Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-117CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 1999 TO: Michele Neumann, Records Management Coordinator FROM: Roy Publico, Assistant Planner x7289 ^, SUBJECT: Party of Record The following person would like to be a party of record for the projects LUA99-080, AAD Bosteder Abatement Appeal LUA99-117, AAD Sprint PCS Appeal at Dunn Lumber George Daniels 215 Garden Avenue N. Renton, WA 98055 425) 255-6465 AT* IMENT 1 —CITY OF RENTON 20 SG MAP L Ci N 6th St. N 6ti St. u TL. ILmi, uI_t `ram I 1 rr to pit,turf r . t-.H 1a f1P. r.1 —n IHr-ten M w-• fit— r•rr j. atl!w IIrW. -C. l the St.As— =1 OM_-. IH rM:• —r: .. r MI ale L. r. ry 1IL ItRrAr•• ion 3.ww mu to CA a r —— me a e to — .1- N LI I- ono I - C. II_3; ono IM..N 4th St. lt ra 1..t a1r r1 f7 •:'.t-1 Lr MN mil —mIn.Om MAN\r `S' pl. I Will••1 t Z —A •••1.••. kf I.r r r' try Iiirl i` Y '5•r I tta r E'a y V L Aso ta-ri Ti Mower ^ F'1" - : r 4 d ;iavgt MOWSVIM._. ... it L J ii r r i .].:1W r1s to to taw -r —r•e =aq 1 La ra rM NM =LEM TONmit,„ • ce)444. ,.....1A fiej al mi id a us ., sm. . . v.,. . rn, ,m,.. ;IV 1 01mi Ejdhiá C R<P) g 7 III _ . a n 4 - • •g :CDR iikLai a W ow rm LEGEND CA—Commercial Arterial R-8-Residential CC—Convenience Commercial R-1 0-Residential CD—Center Downtown RiM-U—Residential Multi-Family Urban Center CO—Commercial Office IL—Industrial(Light) IH—Industrial (Heavy) 4. 1 3350 Monte Villa Parkway py Bothell, 98021c3Fax: 425-951-4735 Mobile: 425-985-0870 W& H Pacific / Sprint Spectrum August 25, 1999 Jesse Tanner Mayor City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 425)430-7270 Re: Proposal to Lease Space at Liberty Park(our ref.No. SE29XC265C) Dear Mayor Tanner: Sprint Spectrum is interested in determining the feasibility of leasing a parcel of land in Liberty Park for a telecommunication site. This location was recommended by Jana Hanson,Zoning Administrator for the City of Renton Planning Department, as an alternative to Sprint's proposed site at 120 Factory Ave. (Project No. LUA-99-099). The site in Liberty Park would consist of land for communication equipment and replacing the existing light standard with a pole that would accommodate the lights and Sprint's antennas. We have also considered the top of the Old City Hall Building, however the tall row of trees to the north may interfere with signal transmission and reception. Enclosed for your review are an Entry and Testing Agreement, a draft PCS Site Agreement. and several photographs showing the proposed location in Liberty Park. The Entry and Testing Agreement will allow Sprint to enter upon the property for a site walk and testing; and to make applications for approval if the site is determined to be feasible. The PCS Site Agreement has an Initial Term of five(5)years with automatic renewals of four 4)additional terms of five(5)years each. Total rent for the five year term would be S36,000 payable at S600.00 per month. Rent for each Renewal Term will be increased by 20%. If the Agreement is renewed for all four additional terms,the total rent would be S267,897.60. Exhibits A& B will be completed after receipt of a survey and archtect's drawings. Please call me at(425)985-0870 if you have any questions or requests;and let me know whom I might contact to arrange a site walk. We are requesting a written response to this proposal by September 3, 1999. If we do not receive a response,we will assume the City is not interested in pursuing a lease. Sincerely, tz\--` / Jim Sarama Site Acquisition Contractor for Sprint Spectrum enclosures Site Name: Renton I Liberty Park Site I.D. SE29XC265C 1. Premises and Use. Owner leases to Sprint Spectrum LP., a Delaware 10. Utilities. Owner represents that utilities adequate for SSLP's use of t! limited partnership("SSLP"),the site described below: Site are available. SSLP will pay for all utilities used by it at the Site. Own Check appropriate box(es)] will cooperate with SSLP in SSLP's efforts to obtain utilities from any locati Land consisting of approximately (to be determined) square feet upon provided by Owner or the servicing utility, including signing any easement which SSLP will construct its ® equipment base station and 0 antenna other instrument reasonably required by the utility company. structure; 11. Termination. SSLP may terminate this Agreement at any time by not Building interior space consisting of approximately square feet; to Owner without further liability if SSLP does not obtain all permits or otr Building exterior space for attachment of antennas; approvals (collectively, "approval") required from any governmental author Building exterior space for placement of base station equipment,or any easements required from any third party to operate the PCS system. Tower antenna space at about 60' on a pole to replace the exsiting light if any such approval is canceled, expires or is withdrawn or terminated, o standard Owner fails to have proper ownership of the Site or authority to enter into t Space required for cable runs to connect PCS equipment and antennas,Agreement,or if SSLP,for any other reason, in its sole discretion, determir that it will be unable to use the Site. Upon termination, all prepaid rent will in the location(s) ("Site") shown on Exhibit A, together with a non-exclusive retained by Owner unless such termination is due to Owner's failure of pros easement for reasonable access thereto and to the appropriate, in the ownership or authority,or such termination is a result of Owner's default. discretion of SSLP, source of electric and telephone facilities. The Site will be 12. Default. If either party is in default under this Agreement for a perioc used by SSLP for the purpose of installing, removing, replacing, modifying, (a) 15 days following receipt of notice from the non-defaulting party v maintaining and operating, at its expense, a personal communications service respect to a default which may be cured solely by the payment of money system facility("PCS"), including,without limitation, antenna equipment,cable (b) 30 days following receipt of notice from the non defaulting party v wiring, back-up power sources (including generators and fuel storage tanks), respect to a default which may not be cured solely by the payment of mor related fixtures and, if applicable to the Site, an antenna structure. SSLP will then, in either event, the non-defaulting party may pursue any remec use the Site in a manner which will not unreasonably disturb the occupancy of available to it against the defaulting party under applicable law, including, Owner's other tenants. SSLP will have access to the Site 24 hours per day, 7 not limited to, the right to terminate this Agreement. If the non-monel days per week. default may not reasonably be cured within a 30-day period, this Agreerr 2. Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Initial Term") is 5 years, may not be terminated if the defaulting party commences action to cure commencing on the date ("Commencement Date") both SSLP and Owner default within such 30-day period and proceeds with due diligence to fully c have executed this Agreement.This Agreement will be automatically renewed the default. for four additional terms (each a "Renewal Term") of 5 years each, unless 13. indemnity. Owner and SSLP each indemnifies the other against SSLP provides Owner notice of intention not to renew not less than 90 days hods the other harmless from any and all costs (including reason: prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. attorneys'fees)and claims of liability or loss which arise out of the owners 3. Rent. Until the date which is 60 days after the issuance of a building use and/or occupancy of the Site by the indemnifying party. This inderr permit, rent will be a one-time aggregate payment of$100.00, the receipt of does not apply to any claims ansing from the sole negligence or intents which Owner acknowledges. Thereafter, rent will be paid in equal monthly misconduct of the indemnified party. The indemnity obligations under installments of$600.00(until increased as set forth herein), partial months to Paragraph will survive termination of this Agreement. be prorated. in advance. Rent for each Renewal Term will be the annual rent 14. Hazardous Substances. Owner represents that it has no knowledg in effect for the final year of the Initial Term or prior Renewal Term, as the any substance,chemical or waste(collectively,"substance")on the Site th case may be, increased by twenty percent(20%). identified as hazardous,toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, stal 4. Title and Quiet Possession. Owner represents and agrees (a) that it is local law or regulation. SSLP will not introduce or use any such substanc the Owner of the Site; (b)that it has the right to enter into this Agreement; the Site in violation of any applicable law. c)that the person signing this Agreement has the authority to sign; (d)that 15. Subordination