Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication Materials (4/1/15) (2)Technology Associates March 25, 2015 Nick Gioello, Planner City of Eugene Planning and Development Department 99 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Cingular Wireless at Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) Please accept this response to the letter dated November 4, 2014 requesting additional items for this application. In addition to the below responses, attached please find the following: 1) revised zoning/landscape drawings; 2) photo simulations; 3) revised RF justification report; 4) alternate site analysis with declaration; and 5) signing authority for Aaron Taylor of Crossfire Church. Please note below are Staff's comments and questions followed by Applicant's responses in italics. If you have any questions, please contact me at (323) 559-4103 or lacob.finney@taec.net. 1. EC 9.8090(1): The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. The applicant's October 24th response to staff's May 30th comment regarding Policy E.4 of the Metro Plan states that the proposed monopine is designed to contribute to the existing backdrop of other evergreen trees in the area. The site plans, however, show that the trees abutting the site are primarily maples. The proposed monopine is located in a very visible location, abutting the parking lot and facing the street. The narrative and supporting photos do not appear to adequately address how the facility is "designed and located in a manner that preserved and enhances desirable features of the local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity." 7117 SW Bevelard Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: laceb.finrev@taec.net www.taec.net 1 Technology Associates RESPONSE: The proposed project is located on a parcel surrounded by a variety of existing trees and vegetation, including red maples, a spruce tree, shore pine, paper birch and Ponderosa pine trees. The Ponderosa pines are similar height and density as the proposed monopine. To further enhance desirable features of the area and promote their sense of identity, AT&T is proposing additional landscape around the base of the monopine and the proposed building extension which will house ancillary equipment. The proposed landscaping (Att.1) as shown on plans includes a variety of vegetation and shrubbery as well as vine maples. The desirable features of the surrounding neighborhood include a variety of flora, mature evergreen trees and deciduous trees. The proposed monopine and additional landscaping will preserve the desirable features of the neighborhood by contributing the abundant flora and mature trees. Additional photo simulations (Att. 2) clearly demonstrate the abundance and variety of vegetation, including native trees and shrubs, surrounding the subject property. 2. EC 9.8090(2) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of surrounding property, as the relate to the following factors: (a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and density of use being proposed. The statement says the monopine is designed to look like other evergreen trees in the immediate area, butthe site plans show few evergreen trees in close proximity. The additional photo simulations help support the argument about there being a backdrop of trees, but it appears that these photos were taken at strategic locations, rather than representing actual impacts. This criterion is about the location of the facility to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. As noted above, the narrative and supporting photos simulations don't appear to accurately describe the setting, nor do they fully address how the facility will be reasonably compatible with surrounding properties who would view the tower without any backdrop of trees. It may be helpful to review the Rest Haven cell tower findings, which provide extensive discussion of this criterion. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323)559-4103 Email: jacob.finnev@taec.net www.taec.net Technology Associates The statement also concludes that the ancillary equipment shed will look like an extension of the chapel. This needs to be illustrated and better explained as to how it fits within the area in terms of mass and scale and impact on the surroundings. The supplemental information only shows a side view (View #10). What does the building addition look like from West Amazon Road? RESPONSE. The landscape plans of the proposed project indicate that the parcel is a host of a mix of existing deciduous and coniferous trees, including pine trees of similar height to the proposed monopine. Additional photo simulations from views across Amazon Road, south of Fox Hollow and Potter Street have been provided to demonstrate the mix of abundant vegetation and mature trees in the surrounding neighborhood as well as proposed landscaping. The existing variety of trees and vegetation in addition to the trees and landscaping proposed with this application provide context far the monopine to blend into the environment. The ancillary equipment will be housed in an extension of the existing building that will also be utilized as Church storage. It is a minor addition in comparison to the size of the existing structure and has no impact on the surroundings following completion of construction. The extension will be finished to match the existing building and will also be surrounded by landscape as shown in the additional photo simulations. 