohibits the county from making potential health effects a criterion for approval. Although the tower will be visible from off-site views, staff finds that the tower will not substantially impact the views or visual character of this area because landscaping will be required at the base of the tower and the grey galvanized steel color of the tower will not result in a significant visual impact. In summary, planning staff finds this use will not substantially limit, impair or preclude the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses identified in the underlying zoning district for the following reasons: 1. This is a passive unmanned facility. 2. The use will not require the use of any public water, storm drainage or sewer system. 3. The use will not generate significant traffic. Once constructed, traffic will be limited to maintenance visits once a month. 4. The facility will not limit farming or forest activity in the surrounding area. 5. If approved, staff recommends that the bottom portion of the tower be visually screened by landscaping. 6. The proposed use will not generate any odors, vibration or require the use of hazardous wastes. This criterion is met. E. The fifth criterion requires the proposal satisfy the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed use. Staff finds the following specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) to be applicable to the proposed telecommunication facility: Policy 20 of the Roadways Section of the Transportation Element and Policy 20 of the Public Facilities Section of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the CP. Policy 20.0 of the Transportation Element of the CP requires an assessment of anticipated off-site traffic impacts caused by new developments and subdivisions. Following construction of the tower, the proposed use will not generate any significant traffic. Vehicle trips will be limited to occasional maintenance visits. This will not result in any measurable off-site traffic impacts. Policy 20.0 of the Public Facilities Section of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the CP requires submission of storm drainage, water quality and erosion control plans prior to approval of all new development and implementation of such plans. Erosion control and storm water management in this area is governed by Clackamas County Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 12 of 22 Engineering Division. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Statement of Feasibility from the Clackamas County Engineering Division. Staff has not identified any additional goals or policies of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed use. This proposal is consistent with Policy 20.0 of the Public Facilities Section and Policy 20.0 of the Transportation Section of the Plan. This criterion is met. ZDO SUBSECTION 835 A. Section 835.06; Conditional Uses. The following uses may be approved by the Hearings Officer when the applicant demonstrates compliance with Subsections 835.07, 835.08 and 835.09 and Sections of 1000 and 1203: 1. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities proposed in the Village Community Service District or on a site with a CP designation of Residential,Rural Center, Rural or Forest; and The subject property is located on a site designated Rural on the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this application can be approved by the Hearings Officer, providing the applicant demonstrates compliance with Subsections 835.07, 835.08, and 835.09 and Sections 1000 and 1203. The criteria in Section 1203 have been addressed above. Based on those findings, this application can satisfy the criteria in Section 1203 if an adjustment is granted pursuant to Subsection 835.11. The applicable standards and criteria in Section 1000 and 835.07, 835.08, and 835.09 are addressed below. 2. Subsection 835.06A(2): Wireless Telecommunication Facilities located in an Exclusive Farm Use(EFU)District that include a tower over 200 feet in height. The subject property is not located within an EFU zoning district. This standard is not applicable. B. Section 835.06B: The Hearings Officer may require the applicant to provide information about possible alternate locations on the tract. The Hearings Officer may require placement of the tower in an alternate location on the tract if the Hearings Officer finds that the alternate location would result in greater compliance with the criteria in Section 1203 than the proposed site. In order to avoid relocating the proposed facility, the applicant must demonstrate that the necessary service cannot reasonably be provided from the alternate location. The applicant has not provided evidence that alternative locations on the subject property were considered. The Hearings Officer may require the applicant to address the above standard. This standard can be met. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 13 of 22 Section 835.07; Collocation. No new tower will be permitted under the provisions of Subsections 835.05A(1) or 835.06 unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or Hearings Officer, as applicable, that no existing tower or support structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. All proposals for new Wireless Telecommunication Facilities must be accompanied by a statement from a qualified person, as determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Officer, that the necessary service cannot be provided by collocation for one or more of the following reasons: 1. No existing towers or support structures, or approved but not yet constructed towers or support structures, are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; 2. Existing towers or support structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; 3. Existing towers or support structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment; 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing tower or support structure or the existing antenna would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; or 5. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and support structures unsuitable. The applicant has conducted a search of the surrounding area for existing towers that may be able to accommodate the proposed broadband facility. The existing tower nearest the proposed site is an American Tower facility located approximately 1.18 miles from the subject property. Compliance with this subsection depends on the applicant providing substantial evidence that no exiting towers or other support structures can accommodate the City of Sandy antennas for one or more of the reasons listed in Subsection 835.07 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. In the Alternatives Analysis from the City of Sandy Network Engineer, the applicant disqualifies the American Tower facility for insufficient height reasons (Item#2 under Subsection 835.07). The letter from the City of Sandy Engineer indicates that the existing American Tower facility is at a ground elevation of 610 feet with the top of the tower at 775 feet. The top of the proposed broadband tower is at an elevation of approximately 900 feet. Therefore, the proposed site is 125 feet higher than the American Tower facility. A coverage analysis to determine the feasibility of the American Tower site was performed. The applicant submitted propagation maps showing coverage provided by the existing American Tower site and coverage via the proposed facility on SE 302nd Lane. The coverage maps indicate that collocation on the American Tower facility would significantly compromise coverage to the surrounding rural areas. Staff finds that the applicant has provided information that no existing towers or support structures are present within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Therefore, co-location is not possible. This criterion is met. C. Section 835.08; Conditional Standards Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 14 of 22 1. Section 835.08A: All wireless telecommunication towers proposed for location within the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary shall be of monopole type construction. The subject property is not within the Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary. This criterion is not applicable. 2. Section 835.08B: All new wireless telecommunication towers shall be designed and built to accommodate collocation or additional loading. For the purposes of this provision, this means that the tower shall be designed specifically to accommodate no less than the following equipment, in addition to the applicant's proposed equipment; a. Twelve antennas with a float plate wind-loading of not less than four square feet per antenna; b. A standard mounting structure, stand off arms,platform or other similar structure designed to hold the antennas; c. Cable ports at the base and antenna levels of the tower; and d. Sufficient room within or on the tower for 12 runs of 7/8"coaxial cable from the base of the tower to the antennas. The tower proposed by the applicant is a 120 foot lattice tower as shown on the submitted drawings. The applicant has not specified the loading capacity of the tower. Based on the submitted information, it appears that small microwave antennas as well as panel style antennas will be placed on the tower. The applicant states that the tower will accommodate collocation of antennas similar to the wireless internet antennas that the City of Sandy will mount on the proposed tower. Future equipment for collocation may include antennas for public safety such as fire or sheriff communications. The applicant argues that the above collocation requirements are designed for cellular phone carriers such as AT&T and Verizon and because the City of Sandy is not a conventional cellular phone carrier the loading capacity specified above does not apply to the proposed broadband tower. Regardless of the type of structure, the proposed development is, by definition, a wireless telecommunication facility and subject to Subsection 835.08B. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed telecommunications tower should be designed and engineered to accommodate the additional loading required by this subsection. Staff does not have the discretion to modify or amend the additional loading requirement and the applicant has not provided evidence to justify an adjustment to this standard. If the Hearings Officer approves this application, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the facility be designed and engineered to accommodate the equipment required by this subsection. This criterion can be met. 3. Section 835.08C: Wireless telecommunication towers shall be painted or coated in a manner that blends with the surrounding area. The finished coloring shall result in a non-reflective surface that makes the tower as visually unobtrusive as possible, unless state Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 15 of 22 or federal regulations require different colors. Colors will be determined through the Design Review process. The applicant does not propose to paint the 120 foot tower. Instead the applicant proposes to leave the tower in its natural galvanized steel color. Staff agrees that an unpainted gray steel color is typically the most visually unobtrusive color and blends well with the surrounding environment. Staff does not recommend painting the proposed tower. This criterion can be met. 4. Section 835.08D: Equipment shelters may be painted or coated with a finish that best suits the operational needs of the facility, including the ability to reflect heat and to resist accumulations of dirt. Colors will be determined through the Design Review process. If through the Design Review process, it is determined that there is a conflict between acceptable colors and the operational needs of the facility, Design Review may require the use of architectural screen panels. No equipment shelter is proposed for this telecommunications facility. A small utility cabinet will be mounted on the tower. This criterion is not applicable. 5. Section 835.08E: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower, except as required by state or federal regulations. If required, the light shall be shielded or deflected from the ground and other properties, to the extent practicable. The applicant has not proposed to establish any lighting on the tower. The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA)was sent notice of the proposed tower. As of the date of this staff report, staff has not received any comments from ODA. If this application is approved by the Hearings Officer, a condition of approval should be placed on the permit prohibiting tower lighting unless required by the Oregon Department of Aviation or federal regulators. This criterion can be met. 6. Section 835.08F: The wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within an area that is enclosed on all sides. The enclosure must be at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. The submitted narrative indicates that the proposed tower will not be fenced due to its remote location. The site plans, however, show a new fence surrounding the tower. The above subsection requires a wireless communication facility to be located within a fenced enclosure that is at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer include a condition of approval requiring a fenced enclosure around the facility. This criterion can be met. 7. Section 835.08G: Landscaping shall be placed outside of the enclosed area and shall consist of the following; a. A combination of landscaping materials that includes ground cover, shrubs and trees that are reflective of the natural surrounding vegetation in the are, as determined through the Design Review process; Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 16 of 22 b. Existing landscaping/vegetation may be used to satisfy the above requirements; c. Through the Design Review process, applications shall be reviewed for consistency with Subsection 1009.10; and d. In cases where a portion of the wireless telecommunication facility is screened from points off-site by a building that is at least eight feet tall, the landscaping requirements of this subsection will not be required for the screened area. The applicant argues that existing vegetation will screen the base of the tower from off- site views. Therefore, no additional landscaping or screening is proposed. Staff received comments from owner of the property located directly to the east of the subject site. The residence on this property (tax lot 1909) is located approximately 60 feet from the proposed tower site. The owner of the property is concerned about tower visibility and would like to see installation of landscaping to camouflage the base of the tower. Staff agrees that existing vegetation is not sufficient to screen the base of the tower and that landscaping should be installed between the tower and the property to the east. There is existing vegetation in other directions that should be sufficient to screen the tower from the north, south and west. To provide an adequate buffer and screen the base of the tower, staff recommends the following landscaping along the east side of the site: arbor vitae trees spaced at 3 foot on center and will be a minimum of 4 foot tall at planting. If the Hearings Officer approval this application, staff recommends a condition be included requiring landscaping on the east side of the site. With condition of approval, staff finds that this standard can be met. This criterion can be met. 8. Section 835.08H: Applications reviewed under Subsections 835.05(A)(1) and(3) and 835.06 are subject to Section 1102 (Design Review). This application is being reviewed under Subsection 835.06. Design review is included in this application. This criterion can be met. 9. Section 835.081: Equipment shelters shall be entirely enclosed. Equipment shelter exterior materials shall be those approved through the Design Review process. The City of Sandy has not proposed to install an equipment shelter at this location. This criterion is not applicable. 10. Section 835.08J: Noise generated by the wireless telecommunication facility shall not exceed the levels established by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ). If properties adjacent to the property upon which the wireless telecommunication facility is proposed have a lower DEQ standard than the proposed site, the lower standard shall be applicable. The noise generated by the proposed facility is not expected to exceed the limits established by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ). A condition of approval requiring compliance with DEQ standards shall be placed on the permit. This criterion is met. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 17 of 22 11. Section 835.08K: Maintenance of the lease area is the responsibility of the owner/operator of the wireless telecommunication facility. The owner operator shall prevent the facility from entering into a state of disrepair due to negligence, vandalism, natural hazard, or any other source. This requirement places the responsibility for maintenance on the owner/operator and is, otherwise, consistent with the requirement of Subsection 1102.09. This conditional standard is not an approval criterion, and is only intended to identify maintenance responsibilities for the facility. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. D. Section 83109;Dimensional Standards. Minimum tower separation distance and minimum setback requirements. Either Section 835.09A, B or C is applicable depending on the location of the subject property and the underlying Zoning and/or Comprehensive Plan designation. The subject property is located within an area with a Forest Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, Section 835.09(A) and(B) are not applicable. Section 835.09(C) is applicable. 1. Section 835.09(C): Lands within a Comprehensive Plan designation of Rural or Agriculture: a. Section 835.09C(1): Wireless telecommunication tower maximum height: 150 feet. A 120-foot tower is being proposed. This standard is met. b. Section 835.09C(2): Minimum tower separation: 2000 feet. The applicant has submitted an inventory of existing towers in the vicinity of the proposed site. There are no towers within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. This standard is met. c. Section 835.09B(3): Setbacks: Must satisfy setbacks of the zone. Additionally, the wireless telecommunication tower shall be set back a distance not less than its height from all property lines. The 120-foot City of Sandy broadband tower is proposed to be located 420 feet from the north property line; 230 feet from the south property line; at least 200 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the east property line. The lattice structure will satisfy the setbacks of the RRFF-5 zone. However, because of the placement near the east property line, the applicant has requested an adjustment to the setback standard requiring the tower to be setback a distance not less than its height from all property lines. See the following section for a discussion of the setback adjustment. This standard can be met. Section 835.11A(1): Adjustments to the standards of this section may be approved by the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer may grant an adjustment when a gap in the applicant's service exists and that gap can only be alleviated through the adjustment of one or Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 18 of 22 more of the standards of this section. If an adjustment is to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate the following: a. A gap in coverage or capacity exists in the wireless telecommunication provider's service network that results in network users being regularly unable to connect with the provider's network, or maintain connection; b. The proposed facility will fill the existing service gap. The gap would be filled if the proposed facility would substantially reduce the frequency with which uses of the network are unable to connect, or maintain connection, with the provider's network; and c. The gap cannot be filled through collocation on existing facilities, or establishment of facilities that are consistent with the standards of this section on properties other than the proposed site or on the proposed site in a manner which does not require an adjustment under this subsection. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the following standard: the wireless telecommunication tower shall be setback a distance not less than its height from all property lines. (Section 835.09.C.3). As proposed, the 120 foot lattice structure would be set back from the north, south and west property lines over 120 feet. However, the setback distance from the east property is only 50 feet. Therefore, an adjustment to the required 1:1 setback is requested for the east property line. As justification for the property line setback adjustment, the applicant notes that maintaining a 120 foot setback to the east would require clear-cutting a significant portion of the forest that covers the hill. In addition, the applicant argues that a 120-foot setback would cause the crest of the existing hill to block wireless internet signals. The Hearings Officer may grant an adjustment to Section 835 standards under either of two circumstances: 1) a gap in service can only be alleviated through an adjustment; or 2) the proposed adjustment would utilize existing site characteristics to minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties. In either circumstance, staff does not find that the applicant has shown that the adjustment to the 1:1 setback standard is warranted. In terms of a coverage gap, the only justification provided is a statement that the "crest of the hill itself would block wireless internet signals." No evidence to support this claim has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant has not provided propagation maps or other evidence which would indicate that a gap in service is eliminated through the requested adjustment. In order to grant the requested adjustment under Section 835.11.A.1 the applicant must demonstrate that if the proposed tower was placed at least 120 feet from all the property lines a gap in coverage or capacity would exist. Staff finds that it is not clear whether the desired coverage can be achieved from a location on the subject property that meets the 1:1 setback standard. The second circumstance for an adjustment has to do with impacts on surrounding properties. Subsection 835.11.A.2 states the following: "Applicants for an adjustment under this provision must demonstrate that the adjustment will result in a lower level of impact on surrounding Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 19 of 22 properties." The requested adjustment would reduce the yard setback from the east property line from 120 feet to 50 feet. The single family residence on the property adjacent to the subject parcel would only be 60 feet from the proposed facility if the adjustment was granted. Staff does not consider a distance of 60 feet from the residence as opposed to 130 feet to have a lower impact on the adjacent property. The applicant states that trees would need to be removed in order to meet the 120 foot setback. However, it is not clear how many trees would be impacted or if compliance with the 1:1 setback standard would increase visual impacts or lower the impact on surrounding properties. Based on the evidence, staff finds that the adjustment would increase the impact on adjacent properties due to the proximity to the adjacent residence. For the reasons discussed above, staff does not support the request to adjust the 1:1 setback standard and recommends to the Hearings Officer that the tower be sited at least 120 feet from all property lines. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS A. Section 309.08 and 309.09 of the ZDO outlines the Dimensional and Development Standards in the RRFF-5 zoning district. The dimensional standards that apply to the proposed development are the yard setback standards. As previously discussed, the wireless facility satisfies the setback standards of the underlying zone. There is no height limit in the RRFF-5 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed wireless facility meets the dimensional standards of the RRFF-5 zoning district. Subsection 309.09: Development Standards states that development shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 1000 and 1100. The sections which are relevant to this proposal are reviewed below. No other development standards in Section 309 of the ZDO are applicable to this application. B. Section 1007 outlines the Parking, Circulation and Loading Requirements. 1. Section 1007.03 requires right-of-way dedications and improvements for all new developments as deemed necessary by the Department of Transportation and Development. The Clackamas County Engineering Division has not recommended the dedication of any additional right-of-way on the affected road frontages. 2. Section 1007.04 A requires the location of accesses to existing and new developments be planned, coordinated and controlled by the Department of Transportation and Development. Access to the tower site is from a private road/driveway off of SE 302"d Lane. The private access road measures approximately 3,000 feet in length and is paved for the first 1,296 feet. Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 20 of 22 The remaining 1,705 feet of roadway is a 12-foot wide gravel surface. To access the lease area, the applicant proposes to extend the existing gravel drive. The Department of Transportation and Development, Development Engineering staff has reviewed the access to the telecommunications facility. In order to comply with the Clackamas County Roadway Standards, Engineering staff has recommended a number of conditions relating to site access. The suggested conditions of approval are listed in Section 2 of this staff report. This criterion can be met 3. Section 1007.07 outlines the minimum parking standards for new developments. Table 2 in Section 1007.07 outlines the minimum parking standards for certain land uses. A telecommunication facility is not specifically identified in the table. In the absence of the use being specifically listed, Section 1007.07(A)(15) provides for "off-street parking requirements for types of uses and structures not specifically listed in this Ordinance shall be determined by the Planning Director". Given the nature of the use, one parking space is adequate to accommodate the occasional maintenance vehicles for the telecommunication facility. Staff finds that there is adequate space on the subject property to accommodate vehicles associated with the proposed use. 4. Section 1007.07E outlines the Bicycle Parking Standards. These standards are not applicable to a Wireless Telecommunication Facility. S. Section 1007.08 outlines the Off-street Loading Regulations. These standards are not applicable to a Wireless Telecommunication Facility as no off-street loading or unloading will be required. The standards of Section 1007 can be met. C. Section 1008 outlines the requirements for Storm Drainage and Erosion Control. The Preliminary Statement of Feasibility for storm drainage signed by the Engineering Division indicated that it is feasible to accommodate storm drainage from this facility. The standards of Section 1008 can be met. D. Section 1009 outlines the requirements of Landscaping. There is no minimum landscaping requirement in the RRFF-5 zoning district. As previously discussed, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring fencing around the entire facility and landscaping, at a minimum, on the east side of the site. The standards of Section 1009 are met. Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 21 of 22 SUMMARY: The Land Use and Zoning Staff finds that the applicant has submitted information which demonstrates that the proposed wireless broadband facility can conform to the approval standards of the Zoning and Development Ordinance as outlined in Section 3 of this report. The imposition of Conditions of Approval found in Section 2 will assure compliance with the Code. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and conclusions herein, staff recommends that file no. Z0101-11-C /Z0102-11-D be APPROVED subject to the conditions of approval found in Section 2. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 22 of 22 o •o _ N £ -e . ti l ON�0 Q • °b ° ., I z o .; 6c'• 0 III 4 f ■ `�O o W N y� dr "r �I %M• �N Q ,yR® 0 co Q J O 0 ti N a ti a.W °o'� O �, of "� 'IV N o ,—°„ 0 M ,`, l F rcp.a. r. o O O rte °° 1-, N `1 p _ O! 0_ ■ 2 _ . In M a ea- Oita' ` C' V A . \ d 4 ° Q n o b a , O g C' ° II� pi s,` Q p t� z ® no' 'h1, 3 :. 5✓ - .........%,,;,', T V •' ��, .Q' Q h A h Q o N dr a 0 0 O 1 ® H ; O 0L(, I0 �, • 6 0In Oo I CO in _. _ in oa zvzri - > Mesas p,�pr �,. ' es7:yi ,Fe69I • xE-7..„ - .,e4> _r i. e i -• I 0,9 p09 ' ' zZ,asOH ` oI o y: - C.) C), CO I O0 o p 0 ��, ' o 0) o A °to I — U) a, N nl ;` - ry ti `1 t.. .•z,?' 09'/ 1 N 'OFE - 7S'6z' B , I ti . 41 ` U 0 I U �a CO • ti 1 r--� O O h1 T.• o� ■ off' O�In °' 1 w w N, A OJ9 2*.Oai — —— k. g �Q Q M 0 " -a • °-22 71 ..I[7 Ih Q' In• 5 — —1, a•Z%� 0 0 W via 1 — 0,..1 .t.,t '1;. i 1 r .. U . - d Q '01.; O O� rno N Da • __ o , p ' rnln a � .. ..: � 6?` ? iv+s�w1•= �'r°r�l3r1 -,� 41.,,,. /.4.,f,,,-,,,,,,,' � 1 1 N n „ hog. .. a N- 0 N N I ,L.•[zg M ,.95 , i ,{ "nf _ 4x^ ! ,, F H i' Cr r/Y�f _ _. - as F 5� , .. #ate ra - c;. _ ;It' i�r S Q �;b .fin FF a r' r° cn z if U k - } may:.. S lar.• 4, ar' +' < i ^, - '. r't (--.yyy) :r� 1'':t fin•, ... 6 .; -• to #4 to r ,k t•, .:N ] - ,.: H s ,+ �* , d y Tiy i;f; tl j C �"rr dl-r 1,: , A� . .R 1 � rte. i w. , � i w w.,..-,.11,,$$p wr • - {U - }r•,+ r f imp lot , 3 f..` •;IrN C �' i'y A"t"! t•4 fi +' ■ �� t ,, . >r- t w22 r i( .1_ - 7_:1:4'; { t �' m7 '� n,",7,,.." 1 I':1 3: _ i_ ,,E i f ;y .fir .. .4°,- i M .'. 7.11•,-_, '''. - , ,, lc: .; ,;;..,. . J r.• 12' -1 ,• .. F 3 r$, : _ g ''- =3 CLACKAt AS COUNTY PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FEASIBILITY To be completed by the applicant: Applicant's Name: City of Sandy Property Legal Description: T_1_S,R_4E ,Section_30 ,Tax Lot(s) 01901 Site Address: 9765 SE 302nd Lane,Boring OR Project Engineer:N/A Project Title/Description of Proposed Development:Antenna tower for broadband service to rural county residence provided by City of Sandy in partnership with Clackamas County.Antenna mounted on 11'x 11'concrete base,located on the top of a forested hill(residential property). To be completed by the service provider or surface water management authority: Check all that apply: ❑ Sanitary sewer capacity in the wastewater treatment system and the sanitary sewage collection system is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. Adequate surface water treatment and conveyance is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. ❑ Water service is available in levels appropriate for the development,and adequate water system capacity is available in source,supply,treatment,transmission,storage and distribution or such levels and capacity can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. This statement 0 applies 0 does not apply to fire flows.* *If water service is adequate with the exception of fire flows,the applicant shall submit a statement from the fire district serving the subject property that states that an alternate method of fire protection,such as an on-site water source or a sprinkler system,is acceptable. ❑ This statement is issued subject to conditions of approval set forth in the attached. ❑ Adequate 0 sanitary sewer service,0 surface water management,0 water service cannot be provided. ❑ Adequate access is available to serve this development or may be provided through improvements completed by the developer,0 Adequate access cannot be provided. Comments/Conditions j 311 zi /ii Signat of Authorized Repr' e / Date { ' `► ll.2v���t� CIA IL Co. /�/d Titl S . Name of Service Provider or Surface Water Management Authority Completion of this statement does not reserve capacity for the development and does not alter an applicant's obligation to comply with the service provider's or surface water management authority's regulations. Completion of this statement does not obligate the service provider or surface water management authority to finance or construct improvements necessary to provide adequate service for the proposed development. Completion of this statement does not guarantee that land use approval for the_proposed development will be granted. 9101 SE Sunnybrook Blvd.,Clackamas,OR 97015;(503)353-4400; (503)353-4550 2 `1 Hoelscher, Scott From: merwayt @comcast.net Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:33 AM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: File No: Z0101-11-C,Z0102-11-D We respectfully request that this petition be denied for the following reasons: 1. The long term effects on people and animals living close to these towers is unknown. 2. We have a private roadway which the six families living here have paid to have paved. This request would would require heavy equipment along with the people to construct and maintain the structure to travel our roadway causing more damage than already has been caused by Mr. Crawford bringing in heavy equipment this winter. The expense of this will become a hardship for all the families living here. 3. Directly south of this hill is a much larger and taller hill that already has existing towers on it, why not construct the tower on a hill that has already been compromised? 4. Surely the City of Sandy can find a more suitable location. We basically have an undisturbed hill full of wildlife that will be forever altered with such a structure! Please can we not keep some of our hills free from towers? As previously stated this is a very small hill in comparison with other options that are already compromised. We again, respectfully request that this application be denied. Sincerely, Lee and Meredith Wayt 9773 SE 302nd Lane Boring, OR 97009 NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Spam <http://mhub.co.Clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=01EugxcKF&m=f5f7a7f9fae9&c=s> 1 Hoelscher, Scott From: kjfrancis @frontier.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:23 PM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: Internet tower This email is in reference to file number Z0101-11- c,Z0102-11-D I am currently in Oklahoma and will not be returning to Boring until mid-May and my mail is being held at the post office. My neighbor, Meredith Wayt, contacted me saying that we received a form regarding placement of an internet tower on the hill on which we live. She also said that I needed to respond to the form by April 20. Since I will not be home and have not seen the form I hope this email will suffice. My husband and I, John and Kay Francis, 9733 SE 302nd Lane, Boring, OR 97009 live on the hill where Jim Crawford is evidently planning to put an internet tower. Along with our neighbors, the Wayts and the Oldhams, we would prefer for this not to happen. We were approached years ago about leasing part of our land for a cell phone tower and turned down the offer because not only were we not interested, none of the neighbors wanted it there either (including the Crawfords) . If there is a form that I could fill out via email please send me the document and I will respond. Thank you for your help and consideration in this matter. Kay Francis BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Teach Canit if this mail (ID 01EvcmWJu) is spam: Spam: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=0lEvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=s Not spam: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canitJb.php?i=0lEvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=n Forget vote: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=0lEvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=f END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS 1 3. Return your mailed comments to: Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Division, 150 Beavercreek Rd, Oregon City, OR 97045 Comments: 7;1iS PI?OP ti/C5 4.40() X, . "0/L._A20w0r eca.4.'jy /20(10 14✓4 PIZir-1/1j(i\ mat it)rear g k/MiF_ 0,,,Ls 400_10 zJflAs=f Fe u)I ,)r i3 e- u7G4.cohlcz, All interested citizens are invited to attend the hearing. An agenda will be provided at the hearing. Testimony and evidence should address those criteria identified above and any other criteria relevant to the application. Failure to raise an issue at the hearing, or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Officer an opportunity to respond to an issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. The following procedural rules have been established to allow an orderly hearing. 1. The length of time given to individuals speaking for or against an item will be determined by the Hearings Officer prior to the item being considered. 2. A spokesperson representing each side of an issue is encouraged. 3. Only specifically relevant testimony to the item being considered will be allowed. 4. Prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony;the Hearings Officer will either continue the hearing or leave the record open. A staff report for the application will be available seven(7) days prior to the hearing. In the case of an appeal no additional staff report will be prepared. The staff report, applicable criteria, application, and all documents and evidence relied on by the applicant are available for inspection and may be purchased at reasonable cost at the Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Division, Development Services Building; 150 Beavercreek Road; Oregon City, OR 97045, (503-742-4500). Direct all calls and written correspondence to the Land Use and Zoning Division. Anyone may request, at the hearing,that the record be kept open for at least seven (7) days. To receive written notification of the Hearings Officer's decision,provide the Land Use and Zoning Division with a written request indicating the application file number. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR, OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. I27Ncih© p. e. o l 7g5 51. 3o7 t,Ai- l0©al,t,C 00 7 7 Z0101-11-C,Z0102-11-D HO Notice Hoelscher, Scott From: nikky oldham [nikkyoldham63©yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:14 PM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: Z0101-11 C,Z0102-11-D File number Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D Dear Scott, This is in regards to the Telecommunication facility being placed on the Crawfords property. My house is located just below the Crawfords, and will be within 50 feet of this steel structure. Scott Lazenby came out to see me, and showed me where the structure was going to be place. Currently, the antennas for the broadband service is located on the roof of my house. I understand, the need for the antenna to be higher, and the need for the tower. My only concern is that it is only 50 feet from our house and from our view. Scott reassured me that he would have something placed to camouflage the base 10 feet up from the base. this would be greenery or something appealing. I do want to make sure this happens. I want the tower to be as less visible as possible. This structure will be behind the house, however, one of our play rooms face the tower, as well as if we look out from our deck, drive up our driveway, etc. It is just going to be very close! When I originally agreed to this, I did not think that all the trees would be going down that I now see marked. I'm not sure how camouflaged this will be with all the trees gone, for I thought it would just blend in. This truly concerns me. I didn't think I had much of a say, when they told me the tower was going in. Sure, I would rather it never go in, if I had my voice in it all. We moved into the woods to stay away from stuff like this, now to see a big tower 50 feet from the house, it hard to believe. Another concern is our driveway. We share a gravel driveway with 4 homes. This driveway needs maintenance, however, I never see the Crawfords help out with any extra repairs. They have had logging trucks up and down, and the road is suffering. We can't afford to keep fixing it. Now to think we are going to have even more equipment really worries me. If this goes through, I would want the Crawfords, and the City of Sandy to pay for the repair of the road when finished, as well as maintaining the road during the process. Thank you for hearing my voice. Please keep me updated on this process. Sincerely, Nikky Oldham Spam Not spam Forget previous vote 1 Memorandum TO: Scott Hoelscher FROM: Development Engineering Kenneth Kent, Land Use Review Coordinator DATE: April 26, 2011 RE: Z0101-11-C and Z0102-11-D, City of Sandy Rural Broadband 120-foot tall lattice antenna structure and private access road T1S, R4E, Section 30, Tax Lot 1901 Development Review staff has visited the site and reviewed this application with the attached drawings, dated November 2010. We have the following comments: Facts and Findings: 1. The applicant proposes installation of a 120-foot tall steel lattice tower to provide broadband service to rural Sandy residents. The tower site is situated on private property, and will include construction of an onsite private road/driveway, allowing vehicular access to the lattice tower lease area. The total length of the private road/driveway, between the tower site and SE 302nd Lane, measures approximately 3,000 feet. 2. Engineering's comments are principally related to safe access to and from the site, and the provision of an adequate on site private road/driveway connecting SE 302nd Lane with the proposed tower site. 3. In accordance with the Clackamas County Roadway Standards, Section 240, the access roads serving new developments are required to provide minimum intersection sight distance based on the travel speed of the roadway. SE 302nd Lane is not posted for speed and is therefore governed by the "Basic Rule." When roads are governed by the "Basic Rule" speeds up to 55 miles per hour may be allowed. However, to the north there is a 90-degree horizontal curve where SE 302nd Lane becomes SE Waybill Road, approximately 640 from the private road access. To the south, SE 302nd Lane ends approximately 325 feet from the proposed access. Based on the characteristics of SE 302nd Lane, including the narrow width of 12.5 feet, engineering staff estimates the travel speed of vehicles is approximately 35 miles per hour. SE 302nd Lane is also a very low volume local roadway with an estimated traffic volume of approximately 180 vehicles per day. Therefore, based on Clackamas County Roadway Standards subsection 240.7, sight distance is based on the criteria contained in Table 2-9. Based on speed of 35 miles per hour, Roadway Standards table 2-9 specifies 205 feet of sight distance. The existing intersection of the private road with SE 302nd Lane serving the project site exceeds 205 feet of sight distance and is adequate. Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 2 4. Portions of the existing private road, between SE 302nd Lane and the residence on site, are paved. The first 1,295 feet extending west from SE 3021 Lane has a paved surface and is approximately 12 feet wide. The remaining 1,705 feet of roadway is a 12-foot wide gravel surface. There are portions of the roadway that exceed 12 percent in grade and appear to be approximately 15 percent. The new portion of access road extending into the tower site is shown on the proposed plans with a grade of 16 percent. Specific Fire District approval is required for roadways that exceed a 12 percent grade. Roadways that exceed a 15 percent grade require a paved surface, up to a maximum grade of 20 percent. The applicant will be required to verify the existing grades and meet the minimum private road standards, approved by the Engineering Division and Fire District. 