and Hon-Disturbance. This Agreement is subordina SSLP is entitled to access to the Site at all times and to the quiet possession mortgage or deed of trust now of record against the Site. How( of the Site throughout the Initial Term and each Renewal Term so long as any promptly after the Agreement is fully executed, Owner will use diligent el SSLP is not in default beyond the expiration of any cure period; and (e)that to obtain a non-disturbance agreement reasonably acceptable to SSLP Owner shall not have unsupervised access to the Site or to the PCS the holder of any such mortgage or deed of trust. equipment.16. Taxes. SSLP will be responsible for payment of all personal pro 5. Assignment/Subletting.Tenant shall have the right to sublease or assign taxes assessed directly upon and ansing solely from its use of its rights under this Agreement without notice to or consent of Owner. communications facility on the Site. SSLP will pay to Owner any increa 6. Notices. All notices must be in writing and are effective only when real property taxes attributable solely to any improvements to the Site r deposited in the U.S. mail, certified and postage prepaid, or when sent via by SSLP within 60 days after receipt of satisfactory documentation indic overnight delivery. Notices to SSLP are to be sent to: Sprint Spectrum L.P., calculation of SSLP's share of such real estate taxes and payment of thi 4683 Chabot Drive, Ste. 100, Pleasanton. CA 94588, with a copy to Sprint estate taxes by Owner. Owner will pay when due all other real estate Spectrum L.P., 4900 Main, Kansas City, MO 64112. Notices to Owner must and assessments attributable to the property of Owner of which the Sit( be sent to the address shown underneath Owner's signature. part. 7. Improvements. SSLP may, at its expense, make such improvements on 17. Insurance. SSLP will procure and maintain commercial general li the Site as it deems necessary from time to time for the operation of the PCS insurance, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single lira system. Owner agrees to cooperate with SSLP with respect to obtaining any occurrence for bodily injury and property damage liability, with a certific required zoning approvals for the Site and such improvements. Upon insurance to be furnished to Owner within 30 days of written request. termination or expiration of this Agreement, SSLP may remove its equipment policy will provide that cancellation will not occur without at least 15 day! and improvements and will restore the Site to substantially the condition written notice to Owner. Each party hereby waives its right of recovery a existing on the Commencement Date, except for ordinary wear and tear and the other for any loss or damage covered by any insurance pi casualty loss. maintained by the waiving party. Each party will cause each insurance 8. Compliance with Laws. Owner represents that Owner's property(includ- obtained by it to provide that the insurance company waives all rig ing the Site), and all improvements located thereon, are in substantial recovery against the other party in connection with any damage cover compliance with building, life/safety, disability and other laws, codes and such policy. regulations of applicable governmental authorities. SSLP will substantially 18. Maintenance. SSLP will be responsible for repairing and maintaini comply with all applicable laws relating to its possession and use of the Site. PCS system and any other improvements installed by SSLP at the Sil 9. Interference. SSLP will resolve technical interference problems with other proper operating and reasonably safe condition;provided, however if an equipment located at the Site on the Commencement Date or any equipment repair or maintenance is required due to the acts of Owner, its age that becomes attached to the Site at any future date when SSLP desires to employees.Owner shall reimburse SSLP for the reasonable costs incur add additional equipment to the Site. Likewise,Owner will not permit or suffer SSLP to restore the damaged areas to the condition which ( the installation of any future equipment which (a) results in technical immediately prior thereto. Owner will maintain and repair all other port interference problems with SSLP's then existing equipment or(b)encroaches the property of which the Site is a part in a proper operating and reas onto the Site. sate condition. successors, executors, administrators and assigns or me parties to uus Agree ne`nt; (b) this Agreement is governed bl aws of the state in which By: the Site is located; (c) If requested by SS1 caner agrees promptly to execute and deliver to SSLP a recordable Mei dum of this Agreement in the form of Exhibit B; (d) this Agreement (including the Exhibits) constitutes Its: the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior written and verbal agreements, representations, promises or understandings between the S.S./Tax No.:parties. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties; (e) if any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party, the remainder of this Agreement or Address: the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law; and (f) the prevailing party in any action or proceeding in court or mutually Date: agreed upon arbitration proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement is entitled to receive its reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable enforcement costs and expenses from the non-prevailing party. Sprint Spectrum L.P. 20. Non-Binding Until Fully Executed. This Agreement is for discussion a Delaware limited partnership purposes only and does not constitute a formal offer by either party. This Agreement is not and shall not be binding on either party until and unless it is By: fully executed by both parties. The following Exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Its: Agreement: Exhibits A, B and Date: Attach Exhibit A-Site Description and Exhibit B-Memorandum of PCS Site Agreement EXHIBIT A April 99 Site Name PCS Site Agreement Site I. D. Site Description Site situated in the City of Countyof State of commonly described as follows: Legal Description: Sketch of Site: Owner Initials SSLP Initials Note: Owner and SSLP may, at SSLP's option, replace this Exhibit with an exhibit setting forth the legal description of the property on which the Site is located and/or an as-built drawing depicting the Site. Use this Exhibit A for PCS Site Agreement. Memorandum of PCS Site Agreement,Option Agreement and Memorandum of Option Agreement.] EXHIBIT B April 99 Site Name PCS Site Agreement Site I. D. Memorandum of PCS Site Agreement This memorandum evidences that a lease was made and entered into by written PCS Site Agreement dated 19_ , between Owner") and Sprint Spectrum L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("SSLP"). Such Agreement provides in part that Owner leases to SSLP a certain site ("Site") located at City of County of State of within the property of Owner which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto, with grant of easement for unrestricted rights of access thereto and to electric and telephone facilities for a term of five (5) years commencing on 19_, which term is subject to four (4) additional five (5) year extension periods by SSLP. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum as of the day and year first above written. OWNER" SSLP" Sprint Spectrum L.P. By: By: Name:Name: Title: Title: See Exhibit B1 for continuation of Owner signatures Address: Address: Owner Initials SSLP Initials Attach Exhibit A-Site Description 1 4 Site: I.D. :SE33XC MTA:Seattle ENTRY AND TESTING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT("Agreement")is made and entered into as of the day of 199_,by and between Owner")and Sprint Spectrum L.P.("Sprint Spectrum"),concerning the following described property owned by Owner("Property"): A.Sprint Spectrum has an interest in[leasing/purchasing]the Property for use as a tower or antenna site for the receipt and transmission of wireless communications signals;and B. In order for Sprint Spectrum to determine the viability and feasibility of the Property as a tower or antenna site,it is necessary for employees,agents or independent contractors of Sprint Spectrum to enter upon and inspect the Property and/or temporarily lode communications equipment on the Property to conduct short term radio propagation tests, and to make application with local,state and federal governmental entities for approval of the Property as a Lower or antenna site;and C. Owner and Sprint Spectrum desire to provide for the entry upon,inspection and/or testing activities,and applications concerning the Property pusuant to the terms contained in this Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises,covenants,undertakings,and other consideration set forth in this Agreement,Owner and Sprint Spectrum agree as follows: 1.Consent. Owner consents and agrees that Sprint Spectrum,its employees,agents and independent contractors("Authorized Parties")may enter upau the Property to conduct and perform some or all of the following activities("Permitted Activities"): surveys,geotechnical soil borings and analyses, phase I environmental audits,boundary surveys,radio propagation studies,and such other tests and inspections of the Property which Sprint Spectrum may deem necessary or advisable. Sprint Spectrum agrees to be responsible for any and all costs related to the Permitted Activities,including installation on and operation and removal of equipment on the Property. 