3. The applicant should also consider the possibility that a variance may not be granted to allow above ground ancillary facilities, and provide for alternative designs (e.g. underground or fully enclosed with additional sound buffering) as a contingency or means to better address the approval criteria. (b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare and odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through other design techniques, such as screening and increased setbacks. RESPONSE: To meet the above criteria, the equipment shelter extension has been oriented away from nearby residential uses to face the church playground and Fox Hollow Road. In addition, all substantial offsite impacts have been mitigated through design of the 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: iacob.finney@taec.net www.taec.net 3 Technology 4 Associates equipment enclosure as an architecturally compatible extension of the existing church with extensive sound baffling which will reduce the noise levels of the facility equipment to well below the City's noise limits. The proposed ground equipment includes AC units and an emergency generator, which would both be fully enclosed within a sound-baffled equipment shelter, built to look like a seamless extension of the church building. The AC units would run intermittently to cool equipment. The emergency generator would run only in emergencies and for about 10 consecutive minutes during monthly testing. The proposed design incorporates additional baffling sufficient to reduce the sound from the AC units to 35 dBA, well below the 45 dBA code limit for R-1-zoned properties. Because the proposed generator would run for such a short amount of time during daytime hours, it would not be considered a noise disturbance under the code even if the noise level briefly exceeds 45 dBA. (Per Matt Denberg, City of Eugene Code Compliance, Oct. 22, 2014. See generally, EC 6.750(b).) However, to minimize the noise levels from the generator, it would be enclosed within the sound-baffled equipment shelter and additional noise control can be added to assure that all substantial offsite impacts have been mitigated and that the 45dBA noise level at the property lines is achieved. Because testimony at hearing will demonstrate that the emergency generator cannot be safely placed underground and because the criteria for a variance from that requirement have been met, the Applicant is not proposing an underground alternative, The proposed design is fully enclosed with additional sound baffling. Att. 1, 2. 4. The screening shown on Sheet L2.0 is not reflected in the photo simulations. The mono- pine design shown on Sheet A-3.0 is also not reflected in the photo simulations. We believe you will need better evidence to show what the actual visual impacts will be. In addition to screening around the base of the facilities, consider additional screening. There appears to be an opportunity to provide additional landscape screening on Tax Lot 701-the portion of the site abutting Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road. It looks like a visual from the intersection of Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road is needed. RESPONSE: The screening and monopine design are depicted in the new photo simulations with a very high degree of accuracy. A 3D photo rendering has been created to provide a fully accurate depiction of the proposed monopine. Additional landscaping can be added on the Tax Lot 701 as specified by Staff. 7117 SW Beveland Street, SLAB 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jacob.finney(ptaec.net www.taec.net 4 Technology "t Associates 5. The supplemental noise report (dated October 22, 2014) contains edits on page 3 that makes the findings difficult to interpret. The statement refers to the City's noise ordinance relative to the generator; remember that this is CUP in which all impacts are evaluated against subjective approval criteria, above and beyond basic code standards. Did the acoustical engineer take into account any grade differences between the subject property and adjacent properties? (This was an issue in the Rest Maven case, in which abutting neighbors successfully argued that the noise travel path was different because their homes were located at a higher elevation.) The acoustical report still needs to be verified by our consultant (the related review fees must be paid for by the applicant.) RESPONSE: The acoustical engineer took into account any grade differences between the subject property and adjacent properties. The noise study and its supplement provide evidence that the proposed wireless facility will meet Eugene's noise limits on the surrounding properties. The amount of the additional fees to be paid for the consultant to verify the acoustical report has been requested by the Applicant and Applicant was informed that the fee amount would not be provided until zoning materials have been re-submitted. 6. EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. The "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" requirement is not addressed. Staff is concerned that this particular stealth design may not respond appropriately to the setting and recommends that the applicant evaluate alternatives or additional comparative analysis to better show that the proposed design fits the setting. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jacob.finney@taec.net www.taec.net 5 Technology Associates RESPONSE: To meet the "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" requirement, the Applicant has re-designed the antenna array to provide more stealthing of the facilities. The new configuration, as show on site plans and in photo simulations, reduces the number of antennas from a total of 12 to 6 (2 antennas per sector) with a shorter Y antenna frame and a shorter stand off from the pole, so the proposed antennas will more closely "hug" the pole, further concealing it within the branches. In addition, the Applicant is proposes landscaping around the base of the pole as well as the building extension that will house the ancillary equipment to promote as attractive an environment as possible that blends in with the existing buildings, flora and mature trees on the subject property as well as the surrounding neighborhood. 7. 9.5750 Telecommunication Devices-Siting Requirements and Procedures. (6) Application Requirements. (a) Construction of Transmission Tower. In addition to standard required application material, an applicant for a transmission tower shall submit the following information; additional application material is required, as specified in paragraph (c) below, for applications requiringa site review orconditional use process: 1. A description of the proposed tower location, design and height. The photo simulations are inconsistent with the plans regardingthe tower design and the landscaping. RESPONSE: The proposed monopine is a total of 75' tall, the pole itself and antenna tip height is 7©' and then we have added on additional 5' of branches to the top to resemble the tapering of a natural pine tree. The antenna configuration has been revised from the initial application and Applicant has reduced the number of panel antennas from 12 to 6 to bring them closer into the pole and provide greater concealment. New photo 7317 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: iarob.finnevCo?taec.net www.taec.net 6 Technology *0 Associates simulations have been to provide the new tower design and landscaping with a very high degree of accuracy. Att. 2. 8. The supplemental noise report has notes that make it difficult to read. Please clarify the generator noise level, as the written statement seems to rely on our citywide noise standards. What would be the noise generation if all facilities were underground? It would be helpful to show a comparison, tojustify a variance to undergrounding. RESPONSE: Because the proposed generator would run for such a short amount of time during daytime hours, it would not be considered a noise disturbance under the code even if the noise level briefly exceeds 45 dBA. (Per Matt Denberg, City of Eugene Code Compliance, Oct. 22, 2014. See generally, EC 6.756(6).) However, to minimize the noise levels from the generator, it would be enclosed within the sound-baffled equipment shelter and the Engineer stated in a March 26, 2015 conversation, that additional noise control can be added to assure that all substantial offsite impacts have been mitigated and that the 45dBA noise level at the property lines is achieved. Because testimony at hearing will demonstrate that the emergency generator cannot be safely placed underground and because the criteria for a variance from that requirement have been met, the Applicant is not proposing an underground alternative. The proposed design is fully enclosed with additional sound baffling. Please see revised drawings and photosims, Att.1 and Att. 2. 9. 10. Signature of the property owner(s) on the application form or a statement from the property owner(s) granting authorization to proceed with development permit and land use processes; Please verify that the person who signed the application form is the property owner or has the authority to sign on behalf of the property owner. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jacobJlrneyDtaec.net www.taec.net Technology J Associates RESPONSE: Please see Att. 5 - Crossfire Church giving Aaron Taylor the power to sign on behalf of Calvary Fellowship regarding the placement of a cell tower on Calvary Fellowship's property. 10. (a) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall include the following information: 1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at least 5 points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the provider with review and approval by the planning director to ensure that various potential views are represented. The photo simulations and site plans (which are inconsistent} leave unanswered questions about how the project adequately addresses compatibility with the surroundings. Further, additional viewpoints may be necessary, such as from the intersection of Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road. (7) Standards for Transmission Towers and Antennas. Installation, construction or modification of all transmission towers and antennas shall comply with the following standards, unless a variance is obtained pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section: 7117 SW Beveland Street, Sulte 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jacob.finnev@taec.net www.taee.net 8 Technology t Associates (e) Buffering. In all zones, existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In the C-4, 1-1,1-2 and 1-3 zones, no buffering is required beyond that