5. In regards to the on site private road/driveway providing access to the lease area, Roadway Standards Drawing R100 illustrates the minimum required private road dimensions and structural section. Staff recommends compliance with these Drawing R100 standards. In addition, an on site turnaround shall be designed and constructed to accommodate fire apparatus and service vehicles. The submitted drawings illustrate an on site turnaround near the end of the private road adjacent to the lease area where the lattice tower is proposed to be located. However, the wings of the turnaround may need to be increased to meet the minimum dimensions of Roadway Standards drawing C350. One of the proposed wings is dimensioned at 61.94 feet, while the other wing appears to be approximately 20 feet. The Roadway Standards require a 70-foot long wing and a 60-foot wing for the Hammerhead Alternative 2. Design and construction of the turnaround shall be in accordance with drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the local Fire District and Engineering staff. 6. The submitted plans do not indicate a specific easement to the tower site from SE 302nd Lane, for ingress, egress, and utilities. The minimum access easement is 20 feet in width. The applicant will be required to verify existing easements and/or new easements to the tower lease area. This easement width will prove sufficient for most of the private road/driveway length. However, the turnouts, measuring ten feet wide by 30 feet long(with 30-foot long tapers) will require a wider easement, a minimum of 22 feet in width to accommodate a 12-foot wide road and a ten foot wide turnout. The turnout geometry is illustrated on Roadway Standards drawing C350. Additional easement width will also be required for the turnaround proposed adjacent to the tower lease area. The provision of an easement will insure access rights for personnel to maintain the facility, regardless of the current or future ownership of the property. In addition, the easement could be enlarged and configured to accommodate the illustrated on site turnouts, and the turnaround in the vicinity of the proposed lease area, which would accommodate service vehicles and fire apparatus. Adequate road width and radii for Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 3 a turnaround area will be recommended in accordance with local Fire District requirements. 7. Comprehensive Plan Chapter Five, "Transportation", under the heading "Improvements to Serve Development", includes Policy 16.0, which reads as follows: "Require development to be served by adequate roadway facilities." SE 302nd Lane is classified as a local road and measures approximately 12.5 feet in width in the vicinity of the subject property. The road is paved, with varying gravel shoulders approximately 18 inches wide. While the county standard for a local road is for a paved road 22 feet in width, with six (6) foot wide compacted gravel shoulders, staff finds that SE 302nd Lane, while substandard, would be adequate to accommodate the existing traffic (approximately 180 vehicles per day) and the additional approximately two (2) trips per month that this type of facility typically generates. There are existing driveway aprons along SE 302nd Lane that provide pull out areas for two vehicles to pass. In addition, staff finds that there is sight distance at the intersection of the private access road with SE 302nd Avenue. Therefore, staff finds that it would be feasible to provide adequate roadway facilities to serve the development. 8. In regards to Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) section 1022, this type of facility is exempt from transportation capacity concerns as noted in subsection 1022.03 A3. Therefore, staff finds that the application is in compliance with the transportation element of ZDO section 1022. If this application is approved, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1) All frontage and on site improvements shall be in conformance with the 2010 Clackamas County Roadway Standards. 2) The applicant shall maintain adequate intersection sight distance at the intersection of the driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. In addition, no plantings at maturity, retaining walls, embankments, fences, signs, structures, parked vehicles, or any other objects shall be allowed to obstruct minimum required sight distances. Minimum intersection sight distance shall be 205 feet both northerly and southerly, along SE 302nd Lane, measured 14.5 feet back from the edge of the travel lane at the intersection of the site driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. 3) The applicant shall design and construct one on site turnaround, near the lattice tower lease area, consistent with Roadway Standards drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the Fire District and Engineering staff. 4) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify existing access easements, and obtain new easements as necessary to provide a minimum 20-foot wide easement from SE 302nd Lane to the lease area, for ingress, egress, and Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 4 utilities, except where the easement is required to be wider to accommodate turnouts, radii, the turnaround, etc. 5) The applicant shall design and construct the private road/driveway, between SE 302nd Lane and the lease area, to standards contained in the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The private road/driveway shall meet the following standards: a) The minimum width for the driving surface shall be 12 feet and shall be centered in a 20-foot wide clear zone. Wherever the private road is paved, minimum two- foot wide compacted gravel shoulders shall be provided. Wherever the private road is surfaced with gravel, minimum four foot wide compacted earthen shoulders shall be provided. b) The private road shall be constructed in accordance with Roadway Standards drawing R100, with a minimum of 9 inches of 3/4"minus crushed, graded and compacted rock on a compacted base and subgrade, over geotextile fabric, and shall be able to support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus. Wherever the private road is to be paved, the aforementioned gravel section shall also require a three inch thick asphalt pavement section over the gravel, placed in two one and one-half inch lifts. Any sections of the private road that exceed 15 percent slope shall be paved. For the gravel portion of the existing access road, pull out areas shall be identified and improved as necessary to meet the minimum standards provided in Road Standards Drawing C350. The onsite parking space and turnaround area shall provide the same structural section as the private road. c) Written verification must be received from the local Fire District that the private road will support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus, that road grades and surfacing materials are acceptable, that a sufficient turnaround exists or will be constructed, that corner radii are acceptable, and that vertical (13.5 feet) and horizontal (20 feet) clearances are acceptable. Attention must be given to weight limits of culverts. All culverts shall be cleaned and maintained in a clean condition. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the road construction plans from the local Fire District prior to issuance of a Development Permit. d) Positive drainage must be provided for surface water to an acceptable outfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction process. (ZDO section 1008) e) Construction or reconstruction of the private road/driveway requires plans prepared and stamped by an Engineer registered in the State of Oregon and a Development Permit. To obtain a permit the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans to Deana Mulder, who works in the County's Engineering section. The applicant shall also provide a Performance Guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction plus a 25% contingency and pay an Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 5 Inspection Fee. S:\DEVLPMNT\2010\20101-11-C-Z0102-11-D-C&D-KK-Sandy302ndTwr.doc Land Use and Zoning Development Services Building Mike McCallister, Manager 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 742-4500 fax: (503) 742-4550 CLACK C MAS e-mail: zoninginfo @co.clackamas.or.us COUNTY Web: http://www.clackamas.us/transportation/planning/ Land Use and Zoning Staff Report and Recommendation To the Hearings Officer This document represents the Land Use and Zoning Staff recommendation to the Clackamas County Hearings Officer for application file no. Z0101-11-C /Z0102-11-D as cited below. It contains three parts: Section 1 —Summary, Section 2— Conditions of Approval and Section 3 —Findings. SECTION 1 —SUMMARY DATE: April 28, 2011 HEARING DATE: May 5, 2011 CASE FILE NO.: Z0101-11-C & Z0102-11-D STAFF CONTACT: Scott Hoelscher, (503)742-4524, scotthoe(a,co.clackainas.or.us LOCATION: 9765 SE 302nd Lane; T1S R4E Section 30, Tax Lot(s) 01901, 1910 APPLICANT: City of Sandy; 39250 SE Pioneer Blvd., Sandy, OR 97055 OWNER: James Crawford, 9765 SE 302nd Lane, Boring, OR 97055 TOTAL AREA: Approximately 22.53 acres ZONING: Rural Residential Farm Forest 5-Acre (RRFF-5) CITIZENS PLANNING ORGANIZATION: Boring CPO; Les Otto, P.O. Box 391, Boring, OR 97009 PROPOSAL: Telecommunication facility consisting of a 120-foot steel lattice structure and antennas for broadband service to rural Sandy residents and businesses. SITE DESCRIPTION: The five acre subject property is zoned Rural Residential Farm Forest— 5 acre and is currently developed with a single family residence and shop building. The site includes two tax lots. The tower is proposed to be located on tax lot 1910 and a portion of the 1 Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 1 of 22 access drive will be across tax lot 1901. The property owner also owns three adjacent tax lots for a total site area comprising approximately 22 acres. The single family residence is located in the central portion of tax lot 1901. The wireless broadband facility is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of tax lot 1910,just south of the existing shop building and 50 feet from the east property line. The parcel consists primarily of timber stands with some lawn/pasture areas near the existing residence. The site is accessible via a shared easement extending from 302nd Ave. The subject property sits on a hilltop which is approximately 900 feet above sea level. SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: The properties to the south and east of the subject site are also zoned RRFF-5. Zoning to the north and west of the subject site is EFU: Exclusive Farm Use. The hilltop where the subject property is located is predominantly forested. Beyond the hilltop, the surrounding area consists of rural residential acreage and farm land. Hwy. 26 is approximately %2 mile to the south of the subject property. SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Sewer: The subject property is not located within a public or private sewer district. Sewage disposal is accommodated by an on-site sewage disposal system. 2. Water: The subject property is not located within a public or private water district. 3. Surface Water: The subject property is located outside the boundaries of any Surface Water Management Agency. Surface water management is subject to Section 1008 of the ZDO as administered by the Clackamas County Engineering Division. 4. Fire: Boring Rural Fire Protection District#59. RESPONSES REQUESTED: 1. Boring Rural Fire Protection District 1459. 2. Boring CPO 3. DTD, Traffic Engineering 4. Oregon Dept. of Aviation 5. Clackamas County C-Comm. (911) 6. Property Owners within 750 feet OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RECORD: A copy of the Land Use and Zoning staff report and all evidence submitted with this application is available for inspection, at no cost, at the Land Use and Zoning office during normal business hours. Copies of all documents may be purchased at the rate of 10-cents per page. The staff report contains the findings and conclusion upon which the recommendation is based along with any condition of approval. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Sections(s) 309, 835, 1007, 1009, 1022, 1102 and 1203. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 2 of 22 Location Map �� fit VYHCCLttt I I I I 1 in I, o � I _ Site r--z Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 3 of 22 Site Plan • -9 4- h ce o 1.? ir E ill i N ?.... i: 0 - - 1 -- 1 I-- Pi 1:1 PI ..., L1J 01 a 8 I-I ts, , z '±' ..... ,E a . H w 0, < 1---- LI 0 W CC "b h co 4 -g..g S---\ \ ,4) ,1 _1 ec .-x •soTs I\ ci ...: , Z ‹. 2: 1 irrj-E-E f;1 8 .• Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 4 of 22 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SECTION 2—CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of application file Z0101-11-C /Z0102-1 1-D subject to the following conditions: Land Use & Zoning Conditions of Approval 1. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development, Building Services Division, approval of a building permit and related plumbing, electrical, mechanical permits, if applicable, are required for this facility. 2. The lattice tower shall observe a minimum setback of 120 feet from all property lines. 3. No lighting or marking shall be placed on the tower except as required by state and/or federal regulations. 4. Landscaping shall be planted along the east perimeter of the fenced lease area. Evergreens such as arbor vitae spaced at 3 foot on center and a minimum of 4 feet tall at planting shall be planted to form a continuous, sight-obscuring landscaping strip. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the facility, a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the Land Use and Zoning Division for review and approval. 5. The lattice tower shall not exceed 120 feet above ground level. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Utility Placement Permit prior to commencement of utility work within the County right-of-way. 7. The applicant shall remove the facility from the site when the applicant or any other successor in interest ceases to use it as a communications facility. 8. The wireless broadband facility shall be located within an area that is enclosed on all sides. The enclosure must be at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. 9. The wireless broadband facility shall be designed and built to accommodate collocation of the additional equipment identified in Subsection 835.08.B of the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance. 10. Maintenance of the leased area and the landscaping is the responsibility of the owner/operator of the wireless communication facility. The owner/operator shall prevent the facility from entering into a state of disrepair due to negligence, vandalism, natural hazard, or any other source. 11. This Conditional Use permit is approved for the specific use and facility described in the application to the extent it is consistent with the conditions of approval. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 5 of 22 12. This Conditional Use permit is granted subject to the conditions of approval. Non- compliance with any of these conditions constitutes a violation of this permit and shall be cause for revoking this permit. 13. This Conditional Use shall expire in the event the approval is not implemented within two (2) years of the final written decision. The Conditional Use approval will be considered implemented when all necessary permits for development have been secured and are maintained. 14. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not a criterion for approval of this application. The County has reviewed the approval standards in light of the requirements of the ESA and believes that the criteria for approval are consistent with the terms of the ESA and has submitted the Development Ordinances for consideration for a "4(d)"programmatic limitation. However, the analysis included in this report does not include an evaluation by the County of the application for consistency with the ESA nor does the report reach any conclusions concerning that federal law. The applicant is responsible for designing, construction, operation and maintaining the actives allowed by an approval of this application in a manner that ensures compliance with the ESA. Any question concerning this issue should be directed to the applicant, its consultants and the federal agencies responsible for administration and enforcement of the ESA for the affected species. Development Engineering Conditions of Approval 15. All frontage and on site improvements shall be in conformance with the 2010 Clackamas County Roadway Standards. 16. The applicant shall maintain adequate intersection sight distance at the intersection of the driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. In addition, no plantings at maturity, retaining walls, embankments, fences, signs, structures, parked vehicles, or any other objects shall be allowed to obstruct minimum required sight distances. Minimum intersection sight distance shall be 205 feet both northerly and southerly, along SE 302nd Lane,measured 14.5 feet back from the edge of the travel lane at the intersection of the site driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. 17. The applicant shall design and construct one on site turnaround, near the lattice tower lease area, consistent with Roadway Standards drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the Fire District and Engineering staff. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify existing access easements, and obtain new easements as necessary to provide a minimum 20-foot wide easement from SE 302nd Lane to the lease area, for ingress, egress, and utilities, except where the easement is required to be wider to accommodate turnouts, radii, the turnaround, etc. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 6 of 22 coo Y1 19. The applicant shall design and construct the private road/driveway, between SE 302nd Lane If and the lease area, to standards contained in the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The v� private road/driveway shall meet the following standards: a) The minimum width for the driving surface shall be 12 feet and shall be centered in a 20- foot wide clear zone. Wherever the private road is paved, minimum two-foot wide compacted gravel shoulders shall be provided. Wherever the private road is surfaced with gravel, minimum four foot wide compacted earthen shoulders shall be provided. b) The private road shall be constructed in accordance with Roadway Standards drawing R100, with a minimum of 9 inches of 3/4"minus crushed, graded and compacted rock on a compacted base and sub grade, over geotextile fabric, and shall be able to support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus. Wherever the private road is to be paved, the aforementioned gravel section shall also require a three inch thick asphalt pavement section over the gravel, placed in two one and one-half inch lifts. Any sections of the private road that exceed 15 percent slope shall be paved. For the gravel portion of the existing access road, pull out areas shall be identified and improved as necessary to meet the minimum standards provided in Road Standards Drawing C350. The onsite parking space and turnaround area shall provide the same structural section as the private road. c) Written verification must be received from the local Fire District that the private road will support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus, that road grades and surfacing materials are acceptable, that a sufficient turnaround exists or will be constructed, that corner radii are acceptable, and that vertical (13.5 feet) and horizontal (20 feet) clearances are acceptable. Attention must be given to weight limits of culverts. All culverts shall be cleaned and maintained in a clean condition. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the road construction plans from the local Fire District prior to issuance of a Development Permit. d) Positive drainage must be provided for surface water to an acceptable outfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction process. (ZDO section 1008) e) Construction or reconstruction of the private road/driveway requires plans prepared and stamped by an Engineer registered in the State of Oregon and a Development Permit. To obtain a permit the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans to Deana Mulder, who works in the County's Engineering section. The applicant shall also provide a Performance Guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction plus a 25% contingency and pay an Inspection Fee. Staff Report File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 7 of 22 SECTION 3 —FINDINGS This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Section(s) 1203, 835, 309, 1007, 1009, 1022 and 1102. The Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Staff has reviewed this Section of the ZDO in conjunction with the home occupation proposal and makes the following findings and conclusions: ZDO SUBSECTION 1203 A. Section 1203.01A: The use must be listed as a Conditional Use in the underlying zoning district. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential Farm Forest—5 acre (RRFF-5). Section 309 of the ZDO controls land uses in the underlying RRFF-5 zoning district. Section 309.06.A of the ZDO lists the conditional uses allowed in the RRFF-5 zoning district. Section 309.06.A (11) specifically lists "Wireless telecommunication facilities listed in Subsection 835.06(A), subject to Section 835." Section 835.03H defines a Wireless Telecommunication Facility as "An unmanned facility for the transmission of radio frequency (RF)signals, consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices." The City of Sandy proposes to construct an unmanned wireless facility consisting of a 120- foot tall lattice tower. Antennas for the City of Sandy rural broadband service will be placed on the top of the tower. There will be no ground-mounted equipment for the proposed facility; instead small utility cabinets will be mounted on the actual tower. The proposed use meets the definition of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility and is listed as conditional use in the underlying zone. This criterion is met. B. Section 1203.O1B: The characteristics of the site must be suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, existence of improvements and natural features. Size and Shape: The subject property consists of six tax lots which total approximately 22 acres. The communications facility will be situated on two of the tax lots: the actual tower will be located on tax lot 1910, while the access driveway will traverse a portion of tax lot 1901 as well as part of tax lot 1910. The entire 22 acre site is essentially a rectangular shaped parcel with a"panhandle" in the southeast corner. The two tax lots where is the communications facility will be located is also rectangular in shape. The lattice tower will be located on a 12' x 12' concrete foundation pad. A small utility cabinet will be mounted on the tower; no equipment shelter will be located on the site. The property is of adequate size to accommodate the lease area for the facility as well as parking for the occasional maintenance vehicle. The large size of the property would also allow the monopole to be set Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 8 of 22 back a distance not less than its height from all property lines. However, the applicant has requested an adjustment to the setback standard and has proposed a setback of 50 feet from the east property line. A discussion of the setback adjustment is on pages 17 and 18 of this report. The size and shape of the subject property are suitable to accommodate the siting of the proposed tower facility. Topography: The subject property is northwest of the City of Sandy and sits on a hilltop which is several hundred feet above sea level. According to the contour infoiivation provided on the submitted site plan, the area for the lattice tower slopes gradually uphill to the north. Although sloped, the site for the telecommunications facility is not excessively steep and is suitable to accommodate construction and placement of the tower. Location: This facility is intended to improve wireless internet service to the surrounding rural community. The City has utilized a roof-mounted antenna on an adjacent parcel since 2003. In order to improve broadband service, a taller site is needed. The applicant has submitted a propagation study demonstrating the need for the tower to provide coverage in this area. This location is suitable for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. Improvements: The tower will be located in the northeast corner of the property. Existing improvements of the subject property include a single family house and a shop building. A significant portion of the site is comprised of cedar and fir trees. As shown on the submitted drawings, several trees will need to be removed in order to construct the facility. The proposed tower will not require the removal or modification of any existing improvements on the property. In order to access the telecommunication facility, the existing driveway will be extended to the tower site. The proposed site will not interfere with any of the existing improvements. Natural Features: According to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) maps, the subject property does not contain any regulated geologic hazards. According to the FEMA Floodplain maps, the subject property is not located within a designated floodplain. The subject property does not contain any regulated wetlands identified on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). There are no streams regulated under the River and Stream Conservation Area Ordinance (Section 704) located on the subject property. Summary: The size, shape, topography and locational characteristics of the subject property are suitable to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed use will not impact the function of the existing improvements on the property. There are no natural features located Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 9 of 22 on the subject property or adjacent and nearby properties which would be impacted by the proposed use. This criterion is met. C. Section 1203.01C: The development must be consistent with Section 1022 of the ZDO and the safety of the transportation system must be adequate to serve the proposed development. Section 1022 of the ZDO outlines the Concurrency Standards for sanitary sewer, surface water management, water service and minimum standards for transportation facilities. a. Section 1022.03;Sanitary Sewer Service: Approval of a development that requires public sanitary sewer service shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the sanitary sewage treatment service provider and the collection system service provider. The statement shall verify that sanitary sewer capacity in the wastewater treatment system and the sanitary sewage collection system is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more than one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve sanitary sewer system capacity for the development. The subject property is not located within a public sanitary sewer district. The proposed facility will be unmanned and will not require sanitary sewer service. This criterion is not applicable. b. Section 1022.04;Surface Water Management: Approval of a development shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the surface water management regulatory authority. The statement shall verify that adequate surface water treatment and conveyance is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more than one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve surface water treatment and conveyance system capacity for the development. The subject property is located outside all Surface Water Management Agencies of Clackamas County. Therefore, the Clackamas County Engineering Division is required to review the project and submit the Statement of Feasibility. The Statement of Feasibility is dated March 21, 2011. The Engineering Division states that the surface water impact will be minimal after construction and will not impact adjoining properties. This criterion is met. c. Section 1022.05; Water Service: Approval of a development that requires public water service shall be granted only if the applicant provides a preliminary statement of feasibility from the water system provider. The statement shall verify that water service, including fir flows, is available in levels appropriate for the development and that adequate water system capacity is available in source, supply, treatment Staff Report—File No.Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 10 of 22 transmission, storage and distribution. Alternatively, the statement shall verify that such levels and capacity can be made available through improvements completed by the developer of the system owner. The statement shall be dated no more that one year prior to the date a complete land use application is filed and need not reserve water system capacity for the development. The proposed facility will be unmanned and not require water service. This criterion is not applicable. d. Section 1022.07; Transportation Facilities: Section 1022.07A states "Approval of a development shall be granted only if transportation facilities are adequate or will be made adequate in a timely manner. "Adequate"as defined in Section 1022.07B means a Level-of-Service (LOS)D, except in certain areas of the County identified in Section 1022.07B (5-9). The proposed use is considered an unmanned utility facility. These facilities are exempt from Section 1022.07.A. This criterion is not applicable. The second portion of Subsection 1203.01.0 states that the safety of the transportation system must be adequate to serve the proposed development. The primary transportation safety concern for this type of development is the provision of adequate intersection sight distance for the access road serving the subject site. The Development Engineering staff visited the site and measured the intersection sight distance at the intersection of the access driveway/private road and SE 302nd Lane. As indicated in the April 26, 2011 memorandum from Kenneth Kent of the Engineering Division, the existing intersection of the private road/driveway with SE 302nd Lane exceeds the minimum sight distance requirements. Summary: This proposal complies with the applicable requirements of Section 1022 and the safety of the transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development. This condition is met. D. Section 1203.OID; The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying zoning district. The properties surrounding the subject site are zoned EFU: Exclusive Faun Use and RRFF- 5: Rural Residential Farm Forest— 5 Acre. The primary uses allowed in the EFU zoning district are listed in Section 401.04 of the ZDO and primarily include, but are not limited to, farm uses and forest uses. The primary uses allowed in RRFF-5 district are listed in Section 309.03 of the ZDO and include,but are not limited to, single family dwellings, farm uses and propagation of forest products. The proposed telecommunications facility is a passive use that does not emit odors, vibrations or a significant amount of noise. The proposed use has not been shown to Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 11 of 22 preclude farm or forest activity from occurring on nearby lands. The RF/electromagnetic emissions generated by this facility are regulated by federal law. At the levels proposed, there is not a basis for concluding that such fields will affect human health. Further, federal law prohibits the county from making potential health effects a criterion for approval. Although the tower will be visible from off-site views, staff finds that the tower will not substantially impact the views or visual character of this area because landscaping will be required at the base of the tower and the grey galvanized steel color of the tower will not result in a significant visual impact. In summary, planning staff finds this use will not substantially limit, impair or preclude the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses identified in the underlying zoning district for the following reasons: 1. This is a passive unmanned facility. 2. The use will not require the use of any public water, storm drainage or sewer system. 3. The use will not generate significant traffic. Once constructed, traffic will be limited to maintenance visits once a month. 4. The facility will not limit farming or forest activity in the surrounding area. 5. If approved, staff recommends that the bottom portion of the tower be visually screened by landscaping. 6. The proposed use will not generate any odors, vibration or require the use of hazardous wastes. This criterion is met. E. The fifth criterion requires the proposal satisfy the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed use. Staff finds the following specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) to be applicable to the proposed telecommunication facility: Policy 20 of the Roadways Section of the Transportation Element and Policy 20 of the Public Facilities Section of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the CP. Policy 20.0 of the Transportation Element of the CP requires an assessment of anticipated off-site traffic impacts caused by new developments and subdivisions. Following construction of the tower, the proposed use will not generate any significant traffic. Vehicle trips will be limited to occasional maintenance visits. This will not result in any measurable off-site traffic impacts. Policy 20.0 of the Public Facilities Section of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the CP requires submission of storm drainage, water quality and erosion control plans prior to approval of all new development and implementation of such plans. Erosion control and storm water management in this area is governed by Clackamas County Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 12 of 22 Engineering Division. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Statement of Feasibility from the Clackamas County Engineering Division. Staff has not identified any additional goals or policies of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed use. This proposal is consistent with Policy 20.0 of the Public Facilities Section and Policy 20.0 of the Transportation Section of the Plan. This criterion is met. ZDO SUBSECTION 835 A. Section 835.06; Conditional Uses. The following uses may be approved by the Hearings Officer when the applicant demonstrates compliance with Subsections 835.07, 835.08 and 835.09 and Sections of 1000 and 1203: 1. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities proposed in the Village Community Service District or on a site with a CP designation of Residential,Rural Center, Rural or Forest; and The subject property is located on a site designated Rural on the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this application can be approved by the Hearings Officer, providing the applicant demonstrates compliance with Subsections 835.07, 835.08, and 835.09 and Sections 1000 and 1203. The criteria in Section 1203 have been addressed above. Based on those findings, this application can satisfy the criteria in Section 1203 if an adjustment is granted pursuant to Subsection 835.11. The applicable standards and criteria in Section 1000 and 835.07, 835.08, and 835.09 are addressed below. 2. Subsection 835.06A(2): Wireless Telecommunication Facilities located in an Exclusive Farm Use(EFU)District that include a tower over 200 feet in height. The subject property is not located within an EFU zoning district. This standard is not applicable. B. Section 835.06B: The Hearings Officer may require the applicant to provide information about possible alternate locations on the tract. The Hearings Officer may require placement of the tower in an alternate location on the tract if the Hearings Officer finds that the alternate location would result in greater compliance with the criteria in Section 1203 than the proposed site. In order to avoid relocating the proposed facility, the applicant must demonstrate that the necessary service cannot reasonably be provided from the alternate location. The applicant has not provided evidence that alternative locations on the subject property were considered. The Hearings Officer may require the applicant to address the above standard. This standard can be met. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 13 of 22 Section 835.07; Collocation. No new tower will be permitted under the provisions of Subsections 835.05A(1) or 835.06 unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or Hearings Officer, as applicable, that no existing tower or support structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. All proposals for new Wireless Telecommunication Facilities must be accompanied by a statement from a qualified person, as determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Officer, that the necessary service cannot be provided by collocation for one or more of the following reasons: 1. No existing towers or support structures, or approved but not yet constructed towers or support structures, are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; 2. Existing towers or support structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; 3. Existing towers or support structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment; 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing tower or support structure or the existing antenna would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; or 5. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and support structures unsuitable. The applicant has conducted a search of the surrounding area for existing towers that may be able to accommodate the proposed broadband facility. The existing tower nearest the proposed site is an American Tower facility located approximately 1.18 miles from the subject property. Compliance with this subsection depends on the applicant providing substantial evidence that no exiting towers or other support structures can accommodate the City of Sandy antennas for one or more of the reasons listed in Subsection 835.07 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. In the Alternatives Analysis from the City of Sandy Network Engineer,the applicant disqualifies the American Tower facility for insufficient height reasons (Item #2 under Subsection 835.07). The letter from the City of Sandy Engineer indicates that the existing American Tower facility is at a ground elevation of 610 feet with the top of the tower at 775 feet. The top of the proposed broadband tower is at an elevation of approximately 900 feet. Therefore, the proposed site is 125 feet higher than the American Tower facility. A coverage analysis to determine the feasibility of the American Tower site was performed. The applicant submitted propagation maps showing coverage provided by the existing American Tower site and coverage via the proposed facility on SE 302nd Lane. The coverage maps indicate that collocation on the American Tower facility would significantly compromise coverage to the surrounding rural areas. Staff finds that the applicant has provided information that no existing towers or support structures are present within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Therefore, co-location is not possible. This criterion is met. C. Section 835.08; Conditional Standards Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 14 of 22 1. Section 835.08A: All wireless telecommunication towers proposed for location within the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary shall be of monopole type construction. The subject property is not within the Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary. This criterion is not applicable. 2. Section 835.08B: All new wireless telecommunication towers shall be designed and built to accommodate collocation or additional loading. For the purposes of this provision, this means that the tower shall be designed specifically to accommodate no less than the following equipment, in addition to the applicant's proposed equipment; a. Twelve antennas with a float plate wind-loading of not less than four square feet per antenna; b. A standard mounting structure, stand off arms,platform or other similar structure designed to hold the antennas; c. Cable ports at the base and antenna levels of the tower; and d. Sufficient room within or on the tower for 12 runs of 7/8"coaxial cable from the base of the tower to the antennas. The tower proposed by the applicant is a 120 foot lattice tower as shown on the submitted drawings. The applicant has not specified the loading capacity of the tower. Based on the submitted information, it appears that small microwave antennas as well as panel style antennas will be placed on the tower. The applicant states that the tower will accommodate collocation of antennas similar to the wireless internet antennas that the City of Sandy will mount on the proposed tower. Future equipment for collocation may include antennas for public safety such as fire or sheriff communications. The applicant argues that the above collocation requirements are designed for cellular phone carriers such as AT&T and Verizon and because the City of Sandy is not a conventional cellular phone carrier the loading capacity specified above does not apply to the proposed broadband tower. Regardless of the type of structure, the proposed development is, by definition, a wireless telecommunication facility and subject to Subsection 835.08B. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed telecommunications tower should be designed and engineered to accommodate the additional loading required by this subsection. Staff does not have the discretion to modify or amend the additional loading requirement and the applicant has not provided evidence to justify an adjustment to this standard. If the Hearings Officer approves this application, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the facility be designed and engineered to accommodate the equipment required by this subsection. This criterion can be met. 3. Section 835.08C: Wireless telecommunication towers shall be painted or coated in a manner that blends with the surrounding area. The finished coloring shall result in a non-reflective surface that makes the tower as visually unobtrusive as possible, unless state Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 15 of 22 or federal regulations require different colors. Colors will be determined through the Design Review process. The applicant does not propose to paint the 120 foot tower. Instead the applicant proposes to leave the tower in its natural galvanized steel color. Staff agrees that an unpainted gray steel color is typically the most visually unobtrusive color and blends well with the surrounding environment. Staff does not recommend painting the proposed tower. This criterion can be met. 4. Section 835.08D: Equipment shelters may be painted or coated with a finish that best suits the operational needs of the facility, including the ability to reflect heat and to resist accumulations of dirt. Colors will be determined through the Design Review process. If through the Design Review process, it is determined that there is a conflict between acceptable colors and the operational needs of the facility, Design Review may require the use of architectural screen panels. No equipment shelter is proposed for this telecommunications facility. A small utility cabinet will be mounted on the tower. This criterion is not applicable. 5. Section 835.08E: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower, except as required by state or federal regulations. If required, the light shall be shielded or deflected from the ground and other properties, to the extent practicable. The applicant has not proposed to establish any lighting on the tower. The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) was sent notice of the proposed tower. As of the date of this staff report, staff has not received any comments from ODA. If this application is approved by the Hearings Officer, a condition of approval should be placed on the permit prohibiting tower lighting unless required by the Oregon Department of Aviation or federal regulators. This criterion can be met. 6. Section 835.08F: The wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within an area that is enclosed on all sides. The enclosure must be at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. The submitted narrative indicates that the proposed tower will not be fenced due to its remote location. The site plans, however, show a new fence surrounding the tower. The above subsection requires a wireless communication facility to be located within a fenced enclosure that is at least six feet tall and sight obscuring. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer include a condition of approval requiring a fenced enclosure around the facility. This criterion can be met. 7. Section 835.08G: Landscaping shall be placed outside of the enclosed area and shall consist of the following; a. A combination of landscaping materials that includes ground cover, shrubs and trees that are reflective of the natural surrounding vegetation in the are, as determined through the Design Review process; Staff Report—File No.20101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 16 of 22 b. Existing landscaping/vegetation may be used to satisfy the above requirements; c. Through the Design Review process, applications shall be reviewed for consistency with Subsection 1009.10; and d. In cases where a portion of the wireless telecommunication facility is screened from points off-site by a building that is at least eight feet tall, the landscaping requirements of this subsection will not be required for the screened area. The applicant argues that existing vegetation will screen the base of the tower from off- site views. Therefore, no additional landscaping or screening is proposed. Staff received comments from owner of the property located directly to the east of the subject site. The residence on this property(tax lot 1909) is located approximately 60 feet from the proposed tower site. The owner of the property is concerned about tower visibility and would like to see installation of landscaping to camouflage the base of the tower. Staff agrees that existing vegetation is not sufficient to screen the base of the tower and that landscaping should be installed between the tower and the property to the east. There is existing vegetation in other directions that should be sufficient to screen the tower from the north, south and west. To provide an adequate buffer and screen the base of the tower, staff recommends the following landscaping along the east side of the site: arbor vitae trees spaced at 3 foot on center and will be a minimum of 4 foot tall at planting. If the Hearings Officer approval this application, staff recommends a condition be included requiring landscaping on the east side of the site. With condition of approval, staff finds that this standard can be met. This criterion can be met. 8. Section 835.08H: Applications reviewed under Subsections 835.05(A)(1) and(3) and 835.06 are subject to Section 1102 (Design Review). This application is being reviewed under Subsection 835.06. Design review is included in this application. This criterion can be met. 9. Section 835.081: Equipment shelters shall be entirely enclosed. Equipment shelter exterior materials shall be those approved through the Design Review process. The City of Sandy has not proposed to install an equipment shelter at this location. This criterion is not applicable. 10. Section 835.08J: Noise generated by the wireless telecommunication facility shall not exceed the levels established by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). If properties adjacent to the property upon which the wireless telecommunication facility is proposed have a lower DEQ standard than the proposed site, the lower standard shall be applicable. The noise generated by the proposed facility is not expected to exceed the limits established by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). A condition of approval requiring compliance with DEQ standards shall be placed on the permit. This criterion is met. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 17 of 22 11. Section 835.08K: Maintenance of the lease area is the responsibility of the owner/operator of the wireless telecommunication facility. The owner operator shall prevent the facility from entering into a state of disrepair due to negligence, vandalism, natural hazard, or any other source. This requirement places the responsibility for maintenance on the owner/operator and is, otherwise, consistent with the requirement of Subsection 1102.09. This conditional standard is not an approval criterion, and is only intended to identify maintenance responsibilities for the facility. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. D. Section 835.09;Dimensional Standards. Minimum tower separation distance and minimum setback requirements. Either Section 835.09A, B or C is applicable depending on the location of the subject property and the underlying Zoning and/or Comprehensive Plan designation. The subject property is located within an area with a Forest Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, Section 835.09(A) and(B) are not applicable. Section 835.09(C) is applicable. 1. Section 835.09(C): Lands within a Comprehensive Plan designation of Rural or Agriculture: a. Section 835.09C(1): Wireless telecommunication tower maximum height: 150 feet. A 120-foot tower is being proposed. This standard is met. b. Section 835.09C(2): Minimum tower separation: 2000 feet. The applicant has submitted an inventory of existing towers in the vicinity of the proposed site. There are no towers within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. This standard is met. c. Section 835.09B(3): Setbacks: Must satisfy setbacks of the zone. Additionally, the wireless telecommunication tower shall be set back a distance not less than its height from all property lines. The 120-foot City of Sandy broadband tower is proposed to be located 420 feet from the north property line; 230 feet from the south property line; at least 200 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the east property line. The lattice structure will satisfy the setbacks of the RRFF-5 zone. However, because of the placement near the east property line, the applicant has requested an adjustment to the setback standard requiring the tower to be setback a distance not less than its height from all property lines. See the following section for a discussion of the setback adjustment. This standard can be met. Section 835.11A(1): Adjustments to the standards of this section may be approved by the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer may grant an adjustment when a gap in the applicant's service exists and that gap can only be alleviated through the adjustment of one or Staff Report—File No.Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 18 of 22 • more of the standards of this section. If an adjustment is to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate the following: a. A gap in coverage or capacity exists in the wireless telecommunication provider's service network that results in network users being regularly unable to connect with the provider's network, or maintain connection; b. The proposed facility will fill the existing service gap. The gap would be filled if the proposed facility would substantially reduce the frequency with which uses of the network are unable to connect, or maintain connection, with the provider's network; and c. The gap cannot be filled through collocation on existing facilities, or establishment of facilities that are consistent with the standards of this section on properties other than the proposed site or on the proposed site in a manner which does not require an adjustment under this subsection. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the following standard: the wireless telecommunication tower shall be setback a distance not less than its height from all property lines. (Section 835.09.C.3). As proposed, the 120 foot lattice structure would be set back from the north, south and west property lines over 120 feet. However, the setback distance from the east property is only 50 feet. Therefore, an adjustment to the required 1:1 setback is requested for the east property line. As justification for the property line setback adjustment, the applicant notes that maintaining a 120 foot setback to the east would require clear-cutting a significant portion of the forest that covers the hill. In addition, the applicant argues that a 120-foot setback would cause the crest of the existing hill to block wireless internet signals. The Hearings Officer may grant an adjustment to Section 835 standards under either of two circumstances: 1) a gap in service can only be alleviated through an adjustment; or 2) the proposed adjustment would utilize existing site characteristics to minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties. In either circumstance, staff does not find that the applicant has shown that the adjustment to the 1:1 setback standard is warranted. In terms of a coverage gap, the only justification provided is a statement that the "crest of the hill itself would block wireless internet signals." No evidence to support this claim has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant has not provided propagation maps or other evidence which would indicate that a gap in service is eliminated through the requested adjustment. In order to grant the requested adjustment under Section 835.11.A.1 the applicant must demonstrate that if the proposed tower was placed at least 120 feet from all the property lines a gap in coverage or capacity would exist. Staff finds that it is not clear whether the desired coverage can be achieved from a location on the subject property that meets the 1:1 setback standard. The second circumstance for an adjustment has to do with impacts on surrounding properties. Subsection 835.11.A.2 states the following: "Applicants for an adjustment under this provision must demonstrate that the adjustment will result in a lower level of impact on surrounding Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 19 of 22 properties." The requested adjustment would reduce the yard setback from the east property line from 120 feet to 50 feet. The single family residence on the property adjacent to the subject parcel would only be 60 feet from the proposed facility if the adjustment was granted. Staff does not consider a distance of 60 feet from the residence as opposed to 130 feet to have a lower impact on the adjacent property. The applicant states that trees would need to be removed in order to meet the 120 foot setback. However, it is not clear how many trees would be impacted or if compliance with the 1:1 setback standard would increase visual impacts or lower the impact on surrounding properties. Based on the evidence, staff finds that the adjustment would increase the impact on adjacent properties due to the proximity to the adjacent residence. For the reasons discussed above, staff does not support the request to adjust the 1:1 setback standard and recommends to the Hearings Officer that the tower be sited at least 120 feet from all property lines. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS A. Section 309.08 and 309.09 of the ZDO outlines the Dimensional and Development Standards in the RRFF-5 zoning district. The dimensional standards that apply to the proposed development are the yard setback standards. As previously discussed, the wireless facility satisfies the setback standards of the underlying zone. There is no height limit in the RRFF-5 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed wireless facility meets the dimensional standards of the RRFF-5 zoning district. Subsection 309.09: Development Standards states that development shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 1000 and 1100. The sections which are relevant to this proposal are reviewed below. No other development standards in Section 309 of the ZDO are applicable to this application. B. Section 1007 outlines the Parking, Circulation and Loading Requirements. 1. Section 1007.03 requires right-of-way dedications and improvements for all new developments as deemed necessary by the Department of Transportation and Development. The Clackamas County Engineering Division has not recommended the dedication of any additional right-of-way on the affected road frontages. 2. Section 1007.04 A requires the location of accesses to existing and new developments be planned, coordinated and controlled by the Department of Transportation and Development. Access to the tower site is from a private road/driveway off of SE 302nd Lane. The private access road measures approximately 3,000 feet in length and is paved for the first 1,296 feet. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 20 of 22 The remaining 1,705 feet of roadway is a 12-foot wide gravel surface. To access the lease area, the applicant proposes to extend the existing gravel drive. The Department of Transportation and Development, Development Engineering staff has reviewed the access to the telecommunications facility. In order to comply with the Clackamas County Roadway Standards, Engineering staff has recommended a number of conditions relating to site access. The suggested conditions of approval are listed in Section 2 of this staff report. This criterion can be met 3. Section 1007.07 outlines the minimum parking standards for new developments. Table 2 in Section 1007.07 outlines the minimum parking standards for certain land uses. A telecommunication facility is not specifically identified in the table. In the absence of the use being specifically listed, Section 1007.07(A)(15) provides for "off-street parking requirements for types of uses and structures not specifically listed in this Ordinance shall be determined by the Planning Director". Given the nature of the use, one parking space is adequate to accommodate the occasional maintenance vehicles for the telecommunication facility. Staff finds that there is adequate space on the subject property to accommodate vehicles associated with the proposed use. 4. Section 1007.07E outlines the Bicycle Parking Standards. These standards are not applicable to a Wireless Telecommunication Facility. S. Section 1007.08 outlines the Off-street Loading Regulations. These standards are not applicable to a Wireless Telecommunication Facility as no off-street loading or unloading will be required. The standards of Section 1007 can be met. C. Section 1008 outlines the requirements for Storm Drainage and Erosion Control. The Preliminary Statement of Feasibility for storm drainage signed by the Engineering Division indicated that it is feasible to accommodate storm drainage from this facility. The standards of Section 1008 can be met. D. Section 1009 outlines the requirements of Landscaping. There is no minimum landscaping requirement in the RRFF-5 zoning district. As previously discussed, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring fencing around the entire facility and landscaping, at a minimum, on the east side of the site. The standards of Section 1009 are met. Staff Report— File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 21 of 22 SUMMARY: The Land Use and Zoning Staff finds that the applicant has submitted information which demonstrates that the proposed wireless broadband facility can conform to the approval standards of the Zoning and Development Ordinance as outlined in Section 3 of this report. The imposition of Conditions of Approval found in Section 2 will assure compliance with the Code. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and conclusions herein, staff recommends that file no. Z0101-11-C / Z0102-11-D be APPROVED subject to the conditions of approval found in Section 2. Staff Report—File No. Z0101-11-C/Z0102-11-D Page 22 of 22 H v , o N'I ON�Ufi '"1 S O ■ T U L> Ono ifil 0 •to N v gq � I H fY, � 7 9111 - 1F o•n U Q • .• J CL . 0 0 U QO N Q 3 ` o N a .a of Q — N O M O MtB 37i'•1 C O p ♦ f M TT 'n h " to m:Cr) °o E — C) G�J N 8 0' of 6 �a � ; t as h\ U 4!: M p va- O 1Cjm •��.r .?•tN Q 0 1 I:'N 4i 40, l `� N .�87V V J�Q y 3•Sa -Y ) 5A, PA .uc t'd., Z N 7k° a 1 e OO , fS-PP• Q O a 0 p ® ,� O(\1_,.� N O O�p ; '- o� a,M o it)ce Lc; ,, 1. e ar3`n '''''f'44.4,':r g 1 OO9 ''»zz z,O N a, 6J99• �`. t U. �a °I Q hi' . a' m o MI p °o � , Ott' t_ _ tr) I _ In c N:N �Q tnI 9rza V1-O 41-,5,' 1 4• e r A \•: 099 *it.' _ __ ,,_ —.O-•- CVO 01 O' n -d CO r co N- a p O a r O O N n s aE 'Z 775' l _ -- - — — — r* rn y:ti n L, c). � a� Q raj O Q4• O 1.. p O 19, 3 , (7 u- 0) p o N O 1-'O O ts J#"'iv v, rte!^ 3 t ,,:l..3C 5l..ti*: :r p , v . 6 Oa m N- 0 ■ CV N • • FIWI Q�W9` f I ,r- _, - , 3 __-� s.` _ bF F dag _ v , I y • '- :. ,tl cla(u.u• a - s. ° ie r r 6 e p �1 i / � r •n x ( F ( I ,M y S 1 .y i 4 i of +R.J - - Gy� � t$ »y I �, i ' tl r ^1 ° Fey Za - 9 1 ,t 7:',.,,',..;.:".,„,-- 6 � I a �1• fir ,i`+ 1 '- to ! A 4 d r/�4 ` pp1 10 JJJ}.,, y t, rt4 1a xke H o tri c- y— I I,= 1 •1 p t + •t''r I ( �a :.. < , # �' - } "°r'�j ', e m • ry ��„4tlw T 5 a Irf+ � r rt2 p 'IS' 1 - ,r-,..: w b ( fI J'4 y r� , ,m 14 . tl "`�� j 1,,,, '4t.' i .. M k x 71 'a i « :s '., y y F4 .. r a _ , � Ia iir < 4 S t",- ( y .1'4g47.., T a >y _ w. ) -j:}3 p :.if ri r _� ":,:;',.-‘,741,„i tay„ '- - w n , ' r. t �} ; r''„ '.1 "^t+Ca u F r;,'2 ' 1,,,;„1:;,,,,,'> „c- A ,419 9 3S _ Y t -./,',-;:::,:-.. J 1+ r y , _ w -r. y r, .,� ms-µ . ^ r ^'te a.x1 "'' ! - a a .,u ;'i A L4 1 Q tt PP f pN P„ tlG tt # A NHL }( y� y .:317 s_r_ CLACKAMAS COUNTY PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FEASIBILITY To be completed by the applicant: Applicant's Name: City of Sandy Property Legal Description: T_i S,R_4E ,Section_30 ,Tax Lot(s)__01901 Site Address: 9765 SE 302nd Lane,Boring OR Project Engineer:N/A Project Title/Description of Proposed Development:Antenna tower for broadband service to rural county residence provided by City of Sandy in partnership with Clackamas County.Antenna mounted on 1 1'x 11'concrete base,located on the top of a forested hill(residential property). To be completed by the service provider or surface water management authority: Check all that apply: ❑ Sanitary sewer capacity in the wastewater treatment system and the sanitary sewage collection system is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. Adequate surface water treatment and conveyance is available to serve the development or can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. ❑ Water service is available in levels appropriate for the development,and adequate water system capacity is available in source,supply,treatment,transmission,storage and distribution or such levels and capacity can be made available through improvements completed by the developer or the system owner. This statement 0 applies 0 does not apply to fire flows.* *If water service is adequate with the exception of fire flows,the applicant shall submit a statement from the fire district serving the subject property that states that an alternate method of fire protection,such as an on-site water source or a sprinkler system,is acceptable. ❑ This statement is issued subject to conditions of approval set forth in the attached. LI Adequate 0 sanitary sewer service,0 surface water management,0 water service cannot be provided. ❑ Adequate access is available to serve this development or may be provided through improvements completed by the developer,0 Adequate access cannot be provided. Comments/Conditions o K--1 v 31I 1� �r Signet of Authorized Reprag, e Date �? Titll ` ' �`t� CJ W, l�/d Name of Service Provider or Surface Water Management Authority Completion of this statement does not reserve capacity for the development and does not alter an applicant's obligation to comply with the service provider's or surface water management authority's regulations. Completion of this statement does not obligate the service provider or surface water management authority to finance or construct improvements necessary to provide adequate service for the proposed development. Completion of this statement does not guarantee that land use approval for the proposed development will be granted. 9101 SE Sunnybrook Blvd.,Clackamas,OR 97015;(503)353-4400;(503)353-4550 Hoelscher, Scott From: merwayt @comcast.net Sent: Monday,April 11, 2011 9:33 AM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: File No: Z0101-11-C,Z0102-11-D We respectfully request that this petition be denied for the following reasons: 1. The long term effects on people and animals living close to these towers is unknown. 2. We have a private roadway which the six families living here have paid to have paved. This request would would require heavy equipment along with the people to construct and maintain the structure to travel our roadway causing more damage than already has been caused by Mr. Crawford bringing in heavy equipment this winter. The expense of this will become a hardship for all the families living here. 3. Directly south of this hill is a much larger and taller hill that already has existing towers on it, why not construct the tower on a hill that has already been compromised? 4. Surely the City of Sandy can find a more suitable location. We basically have an undisturbed hill full of wildlife that will be forever altered with such a structure! Please can we not keep some of our hills free from towers? As previously stated this is a very small hill in comparison with other options that are already compromised. We again, respectfully request that this application be denied. Sincerely, Lee and Meredith Wayt 9773 SE 302nd Lane Boring, OR 97009 NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Spam <http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=01EugxcKF&m=f5f7a7f9fae9&c=s> Hoelscher, Scott From: kjfrancis @frontier.