Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA97-149 June 8, 1998 Renton City Council Minutes Page 198 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1998 and beyond. Items noted included: * The Department of Fisheries approved an $800,000 escrow account required as part of the mitigation elements for the hydraulic permit which is needed for the Cedar River flood control project. * The apparent high bid for the river dredge spoil materials is $718,,117.50. The material will be stockpiled at the Narco site until August 31, 1998. AUDIENCE COMMENT Marjorie Richter, 300 Meadow Ave. N., Renton, 98055, proposed that the Citizen Comment: Richter City allow the establishment of a veterans memorial at the 3rd and Main St. - Veterans Memorial site formerly occupied by the Holms building, next door to the Renton Proposal Historical Museum. Mrs. Richter said numerous groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Citizens for Piazza Renton, Allied Arts, and the Renton Historical Society support this proposal. Adding that such, a project would give service people their long-delayed thanks, she hoped it could be completed by Renton's 2001 Centennial celebration. Citizen Comment: Virginia Henning, 407 S. 51st Ct., Renton, 98055, complained about the Henning - Sikh Temple amplification of services at the Sikh Temple on Talbot Hill, saying that the Amplification of Services noise is a problem particularly on Sundays beginning early in the morning and continuing all day long. She asked if anything could be done about the speakers used to conduct services at this location. Mayor Tanner agreed to look into this matter. Citizen Comment: Magula Michael Magula, 7917 - 111th Pl. SE, Newcastle, 98056, described how the - Western Wireless view westward from his property will be negatively affected by the new Communication Tower at Western Wireless communication tower to be installed on the Shurgard site. Shurgard Site Using a photo simulation to show how the tower will appear from his �j property, Mr. Magula said that the issuance of the conditional use permit for AJkt-• 91 y l this tower is contrary to certain provisions of Renton's Comprehensive Plan and to City regulations governing wireless communications facilities. Specifically, the tower will not be "sensitively sited," and photo simulations were not provided as required. Although Council has decided to allow this tower to be constructed, Mr. Magula hoped that other property owners will not be subjected to this type of situation in the future. Councilman Corman replied that while he was sympathetic to Mr. Magula's plight, federal law greatly restricts the City's ability to disallow communication towers. All Renton can do as a municipality is try to reduce the impacts as much as possible. Citizen Comment: DuBois Pegi DuBois, 2907 Mountain View Ave. N., Renton, 98056, asked for - Quendall Terminals additional information on the City's plans to acquire and clean up the Purchase & Cleanup Quendall Terminals property on Lake Washington. Mayor Tanner offered to provide Ms. DuBois with the press packet on this subject. Citizen Comment Darst - Pat Darst, 2601 Edmonds Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, concurred in the proposal Veterans Memorial outlined earlier by Mrs. Richter that the City use the now-vacant Holms Proposal building site for a veterans memorial to honor all who have served their country. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THIS - MATTER TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE.. CARRIED. M - CIT!;' OF RENTON _ � City Clerk „` Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen � � Y June 9, 1998 Mr. William H. Chapman Presto Gates &Ellis 701 Fifth Avenue#5000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; Western Wireless, Conditional Use Permit; AAD-97-149 Dear Mr. Chapman: At the regular Council meeting of June 8, 1998,the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the referenced appeal, and grant the conditional use permit with the following condition: . . Condition: The proposed Monopole II shall be constructed without a light on the tower, consistent with testimony from Western Wireless contained in the record. If the FAA requires a light on the pole, the conditional use permit is null and void. In the event the conditional use permit is rendered void, Western Wireless may reapply for a conditional use permit with the new information regarding the FAA requirement. If I can provide additional assistance regarding this matter,please feel free.to call. Sincerely, • • Marilyn J. a sen • City Clerk . - . cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Bob Edwards Jennifer Henning,Development Services Division Seelig Family Properties,P.O. Box 1925,Bellevue 98009 . . Michael&Gloria-Magula;7617 111th Pl. SE,Newcastle, 98056 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton,Washington 98055 - (425)235-2501 /FAX(425)235-2513 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months NOTICE APPEAL prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language HE WASHING-TON AS NG OARING INER RENTON continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South Real Hearing will be held b/ the Y 9 County An A. . Examiner at his regular pp g newspaper by p Hearing oncil Chambers °n the Journal has been approved as a legal news a r order of the Superior Court of the meeting in the of City Hall, Renton, State of Washington for King County. floor 1998 at 9.0The 0 AM second unt ton,on March 10, petitiom Journal (and nott inn supplemental form)which was regu in the exact form attached, was lar' y distributed t thelished in the South osubscribers o consider thWEs°TERN WIRELESS APPEAL OF appeals during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a AAD e7aPPellant, Howard Seelig, ot by of a conditional use PWestern Appeal of Western Wireless the sClty la °°f R File No.LUA-g7-p92 of Wireless pr°leCt( oses installation of a Western Wireless prOmonop of aspublished on: 2/27/98 ole with atop telecommunications mounted at aneoverall of 12 panel0aefwhich would have ground. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$39.07 the monoP 100 feet from Legal Number 4288 Locabon'f1755 NE 48th off'the files noted Legal desscnPfile in the Development are Third Floor, Murncipal aboveDivision, ersons to Services Renton.All Intereot be present at �r%z2_�i Building,petitions are invited Legal Clerk, South County Journal the Pd tic Hearing Journal Published in the South County ''11 FebruaN 27,1998. 4288 Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of -\()Aa/419ie ```���runlrini1/4 LA ,Ln.", \(1(..) ' `.4v AS4 c.1a��(i�'% Notary Public of the State of Washington =o �'�. residing in Renton - _o_ - King County, Washington RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8, 1998 • Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. Municipal Building MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF BOB EDWARDS, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; TIMOTHY COUNCILMEMBERS SCHLITZER; KING PARKER; DAN CLAWSON; KATHY KEOLKER- WHEELER; TONI NELSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer, ATTENDANCE =LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; JENNIFER TOTH HENNING, Senior Planner; LEE HARO, Transportation Planning Supervisor; STEPHEN ROLLE, Civil Engineer; DEREK TODD, Finance Analyst II; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, Police Department. PRESS Denis Law, Renton Reporter Elizabeth Parker, Renton Reporter Claire Booth, South County Journal APPROVAL OF MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES THE MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1998, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Planning & Develonment report regarding the appeal of the administrative conditional use permit for Committee Western Wireless (File No. AAD-97-149, CU-97-092). On June 4, the Appeal: Western Wireless Committee convened to consider the appeal of the Western Wireless Monopole Monopole @ Shurgard Site II at the Shurgard site located at 1755 NE 48th Street. The applicant seeks to (AAD-97-149, CU-97- construct a Monopole II in the southeast corner of the subject location. 092) Western Wireless is licensed to provide personal communication service. The proposed Monopole II will facilitate that service. The Monopole II will have a height of 85 feet, with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted on top of the structure (which will add 15 feet to the height of the Monopole II, for an overall height of 100 feet above ground level). The Zoning Administrator determined that an administrative conditional use permit should be approved. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner. That first appeal was remanded to the Zoning Administrator in December of 1997. Once again,, the Zoning Administrator approved the conditional use permit. An appeal was filed a second time with the Hearing Examiner. Martin Seelig appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator, claiming that the Monopole II should not be sited at the Shurgard location. Seelig and other neighboring property owners complained that this Monopole II would reduce their property values due to the impairment of their views. Further, they complained that this area had its fair share of communication antennas, as the Shurgard site already had numerous lower profile antennas. The Hearing, Examiner ruled in his decision of April 13, 1998, to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the conditional use permit. This appeal followed. he City's Wireless Communications Ordinance permits Monopole II structures a conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, but prohibits their June 8, 1998 Renton City Council Minutes Page 197 location within 300 feet of residentially-zoned parcels. The proposed Monopole II will be located at the Shurgard storage site, which is zoned CA. The adjoining property to the east (the Seelig property) is also zoned CA and could be developed with a retail, commercial or service use. That property is rectangular in shape and is 330 feet in width and approximately 660 feet in length. Given the height of the proposed Monopole II, it is anticipated that one or two additional carriers could co-locate. Additionally, given the height and proximity to the airport, staff noted that FAA approval would be required for construction of the Monopole II. Whether the FAA would require a light atop the Monopole II was unknown. Prior to the approval of the conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator, Western Wireless had applied to the FAA for approval for construction of this Monopole II. It subsequently withdrew the application to the FAA and represented to the Zoning Administrator and the Hearing Examiner that the FAA would not require a light, based on information they had from a consultant. The Committee considered the City's policies regarding the location of the telecommunication towers. The members of the Committee reaffirmed the City's policy to provide opportunity for the public to be served by the particular service provided by this Monopole II, personal communications service. These types of monopoles need to be located within three miles of each other to carry the signal without interruption. Further, the Committee considered the City's stated policy to have towers constructed to facilitate co- location by multiple carriers. This proposal serves that policy. The Committee considered the fact that this is an appeal of an appeal. The Hearing Examiner's role was to sit in an appellate capacity when reviewing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. In that capacity he is not to convene the hearing anew (de novo). Rather, he is required to give deference to the decision of the Zoning Administrator and reverse that decision only if he found one of the provisions of RCC 4-8-11-B(4) applied. There is no such finding in the record. • The Committee found that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of law. The Hearing Examiner did not give proper deference to the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Rather, he substituted his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator. Having considered the evidence de novo he used an improper standard when considering the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Committee recommended that the Council reverse the decision of the ! Hearing Examiner. Further, the Committee recommended that the conditional use permit be granted with the following condition: The proposed Monopole II shall be constructed without a light on the tower, consistent with testimony from Western Wireless contained in the record. If the FAA requires a light on the pole, the conditional use permit is null and void. In the event the conditional use permit is rendered void, Western Wireless may re-apply for a conditional use permit with the new information regarding the FAA requirement MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.. • APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT June 8, 1998 Appeal Of.Administrative,Con ditional Use.Permit for Western Wireless ;.:`': File No:-97=149,.AAD:(CU 97=092). (Referred.May'4, 1998) .,.;..::.. • On June 4, 1998 the Planning and Development Committee convened to consider the appeal of the Western Wireless Monopole II at the Shurgard site located at 1755 NE 48th. The applicant seeks to construct a Monopole II in the southeast corner of the subject location. Western Wireless is licensed to . provide Personal Communication Service.'The proposed Monopole II will facilitate that service. The Monopole II will have a height of 85 feet with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted on top of the structure,which will add 15 feet to the height of the Monopole II,for an overall height of 100 feet above ground level. The zoning administrator determined that an administrative conditional use permit should be approved. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner.,.That first appeal was remanded to the zoning administrator in December of 1997. Once again the zoning administrator approved the conditional use permit. An appeal was filed a second time with the Hearing Examiner. Martin Seelig appealed the decision of the zoning administrator,claiming that the Monopole II should not be sited at the Shurgard location. Seelig and other neighboring property owners complained that this Monopole II would reduce their property values due'to the impairment of their view. Further,they complained that this area had its fair share of communication antennas,as the Shurgard site already had numerous lower profile antennas. The Hearing Examiner ruled*his decision of April 13, 1998,to reverse the decision of . the zoning administrator and deny the conditional use permit. This appeal followed. The City's Wireless Communications Ordinance permits MonopoldII structures as a conditional use in the CA zone but prohibits their location within 300 feet of residentially zoned parcels. The proposed Monopole II will be located at the Shurgard storage site;which is zoned CA. • The adjoining property to the east(Seelig Property)is also zoned CA and could be developed with a retail, commercial,or service use. That property is rectangular in shape and is 330 feet in width and approximately 660 feet in length. Given the height of the proposed-Monopole II,it is anticipated that one or two additional carriers could co-locate. Additionally,given the height and'proximity to the airport, staff noted that FAA approval would be required for construction of the Monopole Whether the FAA would require a light atop the Monopole II was unknown. Prior to the • approval of the conditional use permit by the zoning administrator,Western Wireless had applied to the FAA for approval for construction of this Monopole H. It withdrew the application to the FAA and represented to the zoning administrator and the Hearing Examiner that the FAA would not require a light, • based on information they had from a consultant. • P&D Committee Report-June 8, 1998 • Page 2 • The Committee considered the City's policies regarding the location of telecommunication towers. The members of the Committee reaffirmed the City's policy to provide opportunity for the public to be served by the particular service provided by this Monopole II,Personal Communications Service. These types of Monopoles need to be located within three miles of each other to carry the signal without interruption. Further,the Committee considered the City's stated policy to have towers constructed to facilitate co-location by multiple carriers. This proposal serves that policy. The Committee considered the fact that this is an appeal of an appeal. The Hearing Examiner's role was to sit in an appellate capacity when reviewing the decision of the zoning administrator. In that . capacity he is not to convene the hearing anew(de novo).Rather,he is required to give deference to the • decision of the zoning administrator and reverse that decision only if he found one of the provisions of RCC 4-8-11-B(4)applied. There is no such finding in the record. The Committee found that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of law. The Hearing Examiner did not give proper deference to the decision of the zoning administrator. Rather,he substituted his judgment for that of the zoning administrator. Having considered the evidence de novo he used an improper standard when considering the decision of the zoning administrator. The Committee recommends that the Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Further,the Committee recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be granted with the following condition. The proposed Monopole II shall be constructed without a light on the tower,consistent with testimony from Western Wireless contained in the record. If the FAA requires a light on the pole,the conditional use permit is null and void. In the event the conditional use permit is rendered void,Western • Wireless may re-apply for a.conditional use permit with the new information regarding the FAA requirement. 0,6+-e&i A.L12.. Kathy Ke• er-Wheeler,Chair Tim Schlitzer,U ce- air • • • Dan Clawson,Member • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 1998 TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney Zanetta Fontes,,Assistant City Attorney FROM: . Marilyn Petersen,.City Cle SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Western Wireless; LUA-97-149 AAD . Attached are copies of letters that were submitted by parties of record within the ten day period following the mailing of the notice of appeal. Copies of all letters (except the letter from Preston Gates &Ellis)were transmitted to all Councilmembers,Mayor Tanner, Jay and the City's project manager. However,I was not here that.week and Brenda did not know that they should be entered into the record, so none of the letters have been officially entered. The first letter from the attorney for Western Wireless,received June 1, 1998, objects to the inclusion into the record of several of the letters for various reasons. For instance, the notice of appeal was sent on April 29th and parties of record were given the usual 10 day period(through May 11) to submit letters in support of their positions. The Seelig letter was received 13 minutes • after 5 p.m. on May 11. The attorney for Western Wireless objects to the Magulas' letter because he claims it contains new information. Since the Planning and Development Committee will consider this appeal on Thursday, June 4th, I am transmitting all of the new letters for your.consideration. This matter will most likely be raised again by Preston Gates &Ellis at the.appeal meeting. If there is anything further I should do, please give me a call. Thank you for your.assistance. cc: Jay Covington • CITY OF RENTON May 8, 1998 MAY 1 1 1998 RECEIVED Marilyn J. Peterson CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk City Of Renton We are submitting by fax a copy of our letter presented orally at the March 9,1998 hearing as well as the following letter in support of the Hearing Examiner's denial of the Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48th St.,File No. CU-97-092. The Zoning Administrators approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit was clearly in error as supported by the following pertinent facts: 1. As Western Wireless specifically emphasizes in its appeal(page 2)the goals of the City's wireless communications ordinance are to minimize the total number of towers throughout the community",and"encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites". Further,that the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that cellular communication structures and towers be collocated on existing structures and towers whenever possible and practical. The record of the Hearing will show an existing monopole tower located one mile south at NE 30t. The existing tower is at a base elevation 180 feet higher that the proposed tower in the new location proposed by Western Wireless. Moreover, it provides line of sight views of Interstate 405 north and south of the Kennydale hill. This tower is in an area with no apparent impact on views or property values. Western Wireless indicated at the hearing that they needed the 100 foot tower to meet their engineering requirements. They would not need that height at the NE 30th location. Despite the existing tower,the Zoning Administrator errs by allowing a new tower in an area where only rooftop antennas using a"different technology"exist. Western Wireless argues that their willingness to allow other carriers use of their new tower constitutes collocation. Indeed,any carrier could make the same frivolous claim for any new tower. In support of the City's goal to"minimize the total number of towers throughout the community",zoning staff should have considered collocation on the existing monopole at NE 30a'. 2. The applicant failed to provide photosimulations from affected residential properties as required by RCC 4689,section 4-38-5B. Staff erred in not requiring the photosimulations. Not only does the applicant ignore requirements for photosimulations from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way,they select a view from a street location at 111th PL and SE 76th that does not accurately portray adverse impact to affected residential properties.The applicant apparently argues that the ordinance does not apply to them because they are restricted to taking photos from public viewpoints unless specifically requested by private property owners. (applicants appeal page 6) Even if they were somehow precluded from obtaining photos from residential properties,there is ample right-of-way on 111th PL SE between homes that would enable accurate photosimulations of adverse impacts. Accurate photos would have given staff a more objective view of adverse impact and suggested collocation at the existing tower on NE 30th,where impact on the community is minimal. The failure to provide relevant photosimulations of the true impact on residential property is a substantial error. Letter in support of denial c nditional Use Permit File No. CU-97-092 Michael J.Magula Gloria D.Magula 2 In its appeal,Western Wireless attempts to narrowly construe affected residential properties to those located within 300 feet of the proposed new tower. Clearly,the City Council,in its wisdom,was aware that topography and other considerations may impact residential property as evident below: Ordinance 4689,section 4-38-14,requires the governing authority consider the following criteria,listed in part: • Proximity of the tower to residential structures. • Nature and uses on adjacent and nearby properties. • Surrounding topography. • Light and glare impacts • Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan,ordinances etc.. The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages siting of towers in a manner that reasonably minimizes-impacts on adjacent land users with facilities designed to diminish aesthetic impacts and be collocated on existing structures(e.g.;NE 30t'). Required photosimulations from affected residential properties in RCC 4-38-5 further illustrate the scope intended by the City Council is not limited to residences within 300 feet. The City Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan must be viewed in totality. The unbiased and objective conclusions of the Hearing Examiner are critical to a fair and impartial review. Contrary to the prejudicial perspective of Western Wireless,the Hearing Examiner is by ordinance required to interpret,review and implement land use regulations. (RCC 4-8-3) A word about property values. The Hearing record will show that an adverse impact on view property is apparent if this new tower is erected. Specific dollar loss is very difficult to determine without an adequate sample of similar lake view properties with and without the unsightly towers. The appraisal material provided by Western Wireless apparently has as its only similarity a geographic location in Seattle. Lacking adequate sales comparisons of similar properties,professional judgement and common sense must prevail. Knowledgeable buyers determine market impact. Posing a hypothetical question addresses common sense. If you had to choose between a lake view property with and without a galvanized tower impacting your lake view,which would you pay more for? Which has an adverse impact on value? What if you could avoid any impact by collocating your antenna at an existing tower one-mile away and 180 feet higher? Maybe you would not need a 100 foot tower. We respectfully request that unless a public hearing is held the applicant,Western Wireless,not be allowed to make an oral presentation. Thank you for considering our position. ySi e V.),:(/) ��� / Michael J.Magula mai/X 4/1 Gloria D.Magula 7617 111t PL SE Newcastle, WA • March 9, 1998 • City of Renton Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Ave So. Renton,WA 98055 Re: Seelig Appeal of Western Wireless Project#: AAD-97-149(LUA-97-092,CU-A) CONCERNS: We are residents at 7617 111a'-PL SE in Newcastle,Washington. The.City of Renton administrative determination allowing construction of a 100-foot high teleconununications..monopole,adversely impacts our property values and visually impairs our view of Lake Washington. The likely but as yet undetermined addition of a flashing red light on the top of the tower further denigrates a natural view of a lake amidst towering conifers and deciduous trees. Most of the year we enjoy a view of Lake Washington above the freeway(1-405)and commercial clutter. The imposition of this galvanized,flashing metal structure will forever blight the view. Trees will come and go in the wind,but the unsightly structure will remain. External obsolescence caused by this unnatural structure will clearly diminish property values. LACK OF NOTIFICATION: The City's determination of non-significance is astonishing. The impact of an imposing 100-foot tower in an area where land use is predominately residential view property is significant. Of utmost significance is the danger of electromagnetic radiation. Notwithstanding FCC standards alleging safe emissions levels,the public has a need to know about the proliferation of transmitting towers in surrounding residential neighborhoods. (Hanford down-winders should have been so fortunate.)The NS threshold determination reduced notification to a few. Alleged posting of the project on the property was of little notice. Shurgard Storage is a private facility surrounded by private businesses. Public access is limited to a busy and steep roadway, SE 76th . The roadway has slippery gravel shoulders and is difficult to traverse on foot. It is not safe to stop a vehicle even if notification were posted. This explains why no residents of 111th PL SE were aware of the imminent threat until March 6, 1998. Given these limitations,we have little opportunity to extensively research the errors of the administrative decision and the potential for injury. Some are evident below. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Ordinance 4689,section 4-38-14,requires the governing authority consider the following criteria,listed in part: • Proximity of the tower to residential structures. • Nature and uses on adjacent and nearby properties. • Surrounding topography. • Light and glare impacts • Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan,ordinances etc.. These criteria may be waived if the goals of the ordinance are better served thereby. Those goals include: • Encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas and minimize the total number of towers throughout the community. • Encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites. • Encourage the location of towers where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. Appeal To City of Renton], ing Examiner Permit For 100-Foot Tower hied Mast In Residential View Neighborhood 2. While staff makes reference to some of these criteria,it seems their impact is ignored as insignificant or dismissed outright. Some of the staff comments appear to be in conflict with their conclusions. We have noted pertinent sections in the staff report below: The applicant states that the proposal is intended to avoid impacts to residential neighborhoods. The staff -concurs that the proposed use meets or exceeds locational criteria in relation to residential neighborhoods. (Page 6,#2) In contradiction,staff differs with the applicant with regard to diminished visual impacts and offers that the visual impacts would be greater than the visual impacts of the existing commercial use. They also acknowledge that FAA required lighting would increase the visibility. (Page 9 Policy U-101) Comment: Ordinance 4689 at section 4-38-13 (A. Visual Impact)requires preservation of the preexisting character of the surrounding buildings and land uses. How can the erection of a 100-foot tower with mast and possible flashing red light between the lake and residential property just 330 feet away possibly preserve existing character and land use? The hillside is vegetated with trees that screen views to and from the residential neighborhood upslope from the project site. Views to the west generally include Lake Washington. (Page 6,#4) Comment: Only the lower portion of the tower will be screened during periods of high foliage as staff indicates below. During the winter months when the trees have less foliage,visibility to the west increases(from Hemmingson Terrace)(Page 7,#5) The existing tree cover would provide some absorption of the lowerportion of the facility from off site areas to the west. (Page 7,#6) Citing the Comprehensive Plan and its elements,the need to reasonably minimize impacts,the