2.Filings. Owner consents and agrees that the Authorized Parties may make and file applications on Owner's behalf to such local,state and federal governmental entities whose approval Sprint Spectrum may consider necessary or advisable to have the Property approved as a tower or antenna site, including,but not limited to,governmental approvals for zoning variances,rezoning applications,building permits and wetland permits. Owner hereby agrees that an executed copy of this Agreement is as effective as the original.However,if requested by the Authorized Parties,Owner agrees to execute such other and further documents as may be required by the governmental entity in question to evidence Owner's consent to the action which is proposed to be taken. 3.Access. Owner agrees that the Authorized Parties may enter upon the Property to perform the Permitted Activities upon execution of this Agreement and may have access to the Property for up to days/weeks/months]. 4.Removal of Property. Sprint Spectrum agrees that it will,upon the conclusion of the term of this Agreement,remove any equipment installed on the Property as a part of the Permitted Activities, repair any damage to the Property that might have been caused in connection with any of the Permitted Activities,and will return the Property to the condition it was in before Sprint Spectrum's entry Version 1.0 11/30/95 onto the Property. In the event any equipment installed on the Property by Sprint Spectrum is not timely removed,Owner will have the right to remove such equipment and Sprint Spectrum agrees to be responsible for the reasonable costs of such removal. 5.Indemnity. Sprint Spectrum agrees to indemnify,save harmless,and defend Owner, its directors,officers,employees,and property management agent,if any, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages,liability and expense in connection with personal injury and/or damage to property arising from or out of any occurrence in,upon or at the Property caused by the act or omission of theAuthorizedPartiesinconductingthePermittedActivities. Any defense conducted by Sprint Spectrum of any such claims,actions,damages,liability and expense will be conducted by attorneys chosen by SprintSpectrum, and Sprint Spectrum will be liable for the payment of any and all court costs,expenses of litigation,reasonable attorneys' fees and any judgment that may be entered therein. 6.Insurance. At Owner's request,Sprint Spectrum agrees to provide a certificate of insurance evidencing Sprint Spectrum's insurance coverage. 7.Governing Law. The parties agree that the interpretation and construction of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington,without regard to such state's conflict of laws provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. OWNER: By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: Version 1.0 2 11/30/95 SPRINT SPECTRUM Site Name: Liberty Park Site No. SE29XC265C O J4' _•fiord '/C Pi& y - r _ ' Y, t .4i: uF':.iC. S.. 1 4' Yx f'' z.^ r : 7 MR A F. To elINICrIAvcvr l'ol-09 .-. ,- — 1moo.A\ i : ems• .NIF • ' .•ri'' 4 1_ 1 3::.1.31,1 7- =_ /-fir,-v_ . Looking south from the baseball diamond at the proposed location for Sprint's antennas and equipment. s 4.* • TTITTIT 1,l i•4 . i 11ett. 11i I, a_ 1— .Irk z'Pi.' -'1.. am Looking west at the proposed location for Sprint's equipment between the shed and the Light Standard. Sprint PCS. W&H PACIFIC i- 5.---1_ i.: .,, 1 '1 I i-.- t• I. If tek.rph y am . ... . -. 0" .. 0 i._-_---• 4,•- -• - " 1 A Apr III 1.01111111-- II ,041136, .... .., 44- ast,--. .. - - , _ 4410*. - - 4.,..,..N. 0,.... i * i-", li.4.,.• - .. -,-. .; p .. 1 , 'if. i,-. - 11," 4 .' ..-1---*:--,-.-,,,,,7-r.-A-,, ..`•- 2'.§:i_1 . 4'.:,-.- --:.i4.Z-i.i......!:-.-- fri:_,-.- --•:•----0,--'"•----........-..--.:-.-...vi,..,,,,,:,;.--,.-.---;;'*-,-.---.,Y.,-;,..r.s----,;....1;--,''',Zc-_,,,--.;-'i,---.-----:---,-- , _.,. .....2-----.....,---:--.„T-__--.-.r.,,;1°,..-r-tr,,lit,--.,. 4,..t,-, -;.:7.--.._,...., .: .'...,,i-4_,-„.•••.,,,,-,:Af,,:.----,,.., t-----;-7,,F,;4,,..-^0-,...r' •.,,V.wy•-.0--.*"..--1,--,;.;.----.•----:,-,;4,-..:A.,'.-.•„.•,,,-._.'---•.---7----,z' -...,- ,,-:-::,--„,..- ,;,-•:/.;. --i,-..-4:7i'>'''--..;•0.--- ...--:"..;--,7:•$. ---1,-. -x. -4--'n-:r- 4i,7.4 ,- --,- - -,e.-.":-„,", ..,,, k-..:':-.„ .:7-ft-4.-!,---.,...z.:,,,i,...-2, -...-t..,.....,..5.,,.-: ,,..—: f,-.--i4--,-,.. .--e.-*-••,,,z-ir-v,.-•_,,,,,,-..,-- -.1.;„•;;;..:.... -.. __ ....., - - , 0-00414011•.-;: -44-t -....-..,,,....4;14:-14*- ,- *it1P.--- "4* --- -'-',.. 4%''' ''&7AilW4(4.--c-' ' 4,44„.;4: miii6.,....r.rei-...,4,, 1...._- • -..„ .:„ 4 -; • - -_ •-. - . _ . ' . '0- .„,_9 7x--0-_, - -:•?.. ,,-41k174_,•!- _,-riligol---- fs-i-,.. ,,*,--, ..: .• ... --------.. --, . -- ---...--,.. s .-- z4 e.........c...,......1.1.4.r....:........,--,....-,-........ .....; ,--;-.- .- .,..---• -,4,--' Vievv looking Southwest Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC 3' fit. 4 View looking Southeast i AG sm y';, i ; r rt 1`' 9m^^ J, r :, t+3'. i o,,, ., rhv t ice'niti 4, ' r4 T-4fit. R. t id 11 4 2 CA s Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC 1 d t: Y i a it . R d wY. -.. .. 5„ ,...,.. ....„ ,. ,_. . .„, ,,,,...,„,,,,,.........._, ,,,.... .... .,... . s View looking Northwest Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC i.f-wi' n r iiii ram'.... H 9 F to ' NK".. 1. 2. Yi.4' `` Ti fir' ^ ^ G yy x al IL .;: yrgydyn iitbrM e I View looking South CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2708 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING PRESERVATION OF NORTH RENTON AND KENNYDALE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM DETERIORATION DUE TO TRAFFIC WHEREAS the North Renton and Kennydale neighborhoods have protested excessive commuter traffic through their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS planned development could cause additional commuter traffic problems in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS the City Council has previously expressed a desire to protect these neighborhoods from the incursion of excessive or unreasonable traffic to the greatest extent possible; and WHEREAS citizens groups within these two neighborhoods have made specific recommendations to the City of Renton on steps that could be taken to prevent deterioration of their neighborhoods due to traffic , NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I : One of the City' s highest priorities is preserving the integrity of single family neighborhoods of Renton, including the Kennydale neighborhood , as a quality, single family residential neighborhood where people choose to live. SECTION II :One of the City' s highest priorities is preserving single family neighborhoods of Renton, including the North Renton area, as a quality, single family neighborhood where 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2708 people choose to live . It is recognized that much of this area is zoned multi-family and other zoning categories that may, in the future, result in a change in the use pattern in this area. So long as the North Renton Neighborhood remains primarily residential in character , the City will use its best efforts to preserve the single family character in this neighborhood . SECTION III : As part of the E & H projects, the City considered the use of traffic diverters in the North Renton neighborhood .While the City supports the use of traffic diverters , the exact nature and extent of those traffic diverters has not been established , but is the topic of initial consideration of a citizens steering committee which includes residents of the North Renton area. All deliberate speed shall be utilized to arrive at and install a diverter program in the North Renton neighborhood , keeping in mind the needs of individual streets and sections of street for diverters and further keeping in mind the needs of public safety personnel for access and general safety in the neighborhood streets. Once the diverters are installed , they will not be removed unless there is a demonstrable problem for emergency vehicles, a demonstrable threat to public safety, or a change in the character of the area protected so that the diverters are no longer functioning as desired, or are no longer necessary, or after a public hearing the protected neighborhood indicates that the diverters are no