required by this land use code. In all other zones, landscaping shall be placed completely around the transmission tower and ancillary facilities located at ground level except as required to access the facility. Such landscaping shall consist of evergreen vegetation with a minimum planted height of 6 feet placed densely so as to form a screen. Landscaping shall be compatible with other nearby landscaping and shall be kept healthy and well maintained. More and different landscaping may be necessary to address compatibility with surrounding properties. RESPONSE. Additional photo simulations have been provided from 6 different viewpoints that were not previously provided. The additional viewpoints include views from across Amazon Road, south of Fox Hollow and Potter Street, and demonstrate the proposed monopine's compatibility with the existing trees and vegetation. In addition, the photo simulations depict the proposed landscaping and the extension to the existing Church building that will house the ancillary equipment. 11. (f) Noise Reduction. In R-1,R-2, R-3, R-4,C-1,and GO and in all other zones when the adjacent property is zoned for residential use or occupied by a dwelling, hospital, school, library, or nursing 7197 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: iaccb.finney@taec.net www.taec.net 9 00 Technology Associates home, noise generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce sound level measured at the property line to 45dBa. The noise report is difficult to read. Please be clear about mitigation for the generator. RESPONSE: The acoustical report prepared by SSA Acoustics dated October 22, 2014 indicates that the predicted sound level generated by the generator will exceed the Eugene's 45 dBA requirement for the receiving properties to the south and west. The Engineer states that, while the generator is excluded from the noise ordinance, to achieve a level near the 45 dBA level in the code, Applicant must Install a louver equivalent to Vibro-Acoustics ALV-MV-8 at the air discharge; sound absorbing material with a minimum NRC rating of 0.90 on at least 96 square feet of the ceiling and 300 square feet of the walls of the generator room; install a sheet metal hood on the outside of the air intake opening, to be lined with 1" duct liner, install a critical grade exhaust stack muffler on the engine exhaust stack that provides 25-40 dBA noise reduction equivalent to GT Exhaust Muffler 201-5100. Per a follow up conversation with the Engineer on March 26, 2015, additional noise control can also be added to assure that the generator meets the 45dBA noise level at the property lines. 12. (8) Standardsfor Ancillary Facilities. All ancillaryfacilities shall complywith the standards of subsections (7)(e) and (7)(f) of this section. inaddition,all ancillary facilities within an R-1, PLC-1,GO, and PRO zone must be located underground tothe maximum extent technology allows, unless a variance is obtained pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section. This restriction does not apply within other zones. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jamb.finnevCataec.net www.taec.net 10 Technolo P" Associates As noted previously, the ability to obtain a variance is questionable. In response to the standard above, provide information about the technological feasibility of undergrounding and consider proposing it an alternative design (alongwith a noise study that addresses an underground design) in the event that a variance is denied. RESPONSE: AT&T requests a variance to the undergrounding requirement based on (1) the technological difficulties and safety issues related to undergrounding ancillary equipment at this site; (2) the proposed, stealth design and landscaping of the equipment enclosure and (3) the planned use of noise baffling within the shelter. AT&T equips certain telecommunication facilities with an emergency power supply in the case of a disaster that cuts off local power supply to the facility. Emergency generators, like the one proposed at this site, use a diesel combustion engine to supply power. Testimony at hearing will demonstrate that undergrounding a combustion engine poses several safety risks, including the risk of explosion and risks to maintenance personnel who would have to service combustible equipment in a confined space. (Maintenance of undergrounded facilities requires at least two maintenance people, so that one can perform safety checks when the other is servicing equipment.) These safety risks make undergrounding prohibitive. Additionally, an undergrounded equipment shelter (compared to an above ground equipment shelter) requires a larger construction footprint, additional belowground impervious surface, and several above ground ventilators and air pumps (which could generate additional noise) to provide cooling far the equipment and resolve air quality issues for maintenance personnel. The proposed design is a fully enclosed equipment shelter, designed to closely resemble the existing church building, with compatible architecture and matching roofing, siding, and paint. The extension is minimal in proportion to the size of the existing building and will be painted and finished to match the existing structure. Applicant also proposes new landscaping around the perimeter of the building extension so the ancillary equipment stored inside it will be completely stealthed and have minimal visual impact. The shelter would be lined with extensive sound baffling to reduce noise produced by the WTF's ancillary equipment below the city's limit of 45 dBA at the adjacent property lines. 