need for towers to be sensitively sited etc.,staff differs with the applicant but makes no modifications of its approval. (Page 8,9,#10A) Comment: Throughout the report the staff emphasis on compliance with • • ordinances and the Comprehensive plan is limited to the applicants selected location and movement within those boundaries. The very selection of the Shurgard location itself should be the first issue. Contrary to the stated goals of the ordinance,staff is encouraging location of the tower in a predominately residential area. It simply is not possible to locate a structure of this height in a residential view neighborhood without adversely impacting property values.On that basis alone,this project should be denied. COLLOCATION: Staff discusses availability of existing structures and collocation by additional carriers. No mention is made of the existing monopole at NE 30th and Interstate 405. That tower is located in such a manner that there is no apparent impact to surrounding residential property: It is also at an elevation at least 100 feet higher. Alternatively,we understand Senate Bill 6515 has achieved final passage and awaits the Governors signature. This bill will allow location of telecommunication equipment along public right of ways. More frequent installation of smaller antenna would be far less obtrusive. THE FLASHING RED LIGHT: According to the FAA,the proximity of the proposed site to the Renton municipal airport would necessitate a flashing red light at 137 feet above sea level. Interestingly,the applicant purports that its proposed tower will be 136 feet above sea level. We question whether staff has verified the applicants'height figures. Notably,the project site is on a filled area with a high retaining wall. FAA records show that their study#1261-97 for the site was applied for in September 1997 and terminated by the applicant on November 20, 1997 with an indication that they would re-apply. The FAA does not have a new application. • Appeal To City of Renton ing Examiner Permit For 100-Foot Towel z-viid Mast In Residential View Neighborhood 3 NEW HEARINGS: We believe the administrative decision granting the conditional use permit should be reversed: A steel tower and mast in our view path is completely out of character with the neighborhood. Staff did not consider the larger scope of other geographic}ocations that would be less intrusive and dismissed their own findings regarding adverse view impacts. ,The focus by the administrative staff almost exclusively on the proposed property effectively encouraged location of the tower in a residential neighborhood,contrary to the goals of the ordinance. At the very least,new hearings should.be ordered to determine if the purposed height is really necessary,if a flashing red light would be required,and if technology would better serve the public by locating antennas along the public right of way. Thank o or ol/is epgrziur c ricerns, chael J.t a Gloria D.Magula 7617 111th PL SE Newcastle, WA 98056 • { Michael & Gloria Magula 7617 111th PL SE Newcastle, WA 98056 • Marilyn J. Peterson City Clerk City of Renton 200 Mill Ave So. Renton, WA 98055 May-08-98 04:03P Newp^x-#. Hills Drug 42! !47-1 Z98 P _O 1 j - - • CITY OF RENTON May 8, 1998 MAY 1 11998 Marilyn RECEIVED C Cle Clerk CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Of Renton We are submitting by fax a copy of our letter presented orally at the March 9, 1998 hearing as well as the following letter in support of the Hearing Examiner's denial of the Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48s'St.,File No. CU-97-092. The Zoning Administrators approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit was plead/ in error as supported by the following pertinent facts: 1. As Western Wireless specifically emphasizes in its appeal(page 2)the goals of the City's wireless communications ordinance are to minimize the total number of towers throughout the community",and"encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites". Further,that the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that celhdar communication structures and towers be collocated on existing structures and towers whenever possible and practical. The record of the Hearing will show an existing monopole tower located one mile south at NE 30t. The existing tower is at a base elevation 180 feet higher that the proposed tower in the new location proposed by Western Wireless. Moreover, it provides line of sight views of Interstate 405 north and south of the Kennydalc hill. This tower is in an arca with no apparent impact on views or property values. Western Wireless indicated at the hearing that they needed the 100 foot tower to meet their engineering requirements. They would not need that height at the NE 30s'location. Despite the existing tower,the Zoning Administrator errs by allowing a new tower in an area where only rooftop antennas using a"different technology"exist. Western Wireless argues that their willingness to allow other carriers use of their new tower constitutes collocation. Indeed,"any carrier could make the same frivolous claim for any new tower. In support of the City's goal to"minimize the total number of towers throughout the community",zoning staff should have considered collocation on the existing monopole at. NE 30t. 2. The applicant failed to provide photosimulations from affected residential properties as required by RCC 4689,section 4-38-5B. Staff erred in not requiring the photosimulations. Not only does the applicant ignore requirements for photosimulations from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way,they select a view from a street location at 111th PL and SE 76's that does not accurately portray adverse impact to affected residential properties.The applicant apparently argues that the ordinance does not apply to them because they are restricted to taking photos from public viewpoints unless specifically requested by private property owners. (applicants appeal page 6) Even if they were somehow precluded from obtaining photos from residential properties,there is ample right-of-way on 11 Is'PL SE between homes that would enable accurate photosimulations of adverse impacts. Accurate photos would have given staff a more objective view of adverse impact and suggested collocation at the existing tower on NE 30th,where impact on the community is minimal. The failure to provide relevant photosimulations of the true impact on residential property is a substantial error. May-08-98 04:03P Newp^rt Hills Drug 42 `'47-1298 P_ 02 Letter in support of denial of Conditional Use Permit File No. CU-97-092 Michael J.Magula Gloria D.Magula 2 in its appeal, Western Wireless attempts to narrowly construe affected residential properties to those located within 300 feet of the proposed new tower, Clearly,the City Council,in its wisdom,was aware that topography and other considerations may impact residential property as evident below: Ordinance 4689,section 4-38-14,requires the governing authority consider the following criteria, listed in part: • Proximity of the tower to residential structures, • Nature and uses on adjacent and nearby properties. • Surrounding topography. • Light and glare impacts • Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan,ordinances etc.. The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages siting of towers in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land users with facilities designed to diminish aesthetic impacts and be collocated on existing structures(e.g.;NE 30`^). Required photositnulations from affected residential properties in RCC 4-38-5 further illustrate the scope intended by the City Council is not limited to residences within 300 feet. The City Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan must be viewed in totality. The unbiased and objective conclusions of the Hearing Examiner are critical to a fair and impartial review. Contrary to the prejudicial perspective of Western Wireless, the Hearing Examiner is by ordinance required to interpret,review and implement land use regulations. (RCC 4-8-3) A word about property values. The Hearing record will show that an adverse impact on view property is apparent if this new tower is erected. Specific dollar loss is very difficult to determine without an adequate sample of similar lake view properties with and without the unsightly towers. The appraisal material provided by Western Wireless apparently has as its only similarity a geographic location in Seattle. Lacking adequate sales comparisons of similar properties,professional judgement and common sense must prevail. Knowledgeable buyers determine market impact. Posing a hypothetical question addresses common sense. If you had to choose between a lake view property with and without a galvanized tower impacting your lake view,which would you pay more for'? Which has an adverse impact on value? What if you could avoid any impact by collocating your antenna at an existing tower one-mile away and 180 feet higher? Maybe you would not need a 100 foot tower. We respectfully request that unless a public hearing is held the applicant, Western Wireless,not be allowed to make an oral presentation. Thank you for considering our position. Since • i'. 7 ^ . l G Michael J.l4agula Gloria D. Magula 7617 i l la'PL SE Newcastle, WA May-08-98 04:03P Newpc.-1. Hills Drug 42f' 47-1298 P. 03 INERVE 0 March 9, 1998 MAY 1 1 1998' City of Renton Hearing Examiner ON 200 Mill Ave So. L 't t .; M NER. _ Renton,WA 98055 Re: Seelig Appeal of Western Wireless Project#: AAD-97-149(LUA-97-092,CU-A) CONCERNS: We are residents at 7617 111a'PL SE in Newcastle,Washington. The City of Renton administrative determination allowing construction of a 100-foot high telecommunications monopole adversely impacts our property values and visually impairs our view of Lake Washington. The likely but as yet undetermined addition of a flashing red light on the top of the tower further denigrates a natural view of a lake amidst towering conifers and deciduous trees. Most of the year we enjoy a view of Lake Washington above the • freeway(1-405)and commercial clutter, The imposition of this galvanized,flashing metal structure will forever blight the view. Trees will come and go in the wind,but the unsightly structure will remain. External obsolescence caused by this unnatural structure will clearly diminish property values. LACK OF NOTIFICATION: The City's determination of non-significance is astonishing. The impact of an imposing 100-foot tower in an area where land use is predominately residential view property is significant, Of utmost significance is the danger of electromagnetic radiation. Notwithstanding FCC standards alleging safe emissions levels, the public has a need to know about the proliferation of transmitting towers in surrounding residential neighborhoods. (Hanford down-winders should have been so fortunate.)The NS threshold determination reduced notification to a few. Alleged posting of the project on the property was of little notice. Shurgard Storage is a private facility surrounded by private businesses. Public access is limited to a busy and steep roadway, SE 76th.. The roadway has slippery gravel shoulders and is difficult to traverse on that. It is not safe to stop a vehicle even if notification were posted. This explains why no residents of 11l's PL SE were aware of the imminent.threat until March 6, 1998, Given these limitations,we have little opportunity to extensively research the errors of the administrative decision and the potential for injury. Some are evident below. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Ordinance 4689, section 4-38-14,requires the governing authority consider the following criteria,listed in part; • Proximity of the tower to residential structures. • Nature and uses on adjacent and nearby properties. • Surrounding topography. • Light and glare impacts • Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan,ordinances etc., - These Criteria may be waived if the goals of the ordinance arc better served thereby. Those goals include; • • Encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas and minimize the total number of towers throughout the community. • Encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites. • Encourage the location of towers where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. May-08-98 04:03P Newpr Hills Drug 42.' '47-1298 P . 04 t . Appeal To City of Renton Hearing Examiner Permit For 100-Foot Tower And Mast In Residential View Neighborhood 2 While staff makes reference to some of these criteria,it seems their impact is ignored as insignificant or dismissed outright. Some of the staff comments appear to be in conflict with their conclusions. We have noted pertinent sections in the staff report below: The applicant states that the proposal is intended to avoid impacts to residential neighborhoods. The staff concurs that the proposed use meets or exceeds locational criteria in relation to residential neighborhoods. (Page 6,#2) In contradiction,staff differs with the applicant with regard to diminished visual impacts aind offers that the visual impacts would be greater than the visual impacts of the existing commercial use. They also acknowledge that FAA required lighting would increase the visibility. (Page 9 Policy U-101) Comment: Ordinance 4689 at section 4-38-13 (A. Visual Impact)requires preservation of the preexisting character of the surrounding buildings and land uses. How can the erection of a 100-foot tower with mast and possible flashing red light between the lake and residential property just 330 feet away possibly preserve existing character and land use? The hillside is vegetated with trees that screen views to and from the residential neighborhood upslope from the project site, Views to the west generally include Lake Washington, (Page 6,#4) Comment: Only the lower portion of the tower will be screened during periods of high foliage as staff indicates below. During the winter months when the trees have less foliage,visibility to the west increases(from Henuningson Terrace)(Page 7,#5) • The existing tree cover would provide some absorption of the iowerportion of the facility from off site areas to the west, (Page 7,#6) Citing the Comprehensive Plan and its elements, the need to reasonably minimize impacts,the need for towers to be sensitively sited etc.,staff differs with the applicant but makes no modifications Of its approval, (Page 8,9,#10A) Comment: Throughout the report the staff emphasis on compliance with ordinances and the Comprehensive plan is limited to the applicants selected location and movement.within those boundaries. The very selection of the Shurgard location itself should be the first issue. Contrary to the stated goals of the ordinance, staff is encouraging location of the tower in a predominately residential area. It simply is not possible to locate a structure of this height in a residential view neighborhood without adversely impacting property values. On that basis alone,this project should be denied. • COLLOCATION: Stall discusses availability of existing structures and collocation by additional carriers. No mention is made of the existing monopole at NE 30°i and Interstate 405. That tower is located in such a Manner that there is no apparent impact to surrounding residential property. IL is also at an elevation at least 100 