longer desired . Diverters as used in this paragraph shall mean any means of redirecting , channelizing , stopping , blocking or otherwise diverting traffic that is without a start or end point 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2708 in the neighborhood , from travelling on the North Renton neighborhood streets. SECTION IV: The staff and traffic consultants are hereby directed to pay particular attention to the North Third corridor . It is a high priority to keep the traffic levels on this street at current levels or below and to focus on creative reasonable alternatives to lessen the traffic burden at peak hours on this street and/or mitigate the impacts of traffic on the single family homes adjacent to that street. Following receipt of any studies, the staff is directed to present recommended modifications to the North Third corridor to the City Council with all deliberate speed, so that the City Council can implement feasible alternatives while considering the fiscal capabilities of the City and the impacts of such changes on the entire City of Renton traffic flows. In addition, the issue of whether Factory Avenue should be used to carry high volume arterial scale traffic has not been resolved . Some neighborhood groups representing the North Renton area believe that it should not. This issue would be decided by City Council after a recommendation from the Neighborhood Steering Committee and City staff. SECTION V: As part of its traffic mitigation program for the E & H rezone and site plans, the City Council intended to preserve Garden Avenue, south of North Fourth Street from use as an arterial street.The staff and traffic consultants are directed to study the section of Garden Avenue from Bronson Way to North Fourth and determine practical methods of diverting 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2708 including , potentially, diverters) commuter traffic from this street section. Garden Avenue shall remain a non-arterial street for the foreseeable future and will not be changed without the creation of a committee of neighbors living nearby that will work with the City to make recommendations and not until the City Council holds a public hearing. Garden Avenue will not be changed from its non-arterial street status as long as it remains primarily residential in character and is being used as single family residences or by familes with children. SECTION VI : As part of the traffic mitigation program for the E & H Rezone and site plan approvals, the City Council eliminated direct traffic from Garden Avenue to Lake Washington Blvd. and eliminated the link of North 10th through to Houser Way. The purpose of these modifications was to prevent the business traffic from the E & H buildings from using Lake Washington Blvd . as a conduit to and from work . The staff and traffic consultant are directed to study and make recommendations that would direct business traffic from the Boeing/E & H area to and from the freeways and existing developed arterials and to keep Lake Washington Blvd . from serving as a business traffic corridor . For the foreseeable future, the two traffic lanes through the R-1 area on Lake Washington Boulevard shall remain as is and the stop signs and speed limits on Lake Washington Blvd. shall remain intact. These features will not be changed without the creation of a neighborhood committee that will work with the City to make recommendations and not until the City Council holds a public hearing . If there are any changes to these 4 RESOLUTION NO. 270o features, they will not be done until after a public hearing before the City Council and any changes will have the intent of protecting the single family neighborhood but shall not encourage commuter traffic. The change of Lake Washington Boulevard to a three lane section is not on the City' s Six Year Street Plan nor is there any pending proposal to make such a change . The City Council will consider potential changes, keeping in mind the fiscal impact of those changes and the impact on the City transportation circulation. SECTION VII : The traffic consultants hired by the City and E & H Development shall consider the statements contained in this resolution as one of their primary directives in preparing their studies. SECTION VIII : This Resolution shall be considered a SEPA policy statement and is adopted as such. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this latilday of February, 1988. e Maxine E. Motor ,City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15th day of February, 1988 . c(k &_in-k- N3AA C .k arl Cymerayor, Approved as to form: 44.4"...444.40 Lawrence J. Warr :© City Attorney RES: 04/2/4/88 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 12th day of October 1999, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: t- - 1171 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / 7 /t1. day of ( 1999. M4AWt,t/i7t_azn/11-- Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ke' therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal by Sprint PCS for Denial of Conditional Use Permit LUA99-117,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. on September 14, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL APPEAL AAD-99-117 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER Sprint PCS appeals the denial of an a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal administrative conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Sprint PCS newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Monopole project (File No. LUA-99- prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language 099 a eAsesofa)monopole PCS the S pro uses continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory Ave. Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the No. State of Washington for King County. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Services Division. Third Floor. Municipal Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Building,Renton. All interested persons to said petitions during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. APPCAL AAD-99-117 Publication Date: September 3, 1999 Published in the South County Journal September 3, 1999.6533 as published on: 9/3/99 The full amount of the fee cha, d for said foregoing publication is the sum of$40.25, charged to Acct. No. 8051067.- Legal Number 6533 Legal C , outh C y ouma I Subscribed and sworn before me on this 6— day of ' -.4 :-, 19.5c) 4`` Li.4_0®4 1 GGSf.69PPp/',B 4c---of/ 4 A'yF,,y'% Notary Public of the State of Washington E- ;t A!;y ` ':,y residing in Renton 0— King County, Washington L'S, o.'z e zi cjrGoo li 7,'S. o a. `.a,` y0 October 12, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue N SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals denial of conditional use permit for installation of monopole PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the September 14, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on September 14, 1999,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Land use file LUA99-099,CU-A(by proof of posting and publication,and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3A and 3B: Photograph simulations Exhibit No.4: Area zoning map Exhibit No. 5: Letter to City dated 8/25/99 Exhibit No.6: Original photosimulation Exhibit No. 7: Copy of Resolution 2708 Parties present: Mei-I Lin,Appellant W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell,WA 98021 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Ms. Lin, appellant representative herein, stated that the proposed project was consistent with the City's Zoning Code policies, including the criteria for the administrative conditional use permit,the policies of the Comprehensive Plan(CP)and policies of the wireless communications facilities ordinance. Appellant modified their original plan by lowering the height of the structure to 59 feet. The Examiner noted that modifications and alterations to the original proposal had been submitted,but did not know if City staff had reviewed them prior to the hearing. The City responded that the changes presented were not significant enough to alter their position regarding denial of the permit. Ms. Lin continued that staff indicated in their report that the monopole's proximity to residential property would have potential visual impacts from the upper portion of the monopole which cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing. Appellant is proposing to change the current antenna design from the standard triangular platform with 12 panel antennas to a stove-pipe type designed antenna with 3 completely concealed panels in a cylindrical tube mounted on the top of the pole. The new design would assist in minimizing any potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole. The base of the pole would be screened by an existing building on the south property line and by existing landscaping along the west property line. The