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:23 PM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: Internet tower This email is in reference to file number Z0101-11- c,Z0102-11-D I am currently in Oklahoma and will not be returning to Boring until mid-May and my mail is being held at the post office. My neighbor, Meredith Wayt, contacted me saying that we received a form regarding placement of an internet tower on the hill on which we live. She also said that I needed to respond to the form by April 20. Since I will not be home and have not seen the form I hope this email will suffice. My husband and I, John and Kay Francis, 9733 SE 302nd Lane, Boring, OR 97009 live on the hill where Jim Crawford is evidently planning to put an internet tower. Along with our neighbors, the Wayts and the Oldhams, we would prefer for this not to happen. We were approached years ago about leasing part of our land for a cell phone tower and turned down the offer because not only were we not interested, none of the neighbors wanted it there either (including the Crawfords) . If there is a form that I could fill out via email please send me the document and I will respond. Thank you for your help and consideration in this matter. Kay Francis BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Teach Canit if this mail (ID 01EvcmWJu) is spam: Spam: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=0lEvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=s Not spam: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=0lEvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=n Forget vote: http://mhub.co.clackamas.or.us/canit/b.php?i=01EvcmWJu&m=7f92ec4f6dla&c=f END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS 1 3. Return your mailed comments to: Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Division, 150 Beavercreek Rd, Oregon City, OR 97045 Comments: 's Poi /JP' c3Xd /Y((/L A2o«, LJ-ILAJty /2©o 0 14 a /)'ui 1 ti%T',9(10 c C k 61v r Ooks AD/1 0 z'7/ F 'e 11/47---r- f u7"e o1 c A All interested citizens are invited to attend the hearing. An agenda will be provided at the hearing. Testimony and evidence should address those criteria identified above and any other criteria relevant to the application. Failure to raise an issue at the hearing, or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Officer an opportunity to respond to an issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. The following procedural rules have been established to allow an orderly hearing. 1. The length of time given to individuals speaking for or against an item will be determined by the Hearings Officer prior to the item being considered. 2. A spokesperson representing each side of an issue is encouraged. 3. Only specifically relevant testimony to the item being considered will be allowed. 4. Prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony;the Hearings Officer will either continue the hearing or leave the record open. A staff report for the application will be available seven(7) days prior to the hearing. In the case of an appeal no additional staff report will be prepared. The staff report, applicable criteria, application, and all documents and evidence relied on by the applicant are available for inspection and may be purchased at reasonable cost at the Clackamas County Land Use and Zoning Division, Development Services Building; 150 Beavercreek Road; Oregon City, OR 97045, (503-742-4500). Direct all calls and written correspondence to the Land Use and Zoning Division. Anyone may request, at the hearing,that the record be kept open for at least seven(7) days. To receive written notification of the Hearings Officer's decision, provide the Land Use and Zoning Division with a written request indicating the application file number. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR, OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 123.0i40 7. e. ox q 7g5 5 3oz A#0. i>ot2t ivC y7oc7 Z0101-11-C,Z0102-11-D HO Notice Hoelscher, Scott From: nikky oldham [nikkyoldham63 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:14 PM To: Hoelscher, Scott Subject: Z0101-11 C,Z0102-11-D File numberZ0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D Dear Scott, This is in regards to the Telecommunication facility being placed on the Crawfords property. My house is located just below the Crawfords, and will be within 50 feet of this steel structure. Scott Lazenby came out to see me, and showed me where the structure was going to be place. Currently, the antennas for the broadband service is located on the roof of my house. I understand, the need for the antenna to be higher, and the need for the tower. My only concern is that it is only 50 feet from our house and from our view. Scott reassured me that he would have something placed to camouflage the base 10 feet up from the base. this would be greenery or something appealing. I do want to make sure this happens. I want the tower to be as less visible as possible. This structure will be behind the house, however, one of our play rooms face the tower, as well as if we look out from our deck, drive up our driveway, etc. It is just going to be very close! When I originally agreed to this, I did not think that all the trees would be going down that I now see marked. I'm not sure how camouflaged this will be with all the trees gone, for I thought it would just blend in. This truly concerns me. I didn't think I had much of a say, when they told me the tower was going in. Sure, I would rather it never go in, if I had my voice in it all. We moved into the woods to stay away from stuff like this, now to see a big tower 50 feet from the house, it hard to believe. Another concern is our driveway. We share a gravel driveway with 4 homes. This driveway needs maintenance, however, I never see the Crawfords help out with any extra repairs. They have had logging trucks up and down, and the road is suffering. We can't afford to keep fixing it. Now to think we are going to have even more equipment really worries me. If this goes through, I would want the Crawfords, and the City of Sandy to pay for the repair of the road when finished, as well as maintaining the road during the process. Thank you for hearing my voice. Please keep me updated on this process. Sincerely, Nikky Oldham Spam Not spam Forget previous vote 1 - Memorandum TO: Scott Hoelscher FROM: Development Engineering Kenneth Kent, Land Use Review Coordinator DATE: April 26, 2011 RE: Z0101-11-C and Z0102-11-D, City of Sandy Rural Broadband 120-foot tall lattice antenna structure and private access road T1S, R4E, Section 30, Tax Lot 1901 Development Review staff has visited the site and reviewed this application with the attached drawings, dated November 2010. We have the following comments: Facts and Findings: 1. The applicant proposes installation of a 120-foot tall steel lattice tower to provide broadband service to rural Sandy residents. The tower site is situated on private property, and will include construction of an onsite private road/driveway, allowing vehicular access to the lattice tower lease area. The total length of the private road/driveway,between the tower site and SE 302nd Lane,measures approximately 3,000 feet. 2. Engineering's comments are principally related to safe access to and from the site, and the provision of an adequate on site private road/driveway connecting SE 302nd Lane with the proposed tower site. 3. In accordance with the Clackamas County Roadway Standards, Section 240, the access roads serving new developments are required to provide minimum intersection sight distance based on the travel speed of the roadway. SE 302nd Lane is not posted for speed and is therefore governed by the "Basic Rule." When roads are governed by the "Basic Rule" speeds up to 55 miles per hour may be allowed. However, to the north there is a 90-degree horizontal curve where SE 302" Lane becomes SE Waybill Road, approximately 640 from the private road access. To the south, SE 302" Lane ends approximately 325 feet from the proposed access. Based on the characteristics of SE 302nd Lane, including the narrow width of 12.5 feet, engineering staff estimates the travel speed of vehicles is approximately 35 miles per hour. SE 302"d Lane is also a very low volume local roadway with an estimated traffic volume of approximately 180 vehicles per day. Therefore, based on Clackamas County Roadway Standards subsection 240.7, sight distance is based on the criteria contained in Table 2-9. Based on speed of 35 miles per hour, Roadway Standards table 2-9 specifies 205 feet of sight distance. The existing intersection of the private road with SE 302"d Lane serving the project site exceeds 205 feet of sight distance and is adequate. �J Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 2 4. Portions of the existing private road, between SE 302nd Lane and the residence on site, are paved. The first 1,295 feet extending west from SE 302nd Lane has a paved surface and is approximately 12 feet wide. The remaining 1,705 feet of roadway is a 12-foot wide gravel surface. There are portions of the roadway that exceed 12 percent in grade and appear to be approximately 15 percent. The new portion of access road extending into the tower site is shown on the proposed plans with a grade of 16 percent. Specific Fire District approval is required for roadways that exceed a 12 percent grade. Roadways that exceed a 15 percent grade require a paved surface, up to a maximum grade of 20 percent. The applicant will be required to verify the existing grades and meet the minimum private road standards, approved by the Engineering Division and Fire District. 5. In regards to the on site private road/driveway providing access to the lease area, Roadway Standards Drawing R100 illustrates the minimum required private road dimensions and structural section. Staff recommends compliance with these Drawing R100 standards. In addition, an on site turnaround shall be designed and constructed to accommodate fire apparatus and service vehicles. The submitted drawings illustrate an on site turnaround near the end of the private road adjacent to the lease area where the lattice tower is proposed to be located. However, the wings of the turnaround may need to be increased to meet the minimum dimensions of Roadway Standards drawing C350. One of the proposed wings is dimensioned at 61.94 feet, while the other wing appears to be approximately 20 feet. The Roadway Standards require a 70-foot long wing and a 60-foot wing for the Hammerhead Alternative 2. Design and construction of the turnaround shall be in accordance with drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the local Fire District and Engineering staff 6. The submitted plans do not indicate a specific easement to the tower site from SE 302nd Lane, for ingress, egress, and utilities. The minimum access easement is 20 feet in width. The applicant will be required to verify existing easements and/or new easements to the tower lease area. This easement width will prove sufficient for most of the private road/driveway length. However, the turnouts, measuring ten feet wide by 30 feet long (with 30-foot long tapers) will require a wider easement, a minimum of 22 feet in width to accommodate a 12-foot wide road and a ten foot wide turnout. The turnout geometry is illustrated on Roadway Standards drawing C350. Additional easement width will also be required for the turnaround proposed adjacent to the tower lease area. The provision of an easement will insure access rights for personnel to maintain the facility, regardless of the current or future ownership of the property. In addition, the easement could be enlarged and configured to accommodate the illustrated on site turnouts, and the turnaround in the vicinity of the proposed lease area, which would accommodate service vehicles and fire apparatus. Adequate road width and radii for Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 3 a turnaround area will be recommended in accordance with local Fire District requirements. 7. Comprehensive Plan Chapter Five, "Transportation", under the heading "Improvements to Serve Development", includes Policy 16.0, which reads as follows: "Require development to be served by adequate roadway facilities." SE 302nd Lane is classified as a local road and measures approximately 12.5 feet in width in the vicinity of the subject property. The road is paved, with varying gravel shoulders approximately 18 inches wide. While the county standard for a local road is for a paved road 22 feet in width, with six (6) foot wide compacted gravel shoulders, staff finds that SE 302nd Lane, while substandard, would be adequate to accommodate the existing traffic (approximately 180 vehicles per day) and the additional approximately two (2) trips per month that this type of facility typically generates. There are existing driveway aprons along SE 302nd Lane that provide pull out areas for two vehicles to pass. In addition, staff finds that there is sight distance at the intersection of the private access road with SE 302nd Avenue. Therefore, staff finds that it would be feasible to provide adequate roadway facilities to serve the development. 8. In regards to Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) section 1022, this type of facility is exempt from transportation capacity concerns as noted in subsection 1022.03 A3. Therefore, staff finds that the application is in compliance with the transportation element of ZDO section 1022. If this application is approved, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1) All frontage and on site improvements shall be in conformance with the 2010 Clackamas County Roadway Standards. 2) The applicant shall maintain adequate intersection sight distance at the intersection of the driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. In addition, no plantings at maturity, retaining walls, embankments, fences, signs, structures, parked vehicles, or any other objects shall be allowed to obstruct minimum required sight distances. Minimum intersection sight distance shall be 205 feet both northerly and southerly, along SE 302nd Lane, measured 14.5 feet back from the edge of the travel lane at the intersection of the site driveway approach with SE 302nd Lane. 3) The applicant shall design and construct one on site turnaround, near the lattice tower lease area, consistent with Roadway Standards drawing C350, or an alternative design approved by both the Fire District and Engineering staff. 4) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify existing access easements, and obtain new easements as necessary to provide a minimum 20-foot wide easement from SE 302nd Lane to the lease area, for ingress, egress, and Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 4 utilities, except where the easement is required to be wider to accommodate turnouts, radii, the turnaround, etc. 5) The applicant shall design and construct the private road/driveway,between SE 302nd Lane and the lease area, to standards contained in the Clackamas County Roadway Standards. The private road/driveway shall meet the following standards: a) The minimum width for the driving surface shall be 12 feet and shall be centered in a 20-foot wide clear zone. Wherever the private road is paved, minimum two- foot wide compacted gravel shoulders shall be provided. Wherever the private road is surfaced with gravel, minimum four foot wide compacted earthen shoulders shall be provided. b) The private road shall be constructed in accordance with Roadway Standards drawing R100, with a minimum of 9 inches of 3/4"minus crushed, graded and compacted rock on a compacted base and subgrade, over geotextile fabric, and shall be able to support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus. Wherever the private road is to be paved, the aforementioned gravel section shall also require a three inch thick asphalt pavement section over the gravel, placed in two one and one-half inch lifts. Any sections of the private road that exceed 15 percent slope shall be paved. For the gravel portion of the existing access road,pull out areas shall be identified and improved as necessary to meet the minimum standards provided in Road Standards Drawing C350. The onsite parking space and turnaround area shall provide the same structural section as the private road. c) Written verification must be received from the local Fire District that the private road will support a 75,000-pound fire apparatus, that road grades and surfacing materials are acceptable, that a sufficient turnaround exists or will be constructed, that corner radii are acceptable, and that vertical (13.5 feet) and horizontal (20 feet) clearances are acceptable. Attention must be given to weight limits of culverts. All culverts shall be cleaned and maintained in a clean condition. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the road construction plans from the local Fire District prior to issuance of a Development Permit. d) Positive drainage must be provided for surface water to an acceptable outfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction process. (ZDO section 1008) e) Construction or reconstruction of the private road/driveway requires plans prepared and stamped by an Engineer registered in the State of Oregon and a Development Permit. To obtain a permit the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans to Deana Mulder, who works in the County's Engineering section. The applicant shall also provide a Performance Guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction plus a 25% contingency and pay an Z0101-11-C, Z0102-11-D, SE 302nd Lane Telecom Facility April 26, 2011 Page 5 Inspection Fee. S:\DEVLPMNT\2010\Z0101-11-C-Z0102-11-D-C&D-KK-S andy302ndTwr.doc • A. «y .; /., F r y. ••.;:;:',.•.' ! , 44, • x r 1''';' 4 phi • xti ..rs t.7 - r •ni' t 4 �+�° ,-°!.:-;.,. r), fi`i ti•. A} EA. l`AND 1D 7 � .AGREEMENT 0':-.:,44- p THIS A(�tr ra made this 22nd r of Meg r !l�LY --_�. 1986, between x a ChWFI.L, of 27731 SE Raley Road, Boring, irig Oregon. owner of Farrel I r �•� 'INN CCII.VkR, of 9765 SE 302nd Lane Soria 3 l'..1'-'... .:,..,:'!' owner of Farrel Ore on II herein, SYLVLA MILLER, of 97 6S cB 3ATed owner � t...Qttaon 97009 Parcel III herein, and SVl yR.QLVER 8383 NE Sandy Blvd, Portland, Oregon •of ,4P,;%' y 8 C ame1 of Parcel IV �1 herein: r!, RECITALS 3; (1) The • Parties have an interest in adjoining real 4 estate situated in a the County of Madonna and State of Oregon. and described as folia+s: respectively, 1'r, i The West half PARCEL I S• s quarter of the Southeast of r of the North I E `�•South, Range 4 East of the Willamet 3d P 1q<�;� •s l of Clackamas and State of Oregon in the ` '.... s r known aa, Tax Lot jF.f '�. f. IL„.4\. PARCEL II / i_ ' , t L— The East half of the ;;;P:Qi,'"C'{ '9uarber of the Southeast meter the Northro�t ' South, Range 4 1 t of Willamette 30, Tbwnship 1 ,� County of Clackamas and State of Meridian' in Lot °` 1908. Oregon, known as Thx PARCEL III i ....•, .... .,. • •k 1, The E. 396 feet of the S. h of the N.W. k of the N.W. k �` of the S.E. k of Section 30, T1S., R4E., Clackenas • Oregcti, knots: as Tax lot 1901. Oa�tY. ' .;fit`1,1, • • .0 I T .';'.',.„;1 e.1 .` Emafr AND ROADWAY[r TEE .:.i.•1,-'1'......' F' �.� iYE3 66 18494 °A tau,. ,-.., , ;.`,?..:i:vi-lz:.' { F s; ;.t I's- . A4 T• 4 ax: . x, h9 • - ' ' : - . --- - . / 1 , , L.: :4... ,k-•'..', _= viri.1„4"772 ift`,•• ' • - =... - ,,, l-'1.Aft,'‘., PARCEL IV ,„.‘ :,-,' -,,.1•• ,I.`it= ":,;';''''',..= ' , •-)1;_l_ .;:,49'$•‘ 1 Twnship IS, Range 4E, Sectics 30, Parcel , in ' . :-;,:•,..,. - :, the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, as reccirded in e'"•;".-P...i.-••i 4,-ik. .4,4e>1r; 85-46090, Cl ad/camas County Deed Records. ""..0t= • A: ?C't 4 ...,,• I (2) The parties to this agreement desire to create a caream roacksey bet: the above described Adjoining lots owned by them for the benefit fo each of the parties, and for ommeon access to the public roadway. . ,*..,'•:' 4= 1 , The parties agree as follows: ,,';'. iIP 1 ,,,,. (3) This easement f-or adcess purposes, as used in this agreement, ,' •-.••, ,,' • , a residential roadway, and each party agrees to allay the other use of the above described rcedway as a residerttial driveway, ; - , •`, and for the necessary construction awl agricultural pin ses an their • re:spective properties The parties agree hereto that said roadway arrreittly •," n ; - ..4-4,5 • ■ 1 — ,. . , crosses Parcel I and Parcel II to Parcel III. The parties agree that the owner of Parcel IV nay connect said rcedway to hls prcparty in the future. .-..,, ' $ = The parties agree that this easement begins at the end of the public roedway. •_„„, 1,, , - „t, e,-,..`i■I•• • : ' r ' ' ,At the parties agree that this easeeeilt follows the route of the *Lbiergraind 4 "".. Distribution Line Easements, recorded as Fee lb. 72-39207, grantor ■s, STNNLar ,,I) R. CULVER and Sni/Li: L. CLII.VER, husband and wife, and 1111.1..VD H. WIElelaut and NoTOLET IsEtiEPZE, husband and wife, PIT Atito CL ELECInt/C CCFPAIff, an Oregon axporatione grantee- -•,',".'1. (4) CHERYL LIttlt7 CIMPER and STANLEY R. CULVER grant to KDEIESI.Y •` ‘ CAIIAIELL, her heirs, successors and assigns, the follcwing described parcels for ;,- or easemerlt purposes: , , ... e , r 7 t An easement to be used in critelre: with oth ers for ronel Purposes over under, through and across the South . ...s.,, ' • ... t•i*:'., •■- ) .0 • ' ' a BASEMIlfr NID RO0.01mY fialIelate.w.t.r..AtaustfeEIVI cs2..... : ,'`.- •.-",.'' -,,-;.4 41'7 .• -2-4t--.---.4- 'c 1 - ...:._\'•'''^7-. 0 •••:4:: - _ .... '1.i. 4t, , ,....-----.,...,.......,.-„,-„,-....„,........,,„.......,..,,..... _ _ r ■ri 4...-e,: -.1.,,..x. ;N"',':.',-• ,i,:u- -,„!. , xiil ' e 1'4,1;';'''■••.‘4,41'• WA k 4414% 14• ' --,,,,==-0." •• AV--.3 01.1r-i•-; . L . .....,-.1'..., '' / ..- ,.... - r 1 : - 9+ P =mss (e R 1 r ,..'7 Y�'+ 4i4i J. 41 t I ■ h : b+ 1 i k, } ., ft b•• • '; 12 feet of the East one-half of the Northeast one-quarter t . •M of the No one-quarter of the Southeast „ > ' 1 } of Section 30, Township 1 one-quarter Wy k r P South, Range 4 East of the b Willamette Meridian. in the County tx . 4;Y State of Oregon, of Clackamas end t�'tk s ;` ,� )7.4,1' PARCEL III o t 5.:. 3''' , irwY ?, ::27;1i.- An easement to be � used in oanaon with others for roadway ' ti tin+ � s purposes over the following real property situated t , and described as Clackanas and State of Oregon, boarded �-4.",,--,_-,» 5.a , to-wit: �{ A strip of land 12 feet wide along the South side of the .. It, � `• North one-half of the Northeast one-quarter of the• 9. Southeast -quarter of Section 30, Totmship '.•; Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, 1 extending . f r ; sis 4-20', ' in an Easterly and ,r ' in feet (80 Westerly direction fora distance of , ,./„.,,,,;,,,,,;? ( rods), more or less, along the total length of said South line. ,'.0"'; 1'r +VIL[1f'R an to rc dfit be used in 1 with others, being a strip of land 12 feet in width, adjacent --. j ' tole the East line of the North one-half of i,-,--;,,,,• '",,::' ,,,,'-',4,4'., F of Section 30, Township of the Southeast one-quarter :'•`-,-;"'; j' ;' , ` Willamette Meridianp l • Range 4 East of the r t `, , :`, 1 + '^ , extending in a Northerly and Souther- ,. :'t ,.` ly direction. R r (5) The driveway described above has been ' constructed and will be ; F-,�. „ • maintained in good repair with said repair and maintenance cost divided 4 '',�' 1 -1 F ', equally between the four " i rya s ;F parties to this agreement. The coed is currently f of gravel and will need regular graveling and oiling. Third party to ° , ` ' =.•} F t ',f+1 �P i iP1y1• be ib1e for scheduling said maintenance and for the allocation of y l x 1 it 11r Y • 1_ cost between the respective parties. ` 't (6) Each ;; ' - party agrees that L'bir receipt of t'^-: • r•• ' t i,•,. . their allowance of the ether respective parties to use the roadway sort- y.; art'+ iii!: w statutes sufficient consideration for this above described j easement, , . 4 (7) The parties, and their he and assigns, agree to hold „1 ' "1":41,''4."'.'i` { a ji },Y :',.:','.4e... other harmless from any liability � which ty for any p occurrs , k ,,s . a°r �; Mama Ai: RAY MAIM AGREEMENT V tg rb, �:. 1!, 4 1 ♦r•are —3. .14•••• r ,k •`y�'Kf•t, 1 ,;. t�: A, tM,vyl .k t 1 .' "q-•-- r : - .3,: ��"'�, 1N `rYi�,� • ` '' �Y 1, fir ij'+y' { NL Y b� 4 -1N �r r ��)',�* x.5a Ir J t+ Lam}:CE ,�a b�'1 y .t.,, ' • , ' '1''-''''...'"{',,4.,4 l,' ;",' --• i!..''' ' : • • .., .. • = • • " ' - ' ...,.`';..!.":,..;.':'"'"'• '‘.:1 ""-',-=S:J1'''..1A. ■.!-;,.=4;kie'i!...•,;=li-, ;',5=','.;:=t-,*.tj.i.'..k l'••■'''' . . ,r • • i . , . , '' ' L'' '. .ot- ".";,•/ :',LP ' ' .. . • : ''.• "!..,-'•' _ = • . ‘.';',,7.'?: :".'. -•,'-• `;.,.%.''','',=- "..,.','•.:,..,'..'''''''''''".t' ''.•'..'='•''''Cirr''?., ':.'-;-Y,;(■:•4'...''''. •':'"'''''''4'.4'....t-P:=',==„ 4.;,,..,.,,,,.,..i•::,.-.5:.:,-,i,.:,,,•,:''.„7,-"' ,,•'' 1';`,-1::-':-:-'''• ''`''''.; ',"• ,-..-''',''•,.:,..`,•':,', ,';..'.'1`1:::.*i.i .--....4., on said driveway as a result of the actions of any party, party's visitors ::''.ier,4'..-,,:*,-=-IV"`=::,:.--,-;',,",':";-!.,7,-;,.:-- -11,i'.4;h44. ,.\-.,.'1:,:,,,:-•=,-...,-:‘,•-• =.-.- ,:!,:,:=,,-,.0 .,,.. ,,-,,, ,,;::-..,,,-.:4:::,-, or invitees. i),"=.7''P,;,-.....k'-.,•.k,-,z,,7,'.-I.:Sir( ,4' ti;.,,.."•• (8) It is agreed that this document, upon executicn of all parties, '.-:.A',:-',,==1.1.:,:i,!,,.'T.,'',4-:'A•,--,!":.V.,..,:'-'i' ':,-1,i*,:At..1-:-=:.,,...' 1 ,. ;!, ' : i.,7",,,-,'',4.),Ii shall be duly recorded by the apptcpriate ;;:-., use (9) Each party agrees not to do anything in the maintenance or :',"1.; -'' of the driveway or to adversely effect the other parties' use and • •-,.1,..,'''.::'- .=:.,g ;--'1,',;;;k1,1/4.k:■••,,,,,,,:'''',, .'Z' enjorownt of their own prcperty. ,,, -= „ ,J., (10) This easerrent is paramount to the right, title and interest of "--',;:'1:- -,=',".-- . ,-:,==): ,' any of the parties hereto in the respective servient estates so created, and e. ” ' ' `;,' -,`..,,,„,.,„,..i,,, 1.f:....1';;'••,.,,' ,.._:,'...,.•,; the further agree that this easement is a covenant that shall 'A.J,' ':.1,'',: .::,',:''':;.-.=:c`" '..'. =,,.....-Y., , ;---....`-.''';'*•.' :4:P'''''!'... with the land and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, ' ,, 44A-,''....n:1!;'';'.. ='.i , ":,. ...f ,., ,. , their heirs, successors and assigns. This easement is a burden an Parcel I 'Tt...-'' and Parcel TI described herein. • - (11) All notices fruit one party to the other parties an the above or any amerxisents hereto, shall be delivered by wTitLan notice through ,:!.. , :'•,:.- ,,t-,.,,-.....,,..,..)._,.,:,;-..,,,5-....,L the United States Nail and shall be deemed delivered wt rkcxwitied r = : '-1•'' ,:•.:1,,,,,,,==..,:lk.1.4.' - ,tl.........‘=, = V.,!'"..;'1,-., with postage prepaid therecn and addressed to the respective owners at their 4 • ".',• ' .'"7,4,""triti.'," 'I"''',7-- ",■"'',' ",...a- '.■1 , i■-r".; ,...','." above wentioned addresses, or when delivered personally to said owners. ' :.'''4=:=', ,: '"-'f -'''.'-'4.:-,=;.. , .. .,, ,-,..-.., ...„4,1.,, 11.,',--J..-=; 4- •-• IN WT/RESS ',RERUN', the parties have executed this agreement at '-:- -0.-:, ,,,".-T",-=‘,,-;:,...,,,,,t, , ,",•-:-",=..- ,.‹ ,,,,,i,...- , Oregon, the date and year first above written. -... . . ,,•.... . . . • .wa ow'l,'i T..• ..141= ,74 ,0`. - '7 / / w--uz71/ ' ' 4 7',7 .•C 7 ... d...1A„ ,....,„ . .,-;.,..„9,: ...:;,- 0-.- ?---.70. , . ” ' ' ---7-'--tct 04,..._..... 41 _ ..... ........„ ..t. .... ..4._......„ •1 .71'Third Party -7-4,77.1,.... .7irr.5:i tcr,- ; -. I - - T' '- :, ''. '.....,,,;••.‘s.; :.,' ,?'-..:,,'.-!',';-fl.3:;e PAST Akt RCADIAY tcjI111214mn Mitmarftm • .--'- -3.1;_.,i,, ..'4",t".,., 4,,'•-,.0. •"\•, -4- , :.,...:,,„;4:,;,1; .,:- „:-,....,-,',,-•.4.`.:%"..'. i. '''7 :,1, ,!:,,. .. .....,, ,... ;; I , ,,.. .!‘, -. v..‘.:,..,..,e-T-. 1.,.,.iii, - - ., . .• -- ..... . . ...._.. . •..:77, ..4 iz..i.4,-ii;.:',4:5,.. 1,,,,,,;7!. ;;.,.. =4.;i;Iii..,po, .,... -.„.-..\;...-,4 ,,, ''.0'''.1...4.,..4.:'.'1f,,, ,;,e.:,,,IPi'..,t,k7.1 :,%,ftr,- t.,4,...}..s.g.;,... . ,, ..,.. , . ,„:„.. . .,.., ,;,..iot`i7x.4;,:V 4'■ Ist;.i.:44.1 :1,11keiri1.44%:,: 44 .tte ...I 4:7::.*:"Of',4417111,4Y4741" "t7'.,!:1.'' . ,... (/ S NDY CITY OF SANDYPhone 503-668-5533 Fax 503-668-8714 1913 39250 Pioneer Boulevard•Sandy, OR 97055 www.cityofsandy.com Gateway to Mt.Hood FINDINGS OF FACT and FINAL ORDER TYPE II DESIGN REVIEW DATE: July 27, 2009 FILE NO.: 09-010 PROJECT NAME: City of Sandy Data Communications Tower APPLICANT: City of Sandy OWNER: City of Sandy LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T2S R4E Section 15 Tax Lot 00206 DECISION: Approved subject to conditions of approval The above-referenced proposal was reviewed as a Type II Design Review. The following Findings of Fact are adopted supporting approval of the plans submitted June 8, 2009. EXHIBITS Applicant's Submittal A. Land Use Application B. Project Narrative C. Typical Tower Photos D. Site Plan Staff and Agency Review Comments None Public Comments E. Elie Kassab, Sandy Cinema and Prestige Development FINDINGS OF FACT General 1. The subject site consists of one parcel with a total area of approximately 8.14 acres. \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-010 DR City of Sandy Data Communications Tower Order.doc 1 The City of Sandy is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race,religion,sex or handicapped status. 2. The parcel has a Plan Map designation of Industrial and a Zoning Map designation of I-1, Industrial Park. 3. The subject property is the location of the City of Sandy Operations Center located at 16610 Champion Way. 4. A 120-foot freestanding tower is proposed to be located on the property for municipal use including automated meter reading, public safety communications, data backhaul, and Internet services. The tower will not require ground-mounted equipment. 5. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit B) states that the tower will not require a permit from the Federal Aviation Association. 6. The applicant submitted this application on May 27, 2009 and was deemed complete on June 4, 2009. 7. Written comments were received from the following: • Elie Kassab, Sandy Cinema and Prestige Development (Exhibit E) Written comments were submitted in favor of the proposal. Chapter 15.30—Dark Sky Ordinance 8. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit B) states that the tower will not be lighted. As such, the proposal will meet the intent of the Dark Sky Ordinance. Chapter 17.48 —Industrial Park 9. Section 17.48.10 lists the uses permitted in the Industrial Park Zoning District. A minor utility facility is listed as a permitted use in the district. The definition of a minor public facility in Chapter 17.10 includes minor utility structures including poles, lines and pipes. For the purposes of this application, Staff has determined this proposal fits the definition of a minor utility. As such, the tower is permitted outright in the I-1 (Industrial Park) Zoning District. 10. Section 17.48.30 states the required setbacks for the I-1 Zoning District. A 30-foot setback is required from the front and rear property lines and a 15-foot setback is required from side property lines. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit B) states that the tower will be placed outside of the setback area, however; the site plan (Exhibit D) shows the tower located within the required 30- foot rear setback. The applicant shall construct the structure in compliance with applicable setbacks in Section 17.48.30. 11. The tower is proposed to be 200 feet high. Section 17.48.30 states that the maximum building height permitted in the I-1 Zoning District is 45 feet. The Code does not address a maximum height permitted for utility structures such as the proposed tower. As such, staff finds that the tower height is acceptable as proposed. Chapter 17.90—Design Standards 12. The design standards in Chapter 17.90 generally apply to buildings however, other site improvements also require design review. The applicant's narrative states that the tower will be \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-010 DR City of Sandy Data Communications Tower Order.doc 2 left in its natural color. Based on the location of the proposed structure within the I-1 Zoning District, staff finds this to be an acceptable proposal. Chapter 17.92 —Landscaping and Screening General Standards—All Zones 13. Section 17.92.100 requires service facilities to be screened. The tower will be located within the existing fenced area of the Sandy Operations Center. As such, the proposal meets screening requirements. DECISION The Sandy Communications Tower is hereby approved as modified by the conditions of approval listed below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan to include the following change: 1. The tower shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the rear property line and 15 feet from side property lines. B. General Conditions: 1. Any other conditions or regulations required by Clackamas County, Fire District No. 72, or state or federal agencies are hereby made a part of this permit and any violation of these conditions and/or regulations or conditions of this approval will result in the review of this permit and/or revocation. 2. Land Use approval does not connote approval of public improvement plans submitted with the land use application. Plan details will be reviewed during the construction plan submittal phase. 3. Approval of this use may be revoked if conditions of approval are not met. Development approval does not grant authority for the unrestricted use of the structure or site. Any use of this site may be prohibited until such time as all required improvements are completed. ykAriAt.P1 (c( Suzanne M. Hicks cs Associate Planner RIGHT OF APPEAL A decision on a land use proposal or permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission by an affected party by filing an appeal with the Director within twelve calendar days of notice of the \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-010 DR City of Sandy Data Communications Tower Order.doc 3 decision. Any person interested in filing an appeal should contact the city to obtain the form, "Notice of Appeal", and Chapter 17.28 of the Sandy Development Code regulating appeals. All applications for an appeal shall indicate the nature of the interpretation that is being appealed and the matter at issue will be a determination of the appropriateness of the interpretation of the requirements of the Code. An application for an appeal shall contain: 1. An identification of the decision sought to be reviewed, including the date of the decision; 2. A statement of the interest of the person seeking review and that he/she was a party to the initial proceedings; 3. The specific grounds relied upon for review; 4. If de novo review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested, a statement relating the request to the factors listed in Chapter 17.28.50; and Payment of required filing fees. \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-010 DR City of Sandy Data Communications Tower Order.doc 4 City Manager r SANDY \k Scott Lazenby OREGON CITY OF SANDY.4 ft. = Phone 503-668-5533 • Fax 503-668-8714 1813 39250 Pioneer Boulevard•Sandy, OR 97055 www.cityofsandy.com Gateway to Mt.Hood FINDINGS OF FACT and FINAL ORDER TYPE III DECISION DATE: December 1, 2009 FILE NO.: 09-023 PROJECT NAME: City of Sandy Vista Loop Tower APPLICANT: City of Sandy OWNER: City of Sandy LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T2S R5E Section 18DC, Tax Lot 600 and 700 DECISION: The tower is in conformance with applicable conditional use permit criteria. The application is approved with the conditions outlined in this Final Order and Findings of Fact. EXHIBITS: Applicant's Submission A. Land Use Application B. Development Code Narrative C. Site Plan and Typical Photos Agency Comments D. Oregon Department of Aviation FINDINGS OF FACT General 1. These findings supplement and are in addition to the Staff Report dated November 16, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference. Where there is a conflict between these findings and the staff report, these findings shall control. 2. The subject site consists of two parcels with a total area of approximately 1.14 acres and has a Plan Map designation of Residential and a Zoning Map designation of SFR, Single Family Residential. 3. The subject property is located on the north side of Vista Loop, east of the Hwy 26 and Vista Loop intersection. \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-023 City of Sandy Tower Order doe The City of Sandy is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race,religion,sex or handicapped status. 4. The applicant proposes installing a 120-foot data communications tower for municipal use. The primary use is to serve as a receiving antenna for an automated water meter reading system, and to provide data communication for the telemetry equipment associated with the water storage reservoirs. The secondary use of the tower will be data backhaul, and SandyNet Internet service. The freestanding tower is proposed to be constructed of galvanized steel mounted on an 11'x 11' concrete pad. A single red (non-flashing) light is proposed due to proximity to the Sandy River airport. 5. The applicant submitted this application on October 8, 2009 and it was deemed complete on October 21, 2009. 6. Notification of the proposed application was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and affected agencies on October 21, 2009. In addition, a legal notice was placed in the local paper on November 4, 2009. 7. Written comments were received from the following: • Oregon Department of Aviation(Exhibit D) Chapter 15.30—Dark Sky Ordinance 8. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit B) states that the tower is proposed to have one non-flashing red light due to the proximity of the proposed location of the tower to the Sandy River Airport. Section 15.30.060 (F) lists red lights as an appropriate light to be used for communication towers. As such, the proposal will meet the intent of the Dark Sky Ordinance. The specifics of the lighting installation require approval by the Oregon Department of Aviation or Federal Aviation Administration. Chapter 17.34— Single Family Residential 9. Section 17.34.10 lists the uses permitted in the Single Family Residential Zoning District. A major utility facility is listed as a conditional use in the district. For the purposes of this application, staff has determined this proposal fits the definition of a major utility. As such, the tower is permitted with a conditional use permit in the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zoning District. 10. Section 17.34.30 states the development standards for the SFR Zoning District. The tower will meet the required setbacks. The Code does not address a maximum height permitted for utility structures such as the proposed tower. As such, staff finds that the tower height is acceptable as proposed. Chapter 17.68 —Conditional Uses 11. Section 17.68.10 states that the intent of conditional use review is to ensure that a conditional use is compatible with its immediate area and the affected part of the community. The Planning Commission has determined that the applicant has proposed a facility designed to provide service related to the current municipal use of the site. 12. Section 17.68.20(A)requires that: "The use is listed as a conditional use in the underlying zoning district or has been interpreted to be similar in use to other listed conditional uses." Staff has determined that the tower meets the definition of a major utility, which is listed as a conditional use \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-023 City of Sandy Tower Order.doe 2 in the SFR Zoning District. As such, the Planning Commission finds the proposal meets this requirement. 13. Section 17.68.20(B)requires that: "The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering the size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. " There are two reservoirs currently located on the site. Trees surround the site and help to obstruct the reservoirs from the street. The top of the tower will be visible above the trees. The view of the lower half of the tower will be obstructed from the adjacent dwellings to the west and south. The site is accessed by a drive that also provides access for two single family dwellings to the northeast. The base of the tower will be visible from these two dwellings. Currently, the reservoirs are visible from the dwellings and the tower will not have a significant additional impact. The Planning Commission requires additional landscaping to be planted to further screen the view of the tower base and reservoirs. As such, the Planning Commission determines the characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use. 14. Section 17.68.20(C) requires that: "The proposed use is timely considering the adequacy of the transportation systems,public facilities and services existing or planned for the area affected by the use." The installation of the tower will not have an impact on transportation systems. The tower will be used for public services including automated meter reading, public safety communications, data backhaul, and Internet service. As such, the Planning Commission determines the proposed use is timely considering the adequacy of transportation systems and public facilities. 15. Section 17.68.20(D) requires that: "The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits,precludes, or impairs the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying zoning district."The tower is proposed to be constructed on a site where two existing water reservoirs are located. The tower should not change the character of the site. To minimize the visual impacts of the tower on the neighboring residences, additional landscaping will be planted. For these reasons, the Planning Commission determines the use will not alter the character of the surrounding area. 16. Section 17.68.20(E) requires that: "The proposed use will not result in the use of land for any purpose which may create or cause to be created any public nuisance including, but not limited to, air, land, or water degradation, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other considerations which may be injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare."The lower 10-foot section of the tower will be protected by anti-climb panels to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing the tower. The Planning Commission requires the tower to meet all requirements of the Oregon Department of Aviation and FAA. For these reasons, the Planning Commission determines that the use will not create a public nuisance. 17. Section 17.68.20(F)requires that: "The proposed use will be reasonably compatible with existing or planned neighboring uses based on review of the following: Basic site design (organization of uses on the site); visual elements (scale, structural design and form, materials, and so forth); noise; noxious odors; lighting; signage; landscaping for buffering and screening; traffic; effects on off-street parking; effects on air quality and water quality."The location of the tower will be obstructed from most views. It will only be visible above the top of the mature trees surrounding \\Ch-t racy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-023 City of Sandy Tower Order.doc 3 the site, and by two single family dwellings to the northeast. The Planning Commission has recommended additional landscaping to minimize the impact on the adjacent single family dwellings. As such, the Planning Commission determines that the tower is reasonably compatible with existing or planned neighboring uses. Chapter 17.92 —Landscaping and Screening General Standards—All Zones Section 17.92.100 requires service facilities to be screened. The tower will be located on a site that is obstructed from street view with mature trees. The Planning Commission requires six Hogan Cedars to be planted in an arc form between the tower and the single family dwellings to the northeast. The trees shall be five to six feet minimum height and planted 15 feet on center. Given the location of the tower and the additional required landscaping, the Planning Commission determines the proposal meets the requirements of this section. DECISION The City of Sandy Vista Loop Tower is hereby approved as modified by the conditions of approval listed below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Prior to construction of the tower, the applicant shall complete required items as specified below: 1. Meet any conditions required by the Oregon Department of Aviation and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. B. Prior to use of the tower, the applicant shall complete the following items: 1. Plant six Hogan Cedars in an arc form between the tower and the single family dwellings to the northeast. The trees shall be five to six feet in height and planted 15 feet on center. 