feet higher. Alternatively,we understand Senate Bill 6515 has achieved final passage and awaits the Governors signature, This bill will allow location of telecommunication equipment along public right of ways, More frequent installation of smaller antenna would be far less obtrusive. THE FLASHING RED LIGHT: According to the FAA,the proximity of the proposed site to the Renton municipal airport would necessitate a flashing red light at 137 feet above sea level. Interestingly,the applicant purports that its proposed tower will be 136 feet above sea level. We question whether staff has verified the applicants' height figures. Notably, the project site is on a filled area with a high retaining wall. FAA records show that their study#1261-97 for the site was applied for in September 1997 and terminated by the applicant on November 20, 1997 with an indication that they would re-apply, The FAA does not have a new application. May-08-98 O4:O4P Newpr- Hills Drug 42E 47-1298 P _ O5 Appeal To City of Renton Hearing Examiner Permit For 100-Foot Tower And Mast In Residential View Neighborhood 3 NEW HEARINGS: We believe the administrative decision granting the conditional use permit should be reversed. A steel tower and mast in our view path is completely out of character with the neighborhood. Staff did not consider the larger scope of other geographic locations that would be less intrusive and dismissed their own findings regarding adverse view impacts. The focus by the administrative staff almost exclusively on the proposed property effectively encouraged location of the tower in a residential neighborhood,contrary to the goals of the ordinance. At the very least,new hearings should be ordered to determine if the purposed height is really necessary, if a flashing red light would be required,and if technology would batter serve the public by locating antennas along the public right of way. Th k y of for eonsideryour concerns chael J.Magula ctaz 6 Gloria 1 7617 l l l4'PL SE Newcastle, WA 98056 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Central Park Building / \ 1980 112th Ave.N.E.,Suite 270 Bellevue,WA 98004-2940 (425)453-9292 (800)453-4408 FAX:(425)455-9740 May 11, 1998 CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council MAY 11.1998 (Opt Municipal Building r 200 Mill Ave. South RECEIVED l S.(1-451ii Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Preston, Gates & Ellis appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48th St., File No CU-97-092 (AAD-97-149) Dear Members of the Renton City Council: I wish .to answer the appeal statement regarding my testimony in the above-referenced Conditional.Use.Application. While it is true that an appraisal was.not'prepared of the Seelig property, the intention was for me to perform a consultative role. A full appraisal would have presented a specific dollar amount of the damages to the Seelig property, but my objective was to show only that substantial damages would occur to their property if the tower were built. On page 7 of their appeal, Preston indicated that I did not consult the Zoning Code in analyzing the subject property. I did consult the code and am familiar with the uses that can be made of the subject property. Perhaps they are referring to a theoretical question that was asked by Ms. Henning regarding the potential height of a building that could be built on the Shurgard site immediately west of the Seelig property. Because the Shurgard mini-storage complex is relatively new, and it is very unlikely that a 55-foot-tall building would be built on the property for many years in the future, that question was not based on a real-world expectation. In my , • opinion, the highest and best use of the Seelig property is multifamily residential development, which is allowed under its zoning and it is not likely that the property would be developed with commercial or offices uses. The Preston appeal indicates that my opinion is not an "expert opinion" in regard to the Seelig appeal. I have been qualified many times in Superior and Federal Courts as an expert witness and have been involved in cases involving loss of view, access limitations, and other potential factors resulting in potential loss of property value. I do not believe a detailed report is necessary to substantiate my opinion that the property value would be substantially affected by the monopole project. The Western Wireless application did not present 'any site-specific Renton City Council May 11, 1998 Page 2 appraisal testimony, probably because they would have difficulty finding an appraiser who would say that damages to neighboring properties would be nil as a result of this project. Sincerely yours, awes B.Price,MAI, SR/WA C-1286 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP ,SA �/ _ APPRAISAL GROUP OF-THE �- NORTHWEST LLP ��4 � Central P P ark Building c� P cc 1980 112th Ave.N.E.,Suite 270 n — Bellevue,WA 98004-2940 I I MAY ®, _ p IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11I1IIIIIIII Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 s$r->ss e.s #22�f1�f1 211f2[1�4�?2 21[i}�f'Sltlfi??1l17111�1if?i}f[97tIif1 SEELIG ifry P.O.BOX 1925 BELLEVUE,WA 98009 * 41- Itt (144.„' exr .ANW • 1,517A y jEgEr6"5- \\ g80 LIU . MAILED FROM iiELLEVLIE WA 08004 Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • se.o.ssy,,zt,ss 05/11/1998 10:58 425-455-9740 APPRAISAL GROUP O'NW PAGE 02 APPRMSAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Central Park Building 1980 112th Ave.N.E.,Suite 270 Bellevue,WA 98004-2940 -kw" (425)453-9292 (800)453-4408 FAX:(425)455-9740 May 11, 1998 CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council MAY 1 1 1998 Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. South RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA 98055 Re: Preston, Gates & Ellis appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48th St.,File No CU-97-092 (AAD-97-149) Dear Members of the Renton City Council: I wish to answer the appeal statement regarding my testimony in the above-referenced Conditional Use Application. While it is true that an appraisal was not prepared of the Seelig property, the intention was for me to perform a consultative role. A full appraisal would have presented a specific dollar amount of the damages to the Seelig property,but my objective was to show only that substantial damages would occur to their property lithe tower were built. On page 7 of their appeal, Preston indicated that I did not consult the Zoning Code in analyzing the subject property. I did consult the code and am familiar with the uses that can be made of the subject property. Perhaps they are referring to a theoretical question that was asked by Ms. ' Henning regarding the potential height of a building that could be built on the Shurgard site immediately west of the Seelig property. Because the Shurgard mini-storage complex is relatively new, and it is very unlikely that a 55-foot-tall building would be built on the property for many years in the future, that question was not based on a real-world expectation. In my opinion, the highest and best use of the Seelig property is multifamily residential development, which is allowed under its zoning and it is not likely that the property would be developed with commercial or offices uses. The Preston appeal indicates that my opinion is not an "expert opinion" in regard to the Seelig appeal. I have been qualified many times in Superior and Federal Courts as an expert witness - and have been involved in cases involving loss of view, access limitations, and other potential factors resulting in potential loss of property value. I do not believe a detailed report is necessary to substantiate my opinion that the property value would be substantially affected by the monopole project. The Western Wireless application did not present any site-specific 05/11/1998 10:58 425-455-9740 APPRAISAL GROUP O'NW PAGE 03 . Renton City Council May 11, 1998 Ne 2 _.. appraisal testimony, probably because they would have difficulty finding an appraiser who would say that damages to neighboring properties would be nil as a result of this project Sincerely yours, . es B.Price,MAY,SR/WA C-1286 APPRAISAL GROUP OP THE NORTHWEST LLP 05/11/1998 10:58 425-455-9740 APPRAISAL GROUP O'NIJ PAGE 01 i f i�� - ��� APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP 1980 112TH AVENUE NE, SUITE 270 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-2940 Telephone: (425)453-9292 Toll-Free: (800)453-4408 Fax: (425)455-9740 91-1704802 To: Renton City Council Fax No.: 425-235-2513 Date: May 11, 1998 Number of Pages (including this page): 3 DEAR SIR OR MADAM: WOULD YOU PLEASE FORWARD THIS LETTER TO THE CLERK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. SINCERELY, CITY OF RENTON JAMEs PRICE MAY 1 1 1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Loon 05/11/98 MON 10:32 FAX 425 452 7256 CITY ATTY'S OFC CITY OF RENTON May 10, 1998 RECEIVED MAY 1 1 1998 CITY CLERK S OFFICE TO: Renton City Council Members AND TO: Marilyn Peterson, City Clerk FROM: Susan Irwin 7701 111th Place S.E. Newcastle, Washington 98056 RE: Denial of Conditional Use Permit File No. CU-97-092 Although I currently have a Newcastle address, I have lived and/or been actively involved in the Renton community for nineteen (19) years. During that time I have come to respect the direction that City leadership has taken toward responsible development of Renton. The City council and staff routinely demonstrate a concern for property owners ' rights when attempting to address the needs of the growing community_ The Paul Allen project is a prime example of how the City, along with the Allen group, has attempted to involve the citizens of the affected communities to meet the needs of both groups. I ask that you show that same concern when addressing the above- referenced matter. Specifically, 'while I acknowledge the increased need for wireless communication facilities, that need can be met in this case without harming the property rights of private homeowners . By collocating the proposed 100 ' monopole with the monopole already existing at NE 30th, Western wireless gets its tower, but the view-property in my neighborhood is not impacted. Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman has written a thorough factual and legal analysis of the situation. Rather then rephrasing or summarizing it, I will simply urge your serious review, and adoption, of his findings . Similarly, you have received a letter from Michael and Gloria Magula, which succinctly addresses the three arguments urged upon you by Western Wireless, through its attorneys. i incorporate by reference the analysis set forth in the Magulas ' letter; they have accurately noted the flawed reasoning of the appellant. In conclusion, I respectfully request that you uphold the Hearing Examiner' s denial of the Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48th Street, Renton. • 05/11/98 MON 10:31 FAX 425 452 7256 CITY ATTY'S OFC 4 001 CITY OF RENTON MAY 1 1 1998 RECEIVED OW CLERK'S OFFICE TELECOPY COVER LETTER May 11,1998 Telephone No. (425) 235-2500 Fax No. (425) 235-2513 TO: Marilyn Peterson COMPANY: City Clerk, City of Renton FROM: Susan Ir.win TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: Fax Contains: yY)e'- i.e- '. c a 1i1� Gvl - q7,�c� IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, CALL: Susan Irwin AT (425) 452-6822. SEELIG FAMILY PROPERTIES CITY OF RENTON P.O. Box 1925,Bellevue, WA 98009 (425)454-0885/FAX(425)451-8203 MAY 1 3 1998 May 11, 1998 CITY CLERK S OFFICE Renton City Council rf„X QQC•0(. S-i(-9 g\ 200 Mill Avenue South 1``�` J Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, File No. CU-97-092 (AAD-97-149) We would like the record to show the following comments regarding the April 27, 1998 letter from Western Wireless: The cell phone companies put emphasis on the idea of collocating, but it is common knowledge that the cell phone companies are competing hard for profits. They want their towers for themselves.. The talk about building towers to accommodate collocating is a classic example of a"red herring" maneuver. Western Wireless will not have.a system that is functional even if they build the tower to which we object. They don't have enough antennas. Others do, but the others won't let Western Wireless collocate. City policy is to get collocation. Western Wireless should be told to explain why they couldn't collocate before they should get a permit,for a new tower on which they speculate they might get other. companies.to collocate. . r.. . ,.,f' ; The Renton Hearing Examiner knows 300.feet. Western.Wireless.'s.lawyers may be trying for a technicality for support which is grasping at straws and ignoring the intent and policy, which is the basic issue. Residences were permitted on our property, which is adjacent. There is presently a moratorium and nobody knows for sure what will happen when the moratorium ends. Western Wireless can have whatever it prefers in technology, but it does not have the authority to tell the City of Renton that it should have the technology it prefers. (Sometimes you must do what is best for the City of Renton, even if it is not the best for,you.) The Seeligs know that one of the most consequential real estate prospects on Lake Washington area in Renton is pending across I-405 from them. The Seeligs think they should defer the critical discussion about use of their property until there is clarification about the Port Quendall project. The Seeligs have no intent to leave their property undeveloped as a buffer between the Shurgard site andthe property to the east. Western Wireless lawyers say the Hearing Examiner is wrong, which does not make the Hearing Examiner wrong. The Hearing Examiner is also a lawyer.