equipment cabinets would be surrounded by a new 6 foot cedar wood fence and would appear as another slender utility in the area. With the change in antenna design the monopole would appear as just another utility pole in the area. It is located on a commercial property in a heavily trafficked area with numerous commercial signs and utility poles. It does not diminish any views of the residential neighborhood to the west because it is not located in a view corridor. Additional photosimulations of the proposed monopole were presented. The proposed site is on commercial property surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east and south, and the proposed coverage area is I-405, Sunset Boulevard,Bronson Way and the surrounding community just east of I-405. In order to meet its service objectives,appellant must locate a facility within a geographically defined area. The proximity of the tower to residential uses would essentially be the same regardless of where it was sited because of the mix of zoning in this area of the City. Appellant explored a number of sites before settling on Dunn Lumber, including existing utility poles on the site which would have to be extended to meet appellant's height requirement. Other sites owned by Burlington Northern,Renton School District,and Boeing were investigated,as well as other monopoles in the general vicinity. Another possible site was the old Renton City Hall,and appellant contacted the City but had not yet had a response. Mr. Warren responded by entering into the record a copy of Resolution 2708 concerning preservation of North Renton and Kennydale neighborhoods from deterioration due to traffic. One of the City's highest priorities in this resolution was preserving the integrity of single family neighborhoods. The land use pattern of the area was described by Ms.Nishihira, and she pointed out the residential areas with pockets of commercial designations within. She also pointed out the locations of current monopoles in the vicinity. W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 3 George Daniels, 215 Garden Avenue N,Renton,Washington 98055,an interested party herein,pointed out that the proposed monopole would have a heavy visual impact from several blocks away,not just from where the photosimulations were drawn. He also pointed out that although the site of the monopole is at a heavy trafficked area,the City has invested in time and money to reduce the traffic impact to the residential neighborhood. He also suggested adding this system to the existing monopoles at a Boeing parking lot,or other sites such as Paccar. Ms.Lin responded regarding the other suggested locations for monopoles in the area. Mr. Warren closed with the argument that the City does not have any more responsibility to provide locations for cell phone towers than it has obligations to provide sites for adult movie theaters. The City has the ability through its Zoning Code to prohibit locations that would interfere with residential quality of the neighborhood or interfere with the quality of life of the citizenry. Even though the site is immediately surrounded by commercial zoning,the area is overwhelmingly a residential neighborhood. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The appellant,Mei-I Lin for W&H Pacific,Inc,representing Sprint PCS,(hereinafter the appellant) filed an appeal of an administrative determination that denied a Conditional Use Permit to erect a cellular system monopole in the CA(Commercial Arterial)Zone. 2.The appellant owns a cellular network with transmitting equipment located in a pattern around the Seattle metropolitan area. The appellant proposed erecting a new monopole to support this system at the Dunn Lumber Yard site at 120 Factory Avenue North. 3.The proposed monopole would be 60 feet tall. The code actually requires any Monopole Ito be less than 60 feet tall. Clearly,fractions of an inch could be shaved off the structure to meet that limitation. Staff reviewed the monopole as if it complied with the height limitation of 60 feet. 4.The area in which the Dunn Lumber Yard is located is a mixture of uses. Commercial uses generally aligned along Sunset Boulevard and Bronson Way. Residential uses are located north and west of those streets. Factory Avenue North actually provides a break between CA Zoning to the east and a mixture of R-8(single family residential)and R-10(medium density residential)zoning to the west. 5.The area immediately across Factory Avenue from the proposed monopole site is zoned for residential uses and developed with residential uses. W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 4 6.Monopole I structures are a permitted use in CA Zone unless within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. The residential uses across Factory Avenue are approximately 60 feet west of the proposed monopole site. This proximity requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. 7.The proposal consists of several components including the monopole and equipment cabinets. The monopole would be slightly shorter than 60 feet tall(presuming that the applicant would reduce its height to comply with the "less than 60 foot"code limitation for a monopole I structure). Twelve(12) panel antennas would be affixed to the top of the structure but not exceed the total height of 60 feet. The panels would each be 5 feet 5 inches tall and 8 feet 7 inches wide in 3 sectors for four per sector. 8.Five equipment cabinets,each 5 feet tall and 2.5 feet wide,would be located in a 225 square foot pad. It would be surrounded by 6 foot tall cedar security and screening fence. 9.The complex would be located on the southwest corner of the Dunn site. The entire site is 74,500 square feet. Lease area is 560 square feet. 10. The facility would be generally an unattended operation with periodic maintenance. It would not require separate parking for the infrequent maintenance visits but would use existing on-site parking. 11. There is an existing 5 foot landscape strip along the site's Factory frontage. At the south end of the site is a slatted chain link fence behind landscaping. The fence borders the site storage perimeter. The south property would be buffered or screened by the abutting southerly structure. 12. The housing located across Factory is a mix of low-rise residential structures. 13. There are utility poles with wires and street lights located along Factory in the vicinity of the subject site. A Texaco gasoline sign is located along the Bronson right-of-way. 14. No accurate information was available on the heights of some of these nearby poles and signs. 15. Neighbors did object to the proposed monopole. They observed that it would be intrusive and out-of- scale and would create a precedent for more such structures in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 16. The City has a resolution that,while not directed at the specific use proposed,protects this neighborhood from commercial traffic impacts. 17. The appellant has a monopole at the north end of the downtown area in the vicinity of the south end of Coulon Park near Houser Way. The applicant claims that location dictates where this new antenna would have to be located. The appellant needs both a minimum and maximum separation in order for any monopole to function as part of the cellular array. 18. In the part of the staff report analyzing environmental impacts they noted: although the existing and proposed fencing would adequately screen the base of the monopole structure and the equipment cabinets,there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portion of the monopole. The portion of the structure which W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 5 would pose the greatest visual impact could not feasibly be screened with fencing or landscaping. In addition,the possible future collocation of additional facilities would intensify the visual obtrusiveness of the structure. In order to diminish or eliminate the aesthetic impacts of the proposal,the monopole would need to be moved." 19. In Section C of the staff report denying the requested conditional use, staff analyze the various criteria found in Section 4-9-030.I. Staff noted the following incompatibilities or problems with the proposed monopole: Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries: However,due to the facility's proximity to residential property,there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole which cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing. Furthermore,the monopole structure would be out of character with the height of existing development,especially throughout the adjacent residential neighborhood. Although the proposed and existing fencing could screen the base of the facility,the monopole would be a dominant vertical element as demonstrated by the applicant's photosimulations. Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the aesthetic impacts and have emphasized the necessity of exploring options which utilize existing structures as alternatives to the proposed location. The applicant provides some discussion on alternative sites, including collocation with wireless facilities as well as locating on existing structures. The applicant contends that due to uncertainties with structural integrity and/or lease negotiations on the alternative sites,the proposed location is the only feasible option. However,the applicant has not presented a compelling argument for the abandonment of alternative sites and has not provided sufficient justification for siting the monopole within such a close proximity to the existing residential neighborhood. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties: The conditional use criteria for wireless facilities requires a thorough evaluation of potential impacts to surrounding properties, specifically residential uses. When considering the proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses,the site would not be considered an appropriate location for the proposed facility. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage: Although the existing landscaping and proposed fencing would screen the base of the facility,the majority of the monopole structure would remain unscreened and would present an adverse visual impact. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness: The proposed facility would utilize a slim-line galvanized steel monopole. The monopole support structure would result in an adverse visual impact to adjacent W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 6 residential uses. Any attempt to screen the upper portion of the monopole,the portion of the facility with the greatest visual impact,would only exacerbate the obtrusiveness of the structure. In addition,the potential for collocation of other facilities at this site would intensify the negative visual impacts of the monopole. The placement of the facility in a different location would be the only way to effectively eliminate the structure's visual obtrusiveness on adjacent residential uses. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures: Based on the information provided with the application, it does not appear as though alternative locations,especially existing structures in the vicinity,were adequately considered before being abandoned as options. With a more thorough investigation of alternative sites,the applicant may find an existing structure(or one that can be changed out)located within the desired coverage area that can feasibly accommodate the proposed facility. When considering the number of suitable alternatives for the proposal, staff cannot support the location of this facility at this site." 20. In their concluding remarks discussing "Compatibility with the general purpose,goals,objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinances and any other plan,program,map or ordinance of the City" staff noted: As discussed throughout the criteria contained in this report,the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the approval of the proposed facility in this location especially when considering the impacts to adjacent residential properties. Furthermore,the wireless regulations contain provisions which require collocation, including reasonable efforts in evaluating existing support structures. Specifically, RMC section 4-4-140H states that'no new wireless communications support structure shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the governing authority that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna.' The wireless regulations also include the reduction of visual impacts in the standards and requirements for all types of wireless facilities RMC section 4-4-140.F.2). The provision states,'site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses.' As proposed,the facility would substantially and negatively impact the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Due to the proposal's adverse impacts to the adjacent residential uses as well as the applicant's lack of justification for the proposed location and the abandonment of alternative sites, staff must recommend the denial of the conditional use permit." 21. The appellant notes that the constraints of the technology limit the location of a monopole to fill in its service area. The applicant states in the appeal: In this case,the search area boundaries are approximately:" North:North 6th Street West: Logan Avenue W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 7 East: I-405 South: South 2nd Street. 22. The appellant stated the area that meets its criteria is a: mixture of commercial and industrial uses with pockets of residential properties scattered throughout. The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses with exception to the residential uses to the west. The proximity of a tower to residential uses would essentially have the same impact regardless of where the monopole was sited in the area." 23. In response to the City's determination,the appellant in its appeal letter proposed altering the antenna structure to a"stovepipe" antenna. This design would have three panel antennas completely concealed in a cylindrical tube. The stovepipe fitting would be six feet(6') in height and nineteen inches(19") in diameter. It also proposed coloring it. 24. In response to the City's report noting that the appellant did not make a very thorough search for a site, the appellant noted it looked at a number of sites including contacting the City itself. It also eliminated sites due to collocation criteria or issues of permanency for existing utility poles. There was conflicting information on whether the efforts to contact both the City and Boeing were more than perfunctory. 25. One site suggested is already a site used by the appellant which would not provide additional capacity or function. 26. The appellant summarizes its argument: The monopole is located on a commercial property. Surrounding uses are developed as commercial to the north, south, east and residential to the west. The monopole will appear as a slender element and is located in an area with structures of comparable scale including utility poles and commercial signs. Views from the west show a large commercial building (Dunn Lumber),a large Texaco sign, several utility poles and Interstate 405. The antenna type will create a slender design and diminish aesthetic impacts in the area. The monopole will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood because it is not located in a view corridor and does not diminish views from the west. The monopole will simply appear as another"utility" in the area and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses." CONCLUSIONS: 1.The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-8-11(B)(4). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision of the City is affirmed. 2.Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 8 and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,69 Wn.2d 255, 259(1969). 3.An action is likewise clearly erroneous when,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.(Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance,the Conditional Use criteria applied to it and the policies of the City as it pertains to the proposed monopole. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5.Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can reach no other conclusion but that staff made the correct determination. 6.The appellant identified the area as one with "pockets of residential properties scattered throughout." In fact,the subject site is located on the western edge of a commercial strip focused along Bronson and Sunset. The "pocket"of scattered residential properties actually is a multi-block area. The residential uses are the predominant use west of the proposed site. It is anything but a pocket. The proposed monopole is not compatible with the residential neighborhood which is not a series of pockets of scattered residential uses in a sea of commercial uses but a multi-block residential area. In addition, even if the majority of this residential neighborhood were somewhat scattered or disjointed,residential uses are located immediately across the street from the proposed site and would therefore be affected by the monopole. The residential uses are worthy of protection even if they were isolated. They are not non-conforming residential uses in a commercial neighborhood. They are located in areas zoned R- 8 and R-10 and should be protected as such. They are in areas specifically zoned for residential uses. The decision below must be affirmed. 7.The reasons provided by staff in its administrative determination cite the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Code,the Wireless Ordinance and community input. Conditional Use permits are not granted by right. They are subject to a review under a wide range of criteria to make sure they are compatible with neighboring properties. Inappropriate scale and visual intrusion are just a few of the criteria which may be weighed in determining if a use is appropriate in a specific location. 