2. Install lighting as required by the Oregon Department of Aviation and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. C. General Conditions: 1. Any other conditions or regulations required by Clackamas County, Fire District No. 72, or state or federal agencies are hereby made a part of this permit and any violation of these conditions and/or regulations or conditions of this approval will result in the review of this permit and/or revocation. 2. Land Use approval does not connote approval of public improvement plans submitted with the land use application. Plan details will be reviewed during the construction plan submittal phase. \\Ch-t racy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-023 City of Sandy Tower Order.doc 4 3. Approval of this use may be revoked if conditions of approval are not met. Development approval does not grant authority for the unrestricted use of the structure or site. Any use of this site may be prohibited until such time as all required improvements are completed. ,1te/ Cr sb sChair, Planning Commission RIGHT OF APPEAL A decision on a land use proposal or permit may be appealed to the City Council by an affected party by filing an appeal with the Director within 10 calendar days of notice of the decision. Any person interested in filing an appeal should contact the city to obtain the form, "Notice of Appeal", and Chapter 17.28 of the Sandy Development Code regulating appeals. All applications for an appeal shall indicate the nature of the interpretation that is being appealed and the matter at issue will be a determination of the appropriateness of the interpretation of the requirements of the Code. An application for an appeal shall contain: 1. An identification of the decision sought to be reviewed, including the date of the decision; 2. A statement of the interest of the person seeking review and that he/she was a party to the initial proceedings; 3. The specific grounds relied upon for review; 4. If de novo review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested, a statement relating the request to the factors listed in Chapter 17.28.50; and Payment of required filing fees. \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Orders\2009\09-023 City of Sandy Tower Order.doc 5 Planning and Development Department 414 39250 Pioneer Blvd. * Sandy OR 97055 503-668-5533 * 503-668-8714 (Fax) CITY OF SANDY,OREGON NOTICE OF LAND USE DECISION DECISION DATE: December 1, 2009 THIS NOTICE IS MAILED TO: Property Owners within 300 feet of the site, and those previously commenting on this application. FROM: City of Sandy Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Suzanne Hicks, 503-668-9545 PROJECT NAME: City of Sandy Vista Loop Tower FILE NO.: 09-023 CUP EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes installing a 120-foot data communications tower for municipal use. The primary use is to serve as a receiving antenna for an automated water meter reading system, and to provide data communication for the telemetry equipment associated with the water storage reservoirs. The secondary use of the tower will be data backhaul, and SandyNet Internet service. The freestanding tower is proposed to be constructed of galvanized steel mounted on an 1 l'x 11' concrete pad.A single red (non-flashing) light is proposed due to proximity to the Sandy River airport. EXPLANATION OF THE DECISION: Staff approved the proposal subject to conditions of approval. APPLICANT: The City of Sandy OWNER: The City of Sandy LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T2S R5E Section 18DC, Tax Lot 600 and 700 PROPERTY ADDRESS: None assigned PROPERTY LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Vista Loop, east of the Hwy 26 and Vista Loop intersection. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION: SFR, Single Family Residential DECISION PROCESS: This notice is to inform you that a decision has been issued on the above referenced land use file. This decision will not become final until twelve days following the date of the decision. Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision, or any person entitled to notice of the decision may appeal the decision in a manner consistent with the city's land use procedures. An appeal of this decision cannot be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. An appeal can be made to the City Council by filing an appeal, accompanied by an appeal fee, with the Director within twelve days of notice of the decision. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Additional information is available by contacting the staff contact listed above. A copy of the final decision, summarizing the standards and facts that justified the decision is available for review at City Hall. In addition, all documents and evidence submitted with this application are also available for review. Copies may be reviewed at City Hall and additional copies are available at a reasonable cost. \\Ch-tracy\planning2k\Notices\Notice of Adoption\2009109-023 CUP Sandy Vista Loop Tower Notice of Adoption.doe Please Type or Print on This Form Form Approved OMB No.2120-0001 Ecpiration Date:9/30/2010 rMeFailure To Provide All Requested Information May Delay Processing of Your Notice FOR FAA USE ONLY U.S.Department of Transportation Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Federal Aviation Administration 1. Sponsor(person,company,etc.proposing this action): 45 0 23 29.04 Attn.of: Scott Lazenby 9. Latitude: ,. Name:City of Sandy 10. Longitude: 122 0 14 23.37 II Address:39250 Pioneer Blvd. 11. Datum: ❑NAD 83 ❑NAD 27 C other 12. Nearest: City: Sandy State OR City: Sandy State: OR Zip: 97055 13. Nearest Public-use(not private-use)or Military Airport or Heliport: Telephone:(503)668-5533 Fax:(503)668-8714 Sandy River Airport 14. Distance from#13.to Structure:4,241 ft. 2. Sponsor's Representative(if other than#1): 15. Direction from#13.to Structure:SSW (216 degrees) Attn.of: 16. Site Elevation(AMSL): 1.131 ft. Name: 17. Total Structure Height(AGL): 120 ft. Address: 18. Overall Height(#16+#17)(AMSL): 1.251 ft. 19. Previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number(if applicable): City: State: Zip: -GE Telephone: Fax: 20. Description of Location: (Attach a USGS 7 5 minute Quadrangle Map with the precise site marked and any certified survey) 3. Notice of: g New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Existing Adjacent to City of Sandy ground-mounted water storage tanks.North of _days) Vista Loop Drive.Approx.470 ft.NE of Highway 26.Proposed location is 4. Duration: ]Permanent ❑Temporary(_months, 1,900 ft.east of an existing cell phone tower. 5. Work Schedule:Beginning August 2009 End April 2010 6. Type: Antenna Tower ❑Crane ❑Building El Power Line ❑Landfill ❑Water Tank ❑Other 7. Marking/Painting and/or Lighting Preferred: El Red Lights and Paint ❑Dual-Red and Medium Intensity White ❑White-Medium Intensity ❑Dual-Red and high Intensity White ❑White-High Intensity C Other 8. FCC Antenna Structure Registration Number(if applicable): 21. Complete Description of Proposal: Free-standing antenna tower for Wi-Fi(police,fire,general Internet service)and for water utility automated meter reading. Frequency/Power(kW) 2.4GHz and 900MHz antennas will be omni;unlicensed and thus less than 1W power.5.6 GHZ antennas will be for backhaul 2.4 GHz 0.001 kW and will be directional(one directed SW(233 degrees),and another directed WNW(285 degrees)).These are also unlicensed and under 1W.450MHz antenna will be used for automated meter reading and will be a receiver only 5.6 GHz 0.001 kW g y(no transmission).Top of structure will be roughly at the height of the surrounding fir trees.Due to aesthetics and maintenance,preferred marking is red 900MHz 0.001 kW light(not flashing)and no paint(galvanized steel).Location is perpendicular to airport runway;pilots approaching from the 450MHz N/A west avoid the bluff and associated trees and make their approach within the river valley. Notice is required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations,part 77 pursuant to 49 U.S.C.,Section 44718. Persons who knowingly and willingly violate the notice requirements of part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of$1,000 per day until the notice is received,pursuant to 49 U.S.C.,Section 46301(a) I hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me are true,complete,and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition,I agree to mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking&lighting standards as necessary. Date Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice Signature May 6,2009 _ Scott Lazenby,City Manager FAA Form 7460-1 (2-99) Supersedes Previous Edition Electronic Version(Adobe) NSN: 0052-00-012-0009 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION §77.13 Construction or alteration requiring notice. §77.15 Construction or alteration not requiring notice. (a)Except as provided in§77.15,each sponsor who proposes any of the No person is required to notify the Administrator for any of the following following construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form construction or alteration: and manner prescribed in§77.17. (a)Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or (1)Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the greater height,and would be located in the congested area of a city,town,or ground level at its site. settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so (2)Any construction or alteration of greater height than imaginary surface shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes: (b)Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would (I)1 00 to 1 for horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of increase the height of another antenna structure. the nearest runway of each airport specified in paragraph (a)(5) or this (c)Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing air, aircraft section with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the excluding heliports. Administrator,or an appropriate military service on military airports,the location (ii)50 to 1 for horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. the nearest runway of each airport specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this (d)Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FM section with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length, regulation. excluding heliports. (iii)25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of §77.17 Form and time of notice the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in paragraph (a)(5)of this section. (a)Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under§77.13(a) (3)Any highway,railroad,or other traverse way for mobile objects,of a shall send one executed form set of FM Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed height which,if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part Construction or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division,FM Regional of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where Office having jurisdiction over the area within which the construction or alteration overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 16 will be located. Copies of FM Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the feet for any other public roadway,10 feet or the height of the highest mobile headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration and the regional Vices. object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road,23 feet for a railroad,and for a waterway or any other traverse (b)The notice required under§77.13(a)(1)through(4)must be submitted at way not previously mentioned,an amount equal to the height of the highest least 30 days before the earlier of the following dates— mobile object that would normally traverse it,would exceed a standard of (1)The date the proposed construction or alteration is to begin. paragraph(a)(1)or(2)of this section. (2)The date an application for a construction permit is to be filed. (4)When requested by the FM,any construction or alteration that would be in an instrument approach area(defined in the FAA standards governing However,a notice relating to proposed construction or alteration that is subject instrument approach procedures)and available information indicates it might to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Act may be sent to exceed a standard of Subpart C of this part. the FM at the same time the application for construction is filed with the Federal Communications Commission,or at any time before that filing. (5)Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports(including heliports): (c)A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds (i)An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Airport 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air Directory of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant or Pacific Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under (ii)An airport under construction,that is the subject of a notice or proposal the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 on file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and except for military feet above ground,or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed airports,it is clearly indicated that airport will be available for public use. that height,must contain a detailed showing,directed to meeting this burden. (iii)An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. Only in exceptional cases,where the FM concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the (b)Each sponsor who proposes construction or alteration that is the subject airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation,will a determination of a notice under paragraph(a)of this section and is advised by an FM of no hazard be issued. regional office that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice on a prescribed form to be received by the FM regional office at least 48 (d) In the case of an emergency involving essential public services, public hours before the start of construction or alteration. health,or public safety that required immediate construction or alteration,the 30 day requirement in paragraph(b)of this section does not apply and the notice (c)Each sponsor who undertakes construction or alteration that is the subject may be sent by telephone, telegraph, or other expeditious means, with an of a notice under paragraph(a)of this section shall,within 5 days after that executed FM Form 7460-1 submitted within five(5)days thereafter. Outside construction or alteration reaches its greatest height,submit a supplemental normal business hours,emergency notices by telephone or telegraph may be notice on a prescribed form to the FM regional office having jurisdiction over submitted to the nearest FM Flight Service Station. the region involved,if— (1)The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet above the surface (e)Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph ,b)or level of its site;or (c)of§77.13,o,sr both shall send i an,to the copy of FM Form 7460-2,Notice (2)An FM regional office advises him that submission of the form is of Actual Construction or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division, FM required. Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area involved. Mall Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Service,AJR-322 2601 Meachum Boulevard Fort Worth,TX 76193 Fax:817-838-1991 Phone:817-838-1990 Webshe:https://oeaaa.faa.gov FM Form 7460-1(2-99)Superseded Previous Edition Electronic Version(Adobe) NSN: 0052-00-012-0009 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FAA FORM 7460-1 PLEASE TYPE or PRINT ITEM#1. Please include the name,address and phone number of a personal contact point as well as the company name. ITEM#2. Please include the name,address and phone number of a personal contact point as well as the company name. ITEM#3. New Construction would be a structure that has not yet been built. Alteration is a change to an existing structure such as the addition of a side mounted antenna, a change to the marking and lighting. a change to power and/or frequency, or a change to the height. The nature of the alteration shall be included in ITEM #21 "Complete Description of Proposal". Existing would be a correction to the latitude and/or longitude, a correction to the height,or if filing on an existing structure which has never been studied by the FAA. The reason for the notice shall be included in ITEM#21 "Complete Description of Proposal". ITEM #4. If Permanent, so indicate. If Temporary, such as a crane or drilling derrick, enter the estimated length of time the temporary structure will be up. ITEM#5. Enter the date that construction is expected to start and the date that construction should be completed. ITEM#6. Please indicate the type of structure. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. ITEM #7. In the event that obstruction marking and lighting is required, please indicate type desired. If no preference, check "other"and indicate"no preference" DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. NOTE: High Intensity lighting shall be used only for structures over 500'AGL. In the absence of high intensity lighting for structures over 500'AGL,marking is also required. ITEM#8. If this is an existing tower that has been registered with the FCC,enter the FCC Antenna Structure Registration number here. ITEM #9 and #10. Latitude and longitude must be geographic coordinates, accurate to within the nearest second or to the nearest hundredth of a second if known. Latitude and longitude derived solely from a hand-held GPS instrument is NOT acceptable. A hand-held GPS is only accurate to within 100 meters (328 feet) 95 percent of the time. This data, when plotted, should match the site depiction submitted under ITEM#20. ITEM#11. NAD 83 is preferred; however, latitude and longitude may be submitted in NAD 27. Also, in some geographic areas where NAD 27 and NAD 83 are not available other datums may be used. It is important to know which datum is used. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. ITEM#12. Enter the name of the nearest city and state to the site. If the structure is or will be in a city,enter the name of that city and state. ITEM#13. Enter the full name of the nearest public-use(not private-use)airport or heliport or military airport or heliport to the site. ITEM#14. Enter the distance from the airport or heliport listed in#13 to the structure. ITEM#15. Enter the direction from the airport or heliport listed in#13 to the structure. ITEM#16. Enter the site elevation above mean sea level and expressed in whole feet rounded to the nearest foot(e.g. 17'3"rounds to 17', 17'6"rounds to 18'). This data should match the ground contour elevations for site depiction submitted under ITEM#20. ITEM#17. Enter the total structure height above ground level in whole feet rounded to the next highest foot(e.g. 17'3"rounds to 18'). The total structure height shall include anything mounted on top of the structure, such as antennas, obstruction lights, lightning rods,etc. ITEM#18. Enter the overall height above mean sea level and expressed in whole feet. This will be the total of ITEM#16+ITEM#17. ITEM#19. If an FAA aeronautical study was previously conducted,enter the previous study number. ITEM #20. Enter the relationship of the structure to roads, airports, prominent terrain, existing structures, etc. Attach an 8-1/2" x 11" non-reduced copy of the appropriate 7.5 minute U.S.Geological Survey(USGS)Quadrangle Map MARKED WITH A PRECISE INDICATION OF THE SITE LOCATION. To obtain maps, contact USGC at 1-800-435-7627 or via internet at `http://mappinq.usgs.gov". If available. attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification stating the amount of vertical and horizontal accuracy in feet. ITEM#21. • For transmitting stations,include maximum effective radiated power(ERP)and all frequencies. • For antennas, include the type of antenna and center of radiation(Attach the antenna pattern,if available). • For microwave, include azimuth relative to true north. • For overhead wires or transmission lines, include size and configuration of wires and their supporting structures(Attach depiction). • For each pole/support, include coordinates,site elevation,and structure height above ground level or water. • For buildings,include site orientation,coordinates of each corner,dimensions,and construction materials. • For alterations.explain the alteration thoroughly. • For existing structures,thoroughly explain the reason for notifying the FAA(e.g.corrections, no record or previous study,etc.). Filing this information with the FAA does not relieve the sponsor of this construction or alteration from complying with any other federal,state or local rules or regulations. If you are not sure what other rules or regulations apply to your proposal,contact local/state aviations and zoning authorities. Paperwork Reduction Work Act Statement: This information is collected to evaluate the effect of proposed construction or alteration on air navigation and is not confidential. Providing this information is mandatory for anyone proposing construction or alteration that meets or exceeds the criteria contained in 14 CFR, part 77. We estimate that the burden of this collection is an average 19 minutes per response. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 2120-0001.Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at:800 Independence Ave.SW,Washington,DC 20591,Attn:Information Collection Clearance Officer,ABA-20 FAA Form 7460-1(2-99)Superseded Previous Edition Electronic Version(Adobe) NSN: 0052-00-012-0009