••He has much more experience with Renton law then Western Wireless's lawyers, and he is charged with being unbiased,'while Western Wireless's lawyers charge for being biased. As for'encouraging collocating, there is no evidence that the City has done this by forcing Western-Wireless to demonstrate that it even tried. Western Wireless should be forced to'so demonstrate. • Page 1 of 3 a The Hearing Examiner may and may not have disregarded 100 pages with writing on both sides. Western Wireless lawyers accuse the Hearing Examiner of disregarding, but they have not gotten the Hearing Examiner's confession, nor is it likely that those pages were disregarded. However, it is not likely that those pages could convince homeowners or owners of commercial real estate that a monopole tower is a high status land use. If the property is bad enough, a monopole can be a plus, but Kennydale is good real estate. Shurgard is willing to have the monopole tower on the back of their property. They aren't offering the front of their property to Western Wireless for their tower because it would adversely affect the value. In the back, it doesn't matter because that is only mini warehouses. The front is retail. (Please see letter from Jim Price, MAI.) • "De Novo", etc., is legal jargon, aside from the main point, which is whether to allow an adverse land use in a trade-off to get more competition and keep cell phone prices low for the citizens. There are already enough carriers to create ample competition. No oral argument needed; Everybody on the Council can read. Enough talking already, but if they get the right to talk, we want that right too. Council members know the objective of the policies on monopole towers and have the authority to enforce it. This is no time to quibble about whether the Hearing Examiner knows his job or Western Wireless lawyers know the Hearing Examiner's job better than he does. If Western Wireless is sincere about collocation, they would be able to demonstrate that by showing where they collocated already, what efforts they have made to collocate instead of putting a new tower in Kennydale, and who they have tried to get collocated with them in Kennydale. There is no logic to trying to prove you are an advocate of collocating by saying you•want a tower of your own. The raising of the collocation issue in support of their request for a new tower is bogus. Nobody is saying the proposed new tower is an appealing addition to the vista. Western Wireless and Shurgard and their lawyers are the only advocates and their purpose is clearly self-serving. You can't get a prettier photograph of Kennydale if you add more of the cell phone transmission paraphernalia. Let's be realistic. Shurgard's neighbors have better ways to use their time than to complain about monopole towers. They are trying to protect their property. Nobody showed them yet what a monopole with collocated facilities would look like, probably because it is much worse. Much ado about nothing. The monopole tower will hurt the neighbors' property, and that is really a question with no doubt about the answer. Please see statement by Jim Price, MAI. Western Wireless lawyers are not qualified to refute the work of an MAI. Playing with words does not change this fact. • Back to the 100 double-sided pages. The Hearing Examiner read them and chose the information which was more applicable. If there were an MAI who would refute Jim Price's work, he or she would have done work on the Kennydale site, and surely that refuting work would have been presented. Western Wireless's lawyers know what they would need to do. They couldn't get an MAI opinion in their favor, so they are throwing up a smoke screen. But a lawyer can't refute the opinion of Jim Price, MAI. Page 2 of 3 When you lose the case, the judge was bad? Sometimes, but seldom. Usually, the losing side had a bad set of facts. Back to De Novo. This is an attempt to find a technical flaw. The Council makes the law and has the power to enforce according to policy and intent, without the obligation to listen to endless argument from Western's lawyers.telling the Council what their policy and intent is or what interpretation should be made. Summary The bottom line here is to intelligently answer the questions of what is an appropriate trade off. The citizens want cell phones at the best price and also good neighborhoods. Shurgard is not high-grade real estate and the current zoning which makes it a prohibited future use confirms that. Policy is to accept monopole towers in Renton where it does not waste Renton's land resources. Shurgard has rented its property, in the back where it can't be seen by its retail tenants, to many cell phone companies for their apparatus already. The neighbors are hurt but Shurgard isn't and gets more rent. Nobody can really argue that the neighbors aren't hurt. The questions are who besides the cell phone companies and Shurgard would be helped, and what are the alternatives. The neighbors have already been hurt because many cell phone companies are already using the Shurgard roof. The Hearing Examiner's decision forces Western Wireless to stay out of Kennydale. They don't need to go out of business. There is now ample competition using Kennydale as an area to burden with its unsightly apparatus, so citizens can have competition to keep cell phone prices low. The Hearing Examiner's;decision clearly.got the basics correct and complied with the intent and policy of the City of Renton. The Hearing Examiner's decision should be affirmed Sincerely, ik-Ays-0-11-,27) Howard L. Seelig Page 3 of 3 SEELIG FAMILY PROPERTIES ,P.O.Box 1925,Bellevue,WA 98009 CITY OF RENTON (425)454-0885/FAX(425)451-8203 MAY 1 1 1998 May 11, 1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton City Council I T .00 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard,File No. CU-97-092(AAD-97-149) We would like the record to show the following comments regarding the April 27, 1998 letter from Western Wireless; The cell phone companies put emphasis on the idea of collocating, but it is common knowledge that the cell phone companies are competing hard for profits. They want their towers for themselves. The talk about building towers to accommodate collocating is a classic example of a"red herring" maneuver. Western Wireless will not have a system that is functional even if they build the tower to which we object. They don't have enough antennas. Others do,but the others won't let Western Wireless collocate. City policy is to get collocation. Western Wireless should be told to explain why they couldn't collocate before they should get a permit for a new tower on which they speculate they might get other companies to collocate. The Renton Hearing Examiner knows 300 feet. Western Wireless's lawyers may be trying for a technicality for support which is grasping at straws and ignoring the intent and policy, which is the basic issue. Residences were permitted on our property, which is adjacent. There is presently a moratorium and nobody knows for sure what will happen when the moratorium ends. Western Wireless can have whatever it prefers in technology, but it does not have the authority to tell the City of Renton that it should have the technology it prefers. (Sometimes you must do what is best for the City of Renton, even if it is not the best for you.) The Seeligs know that one of the most consequential real estate prospects on Lake Washington area in Renton is pending across 1-405 from them. The Seeligs think they should defer the critical discussion about use of their property until there is clarification about the Port Quendall project. The Seeligs have no intent to leave their property undeveloped as a buffer between the Shurgard site and the property to the east. Western Wireless lawyers say the Hearing Examiner is wrong,which does not make the Hearing Examiner wrong. The Hearing Examiner is also a lawyer. He has much more experience with Renton law then Western Wireless's lawyers, and he is charged with being unbiased, while Western Wireless's lawyers charge for being biased. As for encouraging collocating, there is no evidence that the City has done this by forcing Western Wireless to demonstrate that it even tried. Western Wireless should be forced to so demonstrate. Page 1 of 3 • T0'd £0Z8 TSb SZP T+ £T:LT 866T-TT-AbW • The Hearing Examiner may and may not have disregarded 100 pages with writing on both sides. Western Wireless lawyers accuse the Hearing Examiner of disregarding, but they have not gotten the Hearing Examiner's confession, nor is it likely that those pages were disregarded. However, it is not likely that those pages could convince homeowners or owners of commercial real estate that a monopole tower is a high status land use. If the property is bad enough, a monopole can be a plus, but Kennydale is good real estate. Shurgard is willing to have the monopole tower on the back of their property. They aren't offering the front of their property to Western Wireless for their tower because it would adversely affect the value. In the back, it doesn't matter because that is only mini warehouses_ The front is retail. (Please see letter from Jim Price,MAI.) "De Novo", etc., is legal jargon, aside from the main point, which is whether to allow an adverse land use in a trade-off to get more competition and keep cell phone prices low for the citizens. There are already enough carriers to create ample competition. No oral argument needed. Everybody on the Council can read. Enough talking already,but if they get the right to talk, we want that right too. Council members know the objective of the policies on monopole towers and have the authority to enforce it. This is no time to quibble about whether the Hearing Examiner knows his job or Western Wireless lawyers know the Hearing Examiner's job better than he does. If Western Wireless is sincere about collocation, they would be able to demonstrate that by showing where they collocated already,what efforts they have made to collocate instead of putting a new tower in Kennydale, and who they have tried to get collocated with them in Kennydale. There is no logic to trying to prove you are an advocate of collocating by saying you want a tower of your own. The raising of the collocation issue in support of their request for a new tower is bogus. Nobody is saying the proposed new tower is an appealing addition to the vista. Western Wireless and Shurgard and their lawyers are the only advocates and their purpose is clearly self-serving. You can't get a prettier photograph of Kennydale if you add more of the cell phone transmission paraphernalia. Let's be realistic. Shurgard's neighbors have better ways to use their time than to complain about monopole towers: They are trying to protect their, property. Nobody showed them yet what a monopole with collocated facilities would look like, probably because it is much worse. Much ado about nothing. The monopole tower will hurt the neighbors' property, and that is really a question with no doubt about the answer. Please see statement by Jim Price, MAI. Western Wireless lawyers are not qualified to refute the work of an MAI. Playing with words does not change this fact. Back to the 100 double-sided pages. The Hearing Examiner read them and chose the information which was more applicable. If there were an MAI who would refute Jim Price's work, he or she would have done work on the Kennydale site, and surely that refuting work would have been presented. Western Wireless's lawyers know what they would need to do. They couldn't get an MAI opinion in their favor, so they are throwing up a smoke screen. But a lawyer can't refute the opinion of Jim Price, MAI. Page 2 of 3 Z0'd 20E8 TSV Szb T+ £T:LT 866T-TT-A W ,2IVd 1d101 When you lose the case, the judge was bad? Sometimes, but seldom. Usually, the losing side had a bad set of facts. Back to De Novo. This is an attempt to find a technical flaw. The Council makes the law and has the power to enforce it according to policy and intent,without the obligation to listen to endless argument from Western's lawyers telling the Council what their policy and intent is or what interpretation should be made. Summary The bottom line here is to intelligently answer the questions of what is an appropriate trade off The citizens want cell phones at the best price and also good neighborhoods. Shurgard is not high-grade real estate and the current zoning which makes it a prohibited future use confirms that_ Policy is to accept monopole towers in Renton where it does not waste Renton's land resources. Shurgard has rented its property, in the back where it can't be seen by its retail tenants,to many cell phone companies for their apparatus already. The neighbors are hurt but Shurgard isn't and gets more rent. Nobody can really argue that the neighbors aren't hurt. The questions are who besides the cell phone companies and Shurgard would be helped, and what are the alternatives. The neighbors have already been hurt because many cell phone companies are already using the Shurgard roof. The Hearing Examiner's decision forces Western Wireless to stay out of Kennydale. They don't need to go out of business. There is now ample competition using Kennydale as an area to burden with its unsightly apparatus, so citizens can have competition to keep cell phone prices low_ The Hearing Examiner's decision clearly got the basics correct and complied with the intent and policy of the City of Renton. The Hearing Examiner's decision should be affirmed Sincerely, Q 7 &01 G— Howard L. Seelig Page 3 of 3 20'd £0E8 TSt SEP T+ PT:LT 866T-TT-AUW Kenton City Council Minutes Page 159 May 4. 1998 ' AUDIENCE COMMENT Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11th P1., Renton, 98056, described problems with Citizen Comment Evans - seaplane noise and safety at Renton's Municipal Airport, saying these have Airplane Noise gone unresolved for several years. He felt that the larger seaplane operators were simply not interested in addressing these issues. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS SUBJECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment Deacy - Don Deacy, 11002 SE 176th, #B202, Renton, 98058, suggested that the City Whitworth Ave S Dead- perform or require the clean-up of brush at the dead end of Whitworth Ave. End Brush S. to make this area safer. Citizen Comment: Larsen Darlene Larsen, 2211 Williams Ave. S., Renton, 98055, expressed concern - Teasdale Park Security regarding safety and security issues at Teasdale Park on Talbot Hill, saying she has witnessed progressively more late-night activity at this location, including vandalism, drug use and other criminal actions: She suggested that the City install a gate at the parking entrance, to be locked nightly at dusk in an effort to help secure the park and keep the surrounding neighborhood safe. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE MATTER OF CITY-WIDE PARK SECURITY POLICIES TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Garrett Juanita Garrett, 2217 Williams Ave. S., Renton, 98055, noted her concurrence - Teasdale Park Security with Mrs. Larsen's remarks regarding security at Teasdale Park. Citizen Comment King - James King, 706 S. 23rd St., Renton, 98055, also noted his agreement with Teasdale Park Security Mrs. Larsen's remarks. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At Council President Edward's request, item 6.d. was removed for separate consideration. Appeal: Western Wireless City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision denying a (Denied CUP for CMU conditional use permit for installation of communications antennas at Shurgard Antennas at 1755 NE 48th Storage, 1755 NE 48th Street (CU-97-092); appeal filed on 4/23/98 by St), CU-97-092 William H. Chapman, Preston Gates & Ellis, 701 Fifth 'Ave., Seattle,, 98104, representing Western Wireless. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. CAG: 97-124, Philip Community Services Department submitted CAG-97-124, Philip Arnold Park Arnold Park Playground Playground Equipment Installation project; and requested approval of the Equipment, Promark project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $4,722.04, Landscaping commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,625.54 to Promark Landscaping & Construction, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Court Case: CRT-98-009, Court Case filed by Richard and Rachelle Maxwell, husband and wife, and Maxwell v Renton Dusten Maxwell, a minor, alleging negligence and seeking unspecified monetary damages as compensation for injuries sustained by Dusten Maxwell on 7/12/95, when he nearly drowned at the City-owned Henry Moses Swimming Pool. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 96-001, Lk Wash Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-96-001, Lake o sho g o n Blvd Bike & Ped Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; and requested appal Facilities, Tydico project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $114,893.85, lip CITY _{RENTON COUNCIL AGEN4 BILL AI#: �o,0. • 'UBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 5/4/98 Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; Correspondence... Installation of communications antennas by Western Wireless; Ordinance File No.AAD-97-149 (CU-97-092) Resolution Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(4/27/98) Other C. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(4/13/98) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated ISUMMARY OF ACTION: • Appeal filed by William H. Chapman of Preston Gates&Ellis,representing Lisa Verner/Western Wireless, accompanied by required fee received on 4/23/98. ��. .,:K CIT` OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen April29, 1998 APPEAL FILED BY: William H. Chapman/Preston Gates &Ellis; Representative for Lisa Verner/Western Wireless RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard, 1755 NE 48th St., File No. CU-97-092 (AAD-97-149). To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,'Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Western Western request for conditional use permit has been filed with the City Clerk.- In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B.,:within five days of receipt • of the notice of appeal, the city clerk shall notify all parties of record of the,receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other.pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning-and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 235-2586 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the hearing examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. - , For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call. • - Sincerely, • • Marilyn tersen City Clerk • . t Attachment • 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton,Washington 98055 - (425)235-2501 /FAX(425)235-2513 This owner r-nntains 50%recycled material.20%oost consumer City of Renton City Code Title IV - Building Chapter 8 - Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9- 13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of'appeal and additional submissions by parties. ' ' • F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly: • G. If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8- lOB or C, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C. ' H. In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord..3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc ' .,u,I us .s.am_. I J I ,JnILJ w' LLIJ , .2—L1—U0 f .JU•u= f,, I RLJIV1Yf I LVVR 'tT' '*L040ULU1UYff L/ 10 '`'APPEAL , HEARING EXAMINER • WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA97-149, AM) • APPLICATION NAME: Western Wire less/Shur gard The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use . Hearing Examiner,dated April 13, 199 8 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY • ' APPELLANT: • REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: Lisa Verner/Western Wireless Name: William H. Chapman/Preston Gates & Ellis . Address: 3650 131st Ave SE #400 .Address: 701' Fifth Ave #5000 Bellevue, WA 98006 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. 425-586-8823 Telephone No. 206-623-7580 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attaeh_addlitiona.1 sheets_if necessary), . Set forth below are the specific errors or law ar fact upon which this appeal is based: • FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) ' No. Error: • See Attached • Correction: • • CONCLUSIONS: • No. Error: • ' Correction: OTHER: • ' • No. Error: • Correction: • I SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief (Attach explanation,if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: 'Rein at4tement 1 of Zoning • Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Administrators 1/20/9 8 de cis ' Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: ' , . Other : ' ilp j' t Zl , / 7e- ' ' xe-4. A ellantlRe resenhve Signature lam PP P , NOTE: Please refer-to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton-Municipal Cale,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc , SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:05 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;# 3/16, II_11 I1 PRESTON GATES Sr. E.I. L i S LLP ATTORNQYS April 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council • Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council; • Please find enclosed Western Wireless' appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's grant of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 175.5 NE 48th Street. As set forth in the enclosed appeal, the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact below and should therefore be reversed by the Renton City Council pursuant to Renton City Code 4-8-16(F). The project description and background are most clearly set forth in the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision, and in the project file attached as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing Examiner's decision. The critical facts are as follows: • Western Wireless is proposing to install a 100' tall wireless communications _ facility with 12 antennas and four equipment cabinets. The 100' height will allow future carriers to collocate on this facility. • The facility would be located at a Shurgard Storage on land zoned Comnercial'''Arterial (CA). • No residentially zoned property is located within 300 feet of the proposed location. • The Shurgard Storage currently supports several rooftop antennas. These rooftop antennas support a different type of technology and are not sufficient to meet Western Wireless' engineering requirements. • The original appellants to the Zoning Administrator's decision, Howard and Martin Seelig own the undeveloped parcel just east of the Shurgard property. A IA0,411111) LIABILITY PANTIOwSHIP 1N1'1.111,INC f)THRR I.IMITRI) LIABILITY ENTITIES Arvi:HOKAifu • Ct¢ui WALIINI • HcN,:KON4 • Los ANCHILu • OKANMu COUNTY • POR'1'LAND • SAN FRANCISC6 • SDATTLC • SroKAN6 • WA3111NnroN, I).r:. 701 FIFTH AVENUE SWIM:5000 SI:M 11,14, WASHIN0TON 98104-7078 206-623-75S0 FX: 206-623-7022 www.presiongatcs.com , SENT„BY:PRESTON GATES &ELL I S ; 4-27-98 ; . 15:05 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-,, • 425235251:3;m 4/16 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 2 • The Seelig property is also zoned Commercial Arterial(CA). • To date,the City had not received any development proposal from the Seeligs for the Seelig property. The Hearing Examiner committed the following substantial errors of law and fact in reviewing the Zoning Administrator's decision: 1) The Hearing Examiner impermissibly substituted his policy preferences for the laws adopted by the City Council. In particular, the Hearing Examiner ignored the City Council's policies encouraging collocation of wireless communications facilities and the • siting of support structures in non-residential zones. 2) The Hearing Examiner disregarded over 100 double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material on the impact of wireless communications facilities on property values in favor of a two-page, completely unsubstantiated property value opinion from an appraiser with no experience on the subject who admitted that he had not conducted an appraisal of the subject property. 3) The Hearing Examiner applied the wrong standard of review by engaging in a de novo analysis of the Zoning Administrator's decision. In so doing,the Hearing Examiner ignored the law that states that on appeal, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight, and that the burden is on the original appellants(the Seeligs)to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. For the reasons set forth in the enclosed appeal, Western Wireless respectfully requests the Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's 4/13/98 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 decision. Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. { Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, • PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP •r • / ' ' `%_ By. William H. Chapman ---Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KMIN:dh. —_-- SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &FIIIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:05 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;#>f 5/16 , • PRESTON GATES.S & ELLIS LLP ATTORNEYS • April 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL.ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council • Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council: • Western Wireless hereby appeals the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision overruling the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision to • grant Western Wireless' application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 1755 NE 48th Street. As set forth below, the record reflects that the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact that require reversal of his decision pursuant to Renton City Code ("RCC")4-8-16(F). The City Council should therefore reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly and reinstate the Zoning Administrator's original determination. I. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Impermissibly Substituting His Policy Preferences for the Laws Adopted by the City Council. In the City's Comprehensive Plan and new wireless communications ordinance (RCC 4-38),the Renton City Council codified a number of goals and guidelines for the siting of wireless communications facilities, including support structures,towers,and antennas. The Hearing Examiner's role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision to determine if it was consistent with the policies expressed in the City Code and Comprehensive Plan, The Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to disregard the City Council's carefully implemented policies and to substitute his own view of the necessary criteria for the siting of telecommunications facilities. Close review of the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, points out that this is exactly what has occurred. The Hearing Examiner's decision to implement new policy must be reversed. • li A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANCIIoRACf • Coi uIt u'ALAINI1 • }T(IN(i K(,NG • 'I,(IR ANIIHI.F.$ • (MANOR COUNTY • PIRTI,AN1) • SAN FRANL ISCO • SEAMS. - ,S•1•()KANF'. • W ANHIN(ITfIN, II.(:. 701 FIFTH A'V1'N(1k Si % 5000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7078 206.623-7580 1'X: 206.623••7022 www.prestongalcs.coln JCINI at .r nzluIV'trAICJ d&CLL13 ; 4-L/-7t5 ,; 1o.Uo i r'KCJivrr, rLuuic 'au-' . 42b20b2b13; b/lb Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 2 A. ' The Hearing Examiner Abused His Discretion By PenalizingWestern Wireless for Complying with the City Council's Preference for the Collocation of Wireless Communications Facilities. In RCC 4-38-1 "Purpose and Intent", the Renton City Council set forth the five goals of the its wireless communications ordinance. Significantly, two of these five goals relate to collocation.' Goal 1 is to"minimize the total number of towers throughout the community," and Goal 2 is to "encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites." (RCC 4-38-1(A)). RCC 4-38-18 "Collocation" specifically requires providers to "cooperate with other WCF providers in collocating additional antennas on support structures," and to"exercise good faith in collocating with other providers and sharing the permitted site." The preference for collocation expressed by the City Council in RCC 4-38 is also stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan at Policy U-101, which"require[s] that cellular communication structures and towers . . . be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." Moreover, the City's preference for collocation is specifically a factor in the criteria to be used in determining whether a Conditional Use permit should be granted, Two of the criteria, the availability of suitable existing towers and other structures(RCC 4-38-14(9)) and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan(RCC 4-38-14(10))reinforce the City Council's strong policy determination to emphasize collocation. In compliance with these statutory requirements and policy statements on collocation,'Western Wireless submitted a proposal for a monopole that allows for collocation. In its initial Proposal submitted to the City on July 3, 1997,Western Wireless expressly pointed out that"in conformance with the City of Renton Municipal Code and as a matter of corporate policy,Western Wireless uses support structures which are designed for the purpose of collocation by other carriers." (Exhibit 1). The proposed facility is capable of accommodating two additional carriers. The fact that Western Wireless was specifically complying with the City's collocation requirements by building a monopole that would allow for collocation was noted by the Zoning Administrator in his decision. In his analysis of the Conditional Use criteria, the Zoning Administrator noted twice that the design of the proposed facility would enable one or two additional purveyors to collocate'without the necessity of constructing additional monopoles in the immediate vicinity in compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies for collocation.2 (Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8-9). 1 RCC 4-38-2 defines"collocation"as"the use of a single support structure and/or site by more than one wireless communications provider." 2 In her testimony before the Heating Examiner,Jennifer Henning from the City of Renton Development Services explained that Western Wireless could not collocate with the existing antennas on the Shurgard roof because Western's technology required elevations approaching 100 feet. As the first purveyor of this technology on this site,Ms.Henning further explained, Western Wireless was required by the City to build a structure that would allow for collocation by future applicants. Ms.Henning pointed out that"there is tremendous demand for wireless communication facilities and we do have six or seven purveyors that have been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in this area." Allowing collocation _ of additional carriers on this site,Ms.Henning indicated"meet[s]the intent of our ordinance."