7117 SW Bevelard Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: 'acoh.finney@taec.net www.taec.riet 11 Technologyt Associates Unlike the NorthQreen application referenced in staff's letter, where no generator was proposed, there is an emergency generator at this location. As described above, it is not feasible to locate the generator underground and its contribution to the noise output is de minimus, as the generator would only operate during one monthly 5-10 minute maintenance test during daytime hours (7 AM 10 PM). This test con be scheduled at a time designed to have the slightest impact on surrounding property owners. In the event of emergency, the generator would operate for the time required within the heavily baffled equipment enclosure to provide critical wireless service to the neighborhood during an emergency. The proposed design of the ancillary equipment eliminates the need for undergrounding, as demonstrated in the site plans, photo simulations and noise study. The equipment will be located within an extension of the existing building, which will also serve as storage for the Church. The extension is minimal in proportion to the size of the existing building and will be painted and finished to match the existing structure. Applicant also proposes new landscaping around the perimeter of the building extension so the ancillary equipment stored inside it will be completely stealthed and have minimal visual impact. See Att. Z and 2. 13. (9) Variance. The city maygrant a variance to the setback and undergrounding requirements subsections (7)(d) or(8) upon findingthatstealth design, proposed landscaping, configuration of the site, orthe presence of maturetrees obviates the need for compliance. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email jacob.finney@taec.net www.taec.net 12 Technology Associates The requested variance for not undergrounding the ancillary facilities is not sufficiently supported by the application materials. Please respond to the above criterion. RESPONSE: To meet the above criterion, the equipment shelter extension has been oriented away from nearby residential uses to face the church playground and Fox Hollow Road. In addition, all substantial offsite impacts have been mitigated through design of the equipment enclosure as an architecturally compatible extension of the existing church with extensive sound baffling which will reduce the noise levels of the facility equipment to well below the City's noise limits. The proposed ground equipment includes AC units and an emergency generator, which would both be fully enclosed within a sound-baffled equipment shelter, built to look like a seamless extension of the church building. The AC units would run intermittently to cool equipment. The emergency generator would run only in emergencies and for about 10 consecutive minutes during monthly testing. The proposed design incorporates additional baffling sufficient to reduce the sound from the AC units to 35 dBA, well below the 45 dBA code limit for R-1-zoned properties. Because the proposed generator would run for such a short amount of time during daytime hours, it would not be considered a noise disturbance under the code even if the noise level briefly exceeds 45 dBA. (Per Matt Denberg, City of Eugene Code Compliance, Oct. 22, 2014. See generally, EC 6.750(b).) However, to minimize the noise levels from the generator, it would be enclosed within the sound-baffled equipment shelter and additional noise control can be added to assure that all substantial offsite impacts have been mitigated and that the 45dBA noise level at the property lines is achieved. Because testimony at hearing will demonstrate that the emergency generator cannot be safely placed underground and because the criterio for a variance from that requirement have been met, the Applicant is not proposing an underground alternative. The proposed design is fully enclosed with additional sound baffling. Applicant also proposes new landscaping around the perimeter of the building extension so the ancillary equipment stored inside it will be completely stealthed and have minimal visual impact. Moreover, Applicant has provided a noise study that includes mitigation measures ensuring that the site meets or exceeds Eugene's noise reduction code requirements. 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-14103 Email: acab.tlnne taec.net www,taec.net 13 Technology Associates Thank you for consideration of this application. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about the enclosed materials. Sincerely, acob Finney 7197 SW Beveland Street, Sutte 101 Tigard, OR 97223 (323) 559-4103 Email: jacob.finney@taec.net www.taec.net 14 CO) CD MIMES m O CO) CO) Q 4* cm O C Z V ai H Rew W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L x CO w 0 3: ::D Liocz) w 0 am J Q W Q co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H w D Q z o ti J 0 J ry LF) 0 ~ W = Q ~ L z x CO w 0 3: ::D Li o w Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H w D Q z o ti J 0 J ry LF) 0 ~ W = Q ~ L z x CO w 0 3: ::D Li o w Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0 co) Qi yr O O CO) CO) Q O! O C .,C Q O H Rew (D W w D o Q z ti J p rn J Q O Q L ~ z x CO w 0 3: z Liow Qo 0