8.The appellant's efforts to alter the design to potentially make the structure less intrusive are untimely at the appeal stage. This office cannot substitute its judgment for that of the reviewing administrative official. That official did not have these plans. This office believes it should confine its review to the materials and submissions that were available to that official. Therefore,the proposed stovepipe design and other changes proposed will not be considered in this appeal. 9.The location requirements of the appellant are not clearly drawn,nor is this office any more convinced than the administrator that the appellant diligently sought either one alternate location or possibly two or more such sites that could serve in the place of one such site. 10. The City maintains that it does not have to provide a perfect site for the applicant's proposal and that suitable sites exist which may not be perfect from the applicant's perspective. That is not the issue. W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 9 The proposal reviewed is incompatible for the location chosen due to the inability to protect a residential community from intrusive elements. This office cannot really examine whether land prices, lease prices or other factors may also have entered into the appellant's choice of location. It does not appear that the appellant was involved in a timely search that allowed potential lessors a chance to review their proposals. 11. The determination below must be upheld since there was nothing in the record to allow this office to conclude the decision made by staff was either clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 12th day of October, 1999. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of October, 1999 to the parties of record: Mei-I Lin Larry Warren Leslie Nishihira W&H Pacific 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bothell, WA 98021 George Daniels 215 Garden Avenue Renton,WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of October, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev.Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,October 26, 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written W&H Pacific for Sprint PCS Administrative Appeal re Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No.: LUA99-117,AAD October 12, 1999 Page 10 request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the (c day of AUwuit 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelop containing Ke?0A arld pectSICVN documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing toy Du.v DuNh Lu.w er Spv.%vNi- ?C•S Mei- I L1r VJ G. N Pacific mOke F V%v ltnla, 9 Doh%v\ Sue Bvviun T1vh PtslA t. LAVNtitl { $ r•k Leo-o c4 Fvu hc;s Pie. ' awd Lori' CTigmetb aine Fostev 1Mae. 1,4014.ko GCOVge Ocintels Euni« Golt'i BoNK11e BeV1Son enySG trotter P'b-t-ne R‘cleiter Signature of Sender) SQindva L. Sewer STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A . cA-Cc ((E L- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forAhe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: I, ?i is O ) ) e ,4 Notary Public inward for the State of Washirigton 4 MARILYN KAMCHEFF Notary (Print) MARL YN KAMC.NEFr NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment e -RiI ilfi tEta1 EXp 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON e pO_ pgG N EXPIRES rode PCS MonoPol e3' t LtVON Lumber Project Number: LVf . 99 -099 , eG.r , cV-1* NOTARY DOC CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN RE: SPRING PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-117,AAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sprint PCS appeals the denial of an administrative conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Sprint PCS Monopole project (File No. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF). Sprint PCS proposes placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. Location: 120 Factory Avenue North. AGNDA NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington, on September 14, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: APPEAL AAD-99-117 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER Sprint PCS appeals the denial of an administrative conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Sprint PCS Monopole project (File No. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF). Sprint PCS proposes placement of a monopole on the Dunn Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory Ave. No. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: September 3, 1999 Account No. 51067 aadpub CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 19, 1999 Ms. Mei-I Lin W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell, WA 98021 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision re Sprint PCS Monopole, File No. LUA99-099 Appeal File No. LUA99-117,AAD Dear Ms. Lin: We received your appeal dated August 11, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer PACIFIC Monte Villa Parkway Both DEVELOPMENT PLANNINGBothell,Washington 98021 CITY OF RENTON 1999 RECEIVED August 16, 1999 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use Decision File no.LUA-99-099 Sprints PCS Dear City of Renton Hearing Examiner: On behalf of Sprint PCS,this letter is to amend our letter dated August 11, 1999 to the Hearing Examiner requesting an appeal of the administrative land use decision made on August 5, 1999 for the above project. Our appeal request is hereby amended to include only the Administrative Conditional Use Decision and not the SEPA determination. If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact me at 425-985-0873. Sincerely, Allen R.Potter W&H Pacific,Inc. Representing Sprint PCS cc file Mike McRitchie,W&H Pacific/Sprint 425) 951-4800 Fax (425) 951-4808 Planning • Engineering• Surveying•Landscape Design I PACIICo w 3350 Monte Villa Parkway AUG 12 1999Bothell,Washington 98021 jai CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER August 11, 1999 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. LUA-99-099 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE Dear City of Renton Hearing Examiner: On behalf of Sprint PCS,we appeal the administrative land use decision made by the Environmental Review Committee on August 3, 1999. A$75.00 application fee is enclosed. We find the proposed project complies with the City of Renton zoning codes and policies based on the following: Administrative Conditional Use Permit When considering the proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses, the site would not be considered an appropriate location for the proposed facility(Report and Decision Part IILC.3). Sprint PCS is proposing to construct a 60' monopole located at 120 Factory Avenue in the CA zone. The property is surrounded by commercial uses to the north,east and south and residential homes to the west. The Burlington Northern right-of-way and Interstate 405 are just east of the site. The proposed monopole is designed to provide capacity support to I-405 and coverage to Sunset Boulevard,Bronson Way and the surrounding community just east of I-405. In order to meet these coverage objectives, Sprint must locate a facility within a"search area"geographically defined area. In this case,the search area boundaries are approximately North 6th Street to the north,Logan Avenue to the west,I-405 to the east and South 2nd Street to the south. This area of Renton is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses with pockets of residential properties scattered throughout.The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses with exception to residential uses to the west. The proximity of a tower to residential uses would essentially have the same impact regardless of where it the monopole was sited in the area. Please refer to the attached zoning map(Attachment 1). Due to the facility's proximity to residential property, there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole which cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing(Report and Decision Part III.C.2). Sprint is proposing to change the current antenna configuration from a standard triangular platform with twelve(12)panel antennas to a stovepipe"antenna with three panel antennas completely concealed in a cylindrical tube. The stovepipe antenna is 6' in height and 19"in diameter and will be mounted at the top of the pole for a slender appearance. Please refer to the attached photosimulations(Attachment 2). The pole and antenna can be painted any color as specified by the city. This will assist in minimizing potential visual impacts from the upper portion of the monopole. The base of the monopole will be screened by an existing building on the south property line and by existing landscaping and 425) 951-4800 Fax(425)951-4808 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Design City of Renton Hearing rxaminer Page 2 August 11, 1999 fencing along the west property line. Furthermore,the equipment cabinets will be surrounded by a new 6' tall cedar wood fence to enhance the existing buffer and fencing. The monopole structure would be out of character with the height of existing development especially throughout the adjacent residential neighborhood(Report and Decision Part III.C.2). With the change in antenna design,the monopole will appear as a slender element and is located in an area with structures of comparable scale including utility poles and commercial signs and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses.Views from the west show a large commercial building(Dunn Lumber), a large Texaco sign, several utility poles and Interstate 405. The facility is located on a commercial property and does not diminish views of the residential neighborhood to the west. The monopole is not located in a view corridor and will appear as another"utility"in the area. The applicant was not able to demonstrate a thorough consideration of alternative locations on existing support structures(Report and Decision Part HID.3). Sprint explored the following sites and it was determined that the most feasible site is the subject property at Dunn Lumber: 1. Existing wood utility poles on the subject property The city requires utility lines to be laid underground so locating on the utility poles would lead to a short duration of a site. Sprint needs a permanent site that will provide continuous ongoing service. The existing poles could also not accommodate for collocation of future carriers as the proposed monopole would allow. Furthermore,the aesthetic impacts of locating on the utility poles would be the same. If an antenna were mounted on one of the existing poles,the height of the pole would have to be increased to 60' to meet engineering requirements and the pole need to be replaced with a larger thicker pole to support the antenna.With the change in antenna design,the monopole will appear as an integral part of the site and is essentially another"utility"on the property. 2. Existing steel utility pole at the corner of Bronson Way and Houser There were difficult lease negotiations with the property owner(Burlington Northern). 3. Existing(Boeing)buildings north of the site Sprint's first option was to locate on one of the existing buildings north of the site. However, it was determined that Boeing owned most of the taller buildings Sprint was interested in. Historically,Boeing does not lease space to wireless carriers and the company was contacted by Sprint but there was no response. 4. Existing monopoles approximately 1.5 miles north of the site One of the two existing monopoles north of the site is a Sprint monopole. The proposed site at 120 Factory Avenue will alleviate airway congestion from the monopole,thus collocation is not a feasible option. City of Renton Hearing r AaLniner Page 3 August 11, 1999 5. Renton Memorial High School Stadium Sprint radio engineers have determined that the stadium is located too west to provide service east of I-405. 6. Light Pole at Liberty Park There is not ground space for equipment cabinets at the park. The taller light poles are located on the outside of the ball field leaving little room for equipment. There is an existing narrow landscape buffer that surrounds the north portion of the field that does not allow enough space to fit in cabinets without adding visual bulk. The space around the main dugout to the south is very limited and the open parking lot does not help with screening and parking would be affected. 7. Old city hall building on Mill Avenue South Upon further engineering analysis,it is determined that the existing trees along the north side of the building will interfere with radio signals. The existing building is approximately 65' in height and has a row of trees approximately 75' in height along the north side of the building. Due to the limitations of digital wireless communication,PCS technology requires a clear path in order to connect to neighboring facilities. There must be a clear path from customer to transmitting facility to ensure adequate coverage. Trees,hills and buildings can block signals so they fade out sooner than desired. Coverage to the north and onto I-405 would be diminished due to the trees on the property. If antennas were mounted on the rooftop,they would need to be extended a significant height resulting in a visually obtrusive facility. Comprehensive Plan The subject proposal is not consistent with the policies established by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Utilities Element, specifically policies LU-175, LU-181, U-100 and U-101 (Report and Decision Part III.D.4). The base of the monopole will be screened by an existing building on the south property line and by existing landscaping and fencing along the west property line. In addition,the equipment cabinets will be surrounded by a new 6' tall cedar wood fence to enhance the existing buffer and fencing. The antenna type will create a slender design and diminish aesthetic impacts in the area. Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance(Ord.4689) The facility would substantially and negatively impact the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood(Report and Decision Part III.C.10.c). The monopole is located on a commercial property. Surrounding uses are developed as commercial to the north, south,east and residential to the west. The monopole will appear as a slender element and is located in an area with structures of comparable scale including utility poles and commercial signs. Views from the west show a large commercial building(Dunn Lumber),a large Texaco sign, several utility poles and Interstate 405.The antenna type will create a slender design and diminish aesthetic impacts in the area. The monopole will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood because it is not located in a view corridor and does not diminish views from the west. The monopole will simply appear as another"utility"in the area and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses. City of Renton Hearing r xarniner Page 4 August 11, 1999 Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 425-985-6361. Sincerely, W&H PACIFIC representing Sprint PCS 4(diki Mei-I Lin Project Planner cc: Leslie Nishihira, City of Renton Planning Department Attachments: Renton zoning map (Attachment 1) Photosimulations (Attachment 2) ATTi MENT 1 -CITY OF RENTON Z( vG MAP J C El N 6th St. so N 6t St. r O CD j Lam, ry.. ctt! IL fin. —r 1 —n w- 1_ . catlaasrtie .tl t.. w. 3t• r-.e raw t.qt.. 17NI .. N!:: •• •CS 1IH1I • : i. ar. . i yr St. r.: r7 ..1 t— nit. ....•. "a on, r• ra L. III MI IC.-. a!•` A. S•o ti - a-MID -• ainn N 4th St.-M P _ a r E-- Sill ,i • iiii. . -70, HL11t1C I/f,4IL(P) a•. 1 ::-.& ZIA. . w ..:. . \VIE_; Iscumtom— -- -- — R-10 "t--. ..Y Lrat.•1 truer, r.net, 71F1 it NS um—a.ti IMAM Ow ri/ Y7if a1 Z —. A iMr' rs:A •7i7 . by J1--! = it u t r?t a'1 lErk ,i.Y bi is. qa —12 Mg r' t:tr: — I =`j `•.m. Aw 271 . Ell= 'a!! = Ar. ik 1R'tpCP) • '•` r n i 1 t.r- ••"•• `'b ragfit+• —_ —rw MI MI —t..t -1•'z —the NM 6-4 I TES rta pi. —_ — M qa J , Nal" :IT IS jjiId 10 1.1 I mil ill ma 411.`.. UN Ilimmr ' w trpjsrmv4i Ict ii - ' 18-613 1111— 1! IL TON 1.. 1 iAT` N 4 CA(P) 1 JK !\ `- C OOO ti r, moon Ei 111 2nd ,i mmSIMa inSm=eIi 4 1 C1JR(P) , 7 mm ••11 am w - mava , t—.1. r-ism -y w. a ,W amii no . r; al CDR LEGEND CA-Commercial Arterial R-8-Residential CC-Convenience Commercial R-10-Residential CD-Center Downtown RM-U-Residential Multi-Family Urban Center CO-Commercial Office IL-Industrial (Light) IH-Industrial (Heavy) A i i ACHMENT 2 - PHOTOSIMULAT fS Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC 99, r ts f F View looking Southeast Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC 1 ri t c ISOft c; t''' '4 - .; - ''''!..7.-z'',.',' ,,, , N to e IgrlF. to i s, g View looking South Sprint PCS g,„,„„:„:„,„:„,,,,,,,„,,,,„„:„;;,,,- . W&H PACIFIC A:,,„.„,„„.,,,t.:,,,,,,-,::„:„,:-„,„,,,,,,,„,,,,.„...-.....: :::,..„:„.,,,„ „ d4 i' + th d .{ro f. .4%. 4 `i a 0 ay t e ",-.,,`"'. •, K,, #`%' = 4 S`,f4,: € bpi l i.':0','. i ..;y s tiff i1 f 09*oilis 911416'.: .- 1. 1111"'' --.....„ 1 ;.*:'::::::, 1".,-' 11:,,, r,",,,: i:'....,. e4. I i I. Mf ro 5 a a i Dirk"' M View looking Southwest Sprint PCSu W&H PACIFIC t, a ss Nk y n J , ' NiNitt p.Rh.*' llxAp K fa f., i3... e., LE1 . .' 1-- ''''''''''' I to View looking West Sprint PCS. W&H PACIFIC Six II: 1'''''' '2:1 -...,,,,;....,= 4-,':-..',';:.... . -.' yy x. 1 i'l 41% , s:-.' V. pi: 4 vh.. P 14, y A Y .SKk sii.• ''k ; « "' g 5 '` .,..- 4, .. ... teWG.. View looking Nor-l'ttrAtit• NOTES RECEIPT DATE NO. 4495 RECEIVED FROM I-( ADDRESS FOR ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. CHECK PAID BALANCE MONEY BY DUE ORDER 1998 REDIFORM 8L802