(Tape 1,t Side A of 3/10/98 Hearing). SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:06 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;# 7/16 , Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 3 Despite the City Council's clear preference for collocated facilities as codified in the City's ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner pointed to Western Wireless' collocation efforts as a reason to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. In Finding 25, for example, the Hearing Examiner, after noting that Western Wireless has allowed for collocation on the proposed monopole, stated that the new antennas resulting from such collocation would"further interfer[e]with the view." The Hearing Examiner further stated that because Western Wireless' 100 foot monopole would allow collocating carriers to locate approximately 15 to 20 feet below the top of the tower, Western Wireless could (and implicitly should)have proposed an 85' monopole instead. Similarly, in Conclusion 28, the Hearing Examiner summarily states that Western • Wireless' proposal is not compatible with the proposed site, and suggests that other sites would be more appropriate. Significantly, the Hearing Examiner raises the question and speculates about whether"one or two more additional, but maybe overall shorter, arrays overcome possible disadvantages and provide better aesthetics?" (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 28). The flaw in this analysis, however, is that the Hearing Examiner is impermissibly penalizing Western Wireless for complying with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan implemented by the Renton City Council. By finding that collocation would result in "additional antennas" that would further interfere with views, and suggesting that Western Wireless should have proposed a shorter tower(which would not have allowed for collocation), the Hearing Examiner is engaging in policy analysis that has already been conducted by the City Council. Many collocation structures could be shorter if they only had to support one set of antennas, but the tradeoff; as the City Council recognized in its ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, would be a greater number of structures spread throughout the community. The Hearing Examiner may hold personal opinions about the aesthetic impacts of multiple antenna arrays on collocated sites and may feel that many 85' towers are visually more palatable than one 100' tower, but these policy decisions arc not his to make. The clearest example of the Hearing Examiner's disregard of the City Council's policy determinations in favor of collocation is in Conclusion 28, in which he suggests that he is reversing the Zoning Administrator because Western Wireless has not considered whether additional shorter arrays could have provided better aesthetics than the proposed single tower. As stated above,the City Council has already considered the issue of collocation, and has adopted an ordinance that states that one of its goals is to "minimize the total number of towers throughout the community." (RCC 4-38-1(A)(1)). For the Hearing Examiner to deny a permit because the applicant did not consider building additional shorter towers in violation of the stated goals of the City Code is a clear abuse of his discretion. Upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision in this case 1 would place future applicants such as Western Wireless in the untenable position of complying with the City's collocation requirements, only to have permits denied because they.did not propose multiple shorter towers. The City Council cannot allow this SENT BY:rIttSION GAMS &ELL I S ; 4-27-Uo ; ' 1 ( . rKCS•I ON, rLooK 4 '. ' • 4252352513;# 8/16 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 4 invasion of its legislative authority to continue, and must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly. B. The Hearing Examiner Ignored!the City Council's Goal of Siting Towers in Non-Residential Areas and Disregarded Substantial Evidence that There Will Be Little Visual Impact to the Surrounding Residential Properties. RCC 4-38-1(A)(1) states that one of the goals of the wireless communications facilities ordinance is to"encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas." To give teeth to this statutory purpose, RCC 4-38-11(B) expressly prohibits Monopole II Facilities3 in most residential zones, and RCC 4-38-11(C) and(D) prohibit Monopole II Facilities in most non-residential zones if located within 3300 feet from a residential zone. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit also specifically includes consideration of the "proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries." (RCC 4-3 8-14(B)(2)), Again in compliance with the City of Renton's statutory requirements and policy guidelines, Western Wireless specifically sited its tower in a manner that would have the least possible impact to residential neighborhoods. The proposed facility is to be located at a Shurgard Storage facility zoned Commercial Arterial (CA)that already contains roof- mounted wireless communications equipment. The proposed tower would be located more than approximately 330+ feet from the nearest residential use, which is a single family neighborhood in the City of Newcastle. After carefully reviewing the photosimulations depicting the view of the proposed monopole from nearly ten different perspectives°,the Zoning Administrator determined that"the photosimulations provided do not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these- areas. Residential areas to the east would have partially screened views of the lower portion of the facility due to the existing tree cover." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision; p. 8-9). Furthermore, the Zoning Administrator determined in his analysis of the"proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries" criterion of the Conditional Use Permit that the proposal is located in a commercial area at a commercial enterprise, and "meets or exceeds locational criteria in relation to residential neighborhoods," (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 6). Despite the Zoning Administrator's careful analysis of the photosimulations of the facility from all perspectives, the Hearing Examiner summarily concluded that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes."' 3 Western Wireless'proposal is a Monopole II Facility. RCC 4-38-11(A)defines"Monopole II"as"a wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure,sixty(60)feet or greater in height,erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances." 4 The photosimulations included perspectives from 1) from NE 48th/SE 76th looking south,2)from Lake Washington Blvd NE looking east,3)from just offsite looking to the SE corner of the site,4)from 1l 1th Place SE looking west, 5)from 112th Ave.SE looking SW,6)from I-405 near the northern city limits looking south,and 7)from Ripley Lane looking east. S The homes referred to throughout the Hearing Examiner's decision are the City of Newcastle residences located approximately 330' feet upslope from the Shurgard building. SENT BY;PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:08 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 42523525134, 9/16 , Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 5 (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 11). The Hearing Examiner continued on to suggest that the"impact on the single family uses further upslope" required modification of the 300 foot setback required by the City Council. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner argued that in this case "topography nullifies the [300 foot] setback . . . and is insufficient to buffer the use." (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). Because of his conclusion that the City Council was simply wrong in choosing 300 feet to buffer the impact of the tower on the neighboring Newcastle residential zone, the Hearing Examiner indicated that he would use his discretion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. In so doing, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors of law and fact. 1) The Hearing Examiner Impermissiblv Redefined Statutory Language. As with the City Council's policy on collocation, the Hearing Examiner ignored the straightforward dictates of the Renton City Code to implement new policy. RCC 4-- 38-11 (D) specifically states that Monopole II Facilities may be allowed with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit in a Commercial Arterial (CA)zone, but that iueh a facility is prohibited if located within three hundred feet of a residential zone.6 The Hearing Examiner was not free to read into RCC 4-38-11(D) alternative notions of when Monopole II Facilities are prohibited. The degree to which the Hearing Examiner felt free to reject the City Council's policy is apparent from Conclusion 18, in which he states that"it would seem that there are different ways of viewing 300 feet." The Hearing Examiner sought to justify his rewriting of policy by reasoning that because"in this case that separation [300 feet] will not serve the spirit of hiding or screening the monopole," he is free to use the Conditional Use Permit process as a means of denying the permit. The Hearing Examiner, however, does not have the authority to create new policy reinterpreting the meaning of the term "300 feet" to serve what he views as the "spirit of hiding or screening" underlying the City Council's wireless communications facilities ordinance. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner clearly has the discretion to analyze the application pursuant to the criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in RCC 4-38-14. He may not, however, abuse this discretion by imposing greater requirements than those explicitly set forth by the City Council in other sections of the Code. - 2) The Hearing Examiner's Conclusions Regarding Visual Impacts Are Not Supported by the Record. • Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Hearing Examiner has ignored the substantial evidence in the record that establishes that there will be very little visual 6 Western Wireless will leave aside for the purpose of this appeal the argument that the three hundred foot prohibition contained in 4-3 ti-1 I(D)only applies to property zoned residential in the City of Renton,and- that the Hearing Examiner's analysis appears to overlook the fact that all of the residential properties upslope from the proposed site are located in the City of Newcastle. , SENT BY;rKts'IUN GAItS erti.LIS _ ; 4-[/-ua ; to;uo , rKe Iu1N, CLVVK 47-' ciZOGJe7LolJ,rriu/ l0 Renton City Council ' April 27, 1998 Page 6 impact to the surrounding residential properties, and instead reaches the opposite conclusion with nothing in the record to support his position. Simply stated,there is no Finding in the Hearing Examiner's decision that supports his Conclusion 11 that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes" and Conclusion 18 that there will be "impact on the single family uses further upslope." Equally damaging to the Hearing Examiner's conclusion is the fact that thc record contains at least ten photosimulations from a variety of perspectives, including several that were specifically requested by the Environmental Review Committee, and that were relied upon by the Zoning Administrator to determine that the facility"do[es] not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these areas." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 8-9). Not only did the Hearing Examiner completely ignore the photosimulations in favor of his own conclusory, unsupported Conclusions, he also split hairs in finding that the photosimulations in the submittal were not taken from an affected residential property. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 17). The photosimulation taken from 1116 Place SE looking west was taken from the right of way immediately behind the Newcastle residential properties upslope from the Shurgard. As Jennifer Henning testified at the hearing,the City's policies are primarily intended to protect views of significant features such as Lake Washington and Mt. Rainier as seen from public areas, and do not protect the individual property rights of individuals. In addition, City staff and the applicants are restricted to taking photos from public viewpoints unless specifically requested by private property owners. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Upon cross examination from Mr. Anderson at the hearing, Martin Seel admitted he had not requested any photosimulations to be created from his property. Photosimulations from the right of way immediately adjoining the residential properties, therefore, provide adequate protection of the views sought to be preserved by the City's view preservation policies. The Hearing Examiner's decision to disregard the available photosimulations to make conclusory determinations on the impact to the Newcastle residents is a substantial error that must be reversed, 11. The Hearing Administrator Committed a Substantial Error of Fact By Relying Upon a Completely Unsubstantiated Property Value Opinion. In Finding 14,thc Hearing Examiner stated that the appellants presented'evidence that the monopole would cause residential property devaluation of approximately 5% to approximately 2%(if the tower were moved), and would have a smaller impact on possible office development on the Seeligs' property. The Hearing Examiner then went on to find in Finding 15 that the appraisals submitted by Western Wireless were "too far afield from-the current situation",and were therefore"quite irrelevant" in comparison to 'Mr.Anderson: At any time,did you ask Wcstcm Wireless or the City for.photosimulations from your site? Mr. Seelig: No. (Tape 1,Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). • SENT BY:PRESTON GATES RFIIIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:09 ; ' PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513:#11/16 . Renton City Council' April 27, 1998 Page 7 the Seeligs' testimony. Building entirely upon these Findings, the Hearing Examiner concluded the following: There will be a most certain diminution of property values. An appraiser provided sufficient evidence that there would be a loss of value to the appellants' property and that of their neighbors. Other studies do not refute that. Prime view properties and views of Lake Washington are definitely of value. (Dearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 24) The Hearing Examiner went on to conclude in Conclusion 25 that "it is recognized that interfering with the aesthetics has a negative or depressing impact on values." The Hearing Examiner reached this conclusion not through any • review of empirical data, but instead by asking himself the rhetorical question ",why . . . in most cases, does the City require screening of rooftop equipment?" `(Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 25). The answer, the Hearing Examiner concludes, is "clearly . . . because it is unsightly, because it diminishes the view of those forced to look over the site, and probably because it adversely • affects property value." Id. On the basis of these summary and speculative conclusions, the Hearing Administrator concluded that Western Wireless' proposal has too great an impact on a few neighboring property owners and reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision. Close analysis of the property analysis relied upon by the Hearing Examiner, however, reveals a document based entirely on speculative opinion and completely lacking in factual support. In relying upon such clearly deficient testimony and documentary evidence, and by ignoring relevant cross examination, the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of fact. - A. The Expert Relied Upon By the Hearing Examiner Never Prepared an Appraisal of the Subject Property.Never Consulted the Renton Zoning Code to Determine Relevant Development Standards for the Subject Property, Never Conducted Any Study on the Impact of Communication Facilities in the Past, and Admitted The Potential Redevelopment of the Shurrard Site That is Permitted Outright Could Block the Seeligs' View. In his testimony and in his March 9, 1998 letter(Exhibit 7)to his clients,the Seeligs, James Price admits that he did not prepare an appraisal of the Seeligs',property. In his testimony, he states that his process for preparing his analysis consisted of walking the site, taking photographs (included with his letter), and"trying to get a feel for how the view would be,affected." (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price did not obtain any comparables, did not review any appraisals on the subject of telecommunications ' facilities impacts on property values, and.did not conduct any other analysis to gauge the potential impact that the proposed tower would have on the'property. Instead, he simply SENT.BY:PRESTON GATES &FIIIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:0.9 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-' •4252352513;#12/16 • Renton City Council , April 27, 1998 Page8 reasoned that because"this is primarily a view property and the view would be affected significantly by a 3-foot-wide-tower with, initially, at least one antenna, the effect on the subject property would be substantial." (Exhibit 7, p. 1-2). With absolutely no explanation for how he reached his conclusion, he then summarily states that"in my opinion, the property value would be approximately 5% lower as a result of the monopole project." (Exhibit 7, p.2). On cross examination, Mr. Price admitted that he had never conducted an appraisal or otherwise studied the impact of communications facilities on nearby properties. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). He admitted that he had not reviewed the City of Renton development standards prior to conducting his analysis. (Tape I, Side • B'of 3/10/98 Hearing). After being informed that the.Renton City Council was discussing a potential moratorium on multi-family development in commercial zones that would prohibit the Seeligs from developing a residential site on the subject property, Mr. Price admitted that the proposed tower would have a smaller impact on office development, and would have no effect on retail development. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price also admitted upon cross examination from Ms. Henning that the potential for redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create"substantial blockage of the view." Taken in,its entirety, Mr. Price's testimony and letter to his clients cannot support the conclusory weight placed upon it by the Hearing Examiner. Although Mr. Price stated that he was an appraiser by profession, nothing in his testimony indicates that he used any of his technical skills to reach his conclusions. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Price did not even attempt to justify his assessment that property values would drop 5%as a result of the project. A summary opinion without any supporting data that property values would drop by 5% or 10% or would increase by 20% is not a competent appraisal. Anyone can assert an unsubstantiated opinion about the effect that such a facility would have on property values, but the Hearing Examiner is not free to consider it an expert opinion to serve as the basis for a denial of permit. B. The Hearing Examiner Committed Substantial Error By Dismissing Four Professional Appraisals That Provided Well Founded,Relevant Data on the ' Issue of Monopole impacts on Nearby Properties. • The Hearing Examiner's reliance on one man's unsubstantiated opinion is particularly egregious given his cursory treatment of four actual appraisals submitted by Western Wireless documenting the effect that monopoles have had on property values throughout the United States, including Seattle, (Exhibits 10-13). All four studies, totaling over one hundred double-sided pages, include evaluations based upon actual comparable sales data, and provide summaries of the addresses of the assessed properties, and the locations of the comparables relative:to the communications facility being studied. In dismissing the relevance of all four studies in one paragraph, the Hearing Examiner pointed out that some of the studies were conducted in other states,or that the topography in some was not similar to the present case, or that the types of facilities were << f SENT 13Y:t'KES'CON GATES KFI L I S ; 4-27-98 ; 15;10 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-' 4252352513;#,13/16 , Renton City Council' April 27, 1998 Page 9 not identical to the monopole proposed here. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 15). The Hearing Examiner ultimately concluded'that all four studies were "quite irrelevant" in comparison to Mr. Price's study, which was site specific. In choosing to dismiss all four of these studies in favor of Mr. Price's two page letter, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial error. While it may be true that site specific analysis is,generally preferable to non-site specific analysis, and it is always possible to point out differences between different properties, to completely dismiss over one hundred double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material as "irrelevant" is clearly erroneous, if not arbitrary and capricious conduct. This is so particularly in light of the fact that the analysis ultimately relied upon by the Hearing . :Examiner was two pages long and did not contain a single property comparison, or any other shred of numerical data to support its entirely summary conclusion. Of particular relevance to the present case is data contained in Exhibit 10, which analyzes the impact of a free standing monopole in Lake City at NE 125t Street and 28th Ave NE. it is difficult to understand why the Hearing Examiner would characterize an appraisal of the impacts of a monopole located in Seattle as"quite irrelevant." Mr. Price's response to cross examination regarding potential redevelopment of the Shurgard facility further highlights a critical point. On cross examination, in response to the question of whether the Seeligs' view over the Shurgard Building to Lake Washington is unobstructed,Mr. Price stated that the"view is limited until you get a little bit higher on the property because the buildings do block it to some extent." (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). During the same cross examination, Ms. Henning pointed out that current zoning allows the Shurgard site to develop to a 55 foot height with no additional review, and could exceed that height with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Price admitted that this potential redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create"substantial blockage of the view." The point to be made here is that the Seeligs' current views are not pristine and are already subject to"substantial blockage" that is permitted outright even in the absence of Western Wireless' proposal. As the record makcs clear, the Shurgard roof is already encumbered by approximately 15 antenna masts. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 10). The Seeligs' property is located in a commercial zone and is located next to a developed commercial area. it is too late for the Seeligs to claim rights to an unencumbered view of Lake Washington, and if the Seeligs wish to preserve the views that they currently have, they certainly are free to purchase a view easement_to do so. The Seeligs should not, however, be allowed to stop development in a commercial zone, particularly when the City's telecommunications ordinance specifically encourages the placement of collocatable towers in commercial areas. SENT; l5Y:rKES'lON GATES &ELL l S ; 4-27-58 ; 15;1 U ; rKts i oN, t'LOOK 45-' 4252352513.;#14/16 Renton City Counci April 27, 1998 Page 10 III. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Apple Wrong Standard of Review to the Zoning Administrator's Decision. A. The Hearing Examiner Did Not Review the Zoning Administrator's Decision According to the Standards of the Renton City Code. RCC 4-8-11(B)(4)states that in an appeal from an Administrative Conditional Use, the Ilearing Examiner may reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision if the decision was(a)in violation of constitutional provisions, (b) in excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency, (c)made upon unlawful procedure, (d) affected by other error • of law, (d) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted, or (e) arbitrary and capricious. As the Hearing Examiner indicated during the hearing, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). The Hearing Examiner's review, therefore, was not de novo, and it was not the Hearing Examiner's role to engage in a re-evaluation of the evidence and to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator. Instead, the burden in this case was upon the Seeligs to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. Conspicuously absent from the text of the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, is any finding or conclusion that the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or in any manner deficient! Indeed,the Hearing Examiner referenced the Zoning Administrator's decision only twice, and in both instances, these references are merely to support a conclusion made by the Hearing Examiner. Although the blearing Examiner's first two Conclusions indicated his awareness that his role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision on an arbitrary and capricious standard, the rest of the Hearing Examiner's decision constitutes a complete re-evaluation of the evidence presented, and an entirely new decision on the merits. The case cited by the Hearing Examiner defining the term "clearly erroneous," Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d.255 (1969), specifically points out the error of such de novo review when a "clearly erroneous" standard applies. The Ancheta court explains that"[courts] do not expect that the [reviewing body] will substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body . ... We expect that the [reviewing body] will give deference to the expertise of the administrative tribunal." Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 260. As indicated in Ancheta, the Hearing Examiner's failure to limit his role to review of the underlying decision, and instead to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator, is a substantial error of law that must be reversed by this City Council: Instead,the Hearing Examiner summarily stated that"the appellants have demonstrated that the decision should be reversed"and that"the appellants must prevail"without ever identifying how the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &FI LI S ; 4-27-98 ; 15:11 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;#.15/16• Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 11 B. The Hearing Examiner Erroneously Applied a De Novo Standard of Review. Close examination of the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions indicates that he erroneously engaged in a de novo review of the evidence. In Conclusion 4, the Hearing Examiner stated that"the appellants must prevail" because"the approval of the monopole [was] contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." As the Hearing Examiner frames the issue, the question is one of"balancing [the] various Comprehensive Plan policies." (Hearing Examiner Decision, Conclusion 26). In particular, the Hearing Examiner cites Renton's Comprehensive Plan Policy U-5, which "encourages appropriate siting , , . in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on • adjacent land uses;"Policy U-100, which "requires that cellular communications structures and towers sited in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts;" and Policy U-101, which requires such facilities to be"designed to diminish aesthetic impacts and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." In the Hearing Examiner's balancing of the issues, despite the fact that Western Wireless' proposal will allow for collocation, the monopole does not sufficiently minimize aesthetic and environmental impacts to be considered compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.. In making this determination, however, the Hearing Examiner has weighed the evidence de novo. In Conclusion 16, the Hearing Examiner summarily concludes that the proposal is "the 'coup de grace' [in] a virtual `crown of thorns', and in Conclusion 28 asks whether"a more careful alignment" might provide better aesthetics. Significantly, however, he totally fails to identify any error committed by the Zoning Administrator,who weighed the same evidence and came to the contrary conclusion. The Zoning Administrator considered correspondence from surrounding property owners who were concerned with the aesthetic impacts of the proposal, reviewed photosimulations of the proposal from several vantage points, including points of view specifically requested by the Environmental Review.Committee(Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8), and determined that the proposal was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Zoning Administrator noted that the proposal would allow for collocation of one or two more carriers, and therefore was specifically in compliance with Policy U-101. Although the Zoning Administrator's balancing of the Comprehensive Plan policies may have differed from that of the Hearing Examiner, it was not the Hearing Examiner's role, nor was it within his authority, to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator in the absence of a specific identification of clear error or arbitrary and capricious conduct. SENT. BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLI S ; 4-27-98 ; 15:11 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-' 4252352513;#16/16 i R • Renton City Council . April 27, 1998 Page 12 IV. Because the Hearing Examiner Committed Substantial Errors of Law and Fact. the City Council Should Reverse His_Decision and Reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 Decision Granting Western Wireless an Administrative Conditional Use Permit at 1755 NE 48th Street. For all of the reasons set forth above, Western Wireless respectfully requests the Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision, Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. • Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLY // r By William H. Chapman Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KM1N:dh • April 29,, 1998 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 29th day of April, 1998, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision..filed by William H. Chapman/Preston Gates 8s Ellis, representing Lisa Verner/Western Wireless (File No. CU-97-092; AAD-97-149.) • arilyn J. P t rsen, CMC, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 29th day of April 1998. 1)1kCJULtt 44 /r\-' Michele.Neumann Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in At-co-me,. Howard Seelig = Greg Anderson ' Jim Price Martin Seelig 3650 131st Avenue SE, #400 1980 112th Ave NE, #270 ,P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98006 Bellevue, WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98009 Jack Stevens Michael Magula Rick Wyatt 7711 111th Place SE - 7617 111th Place SE , 7728 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan Irwin , Sharon Ward Jennifer Henning. • 7701 111th Place SE 7714 111th Place SE Senior Planner • Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 City of Renton t - .' ' •, '- y 'e- , . ' ' . CIT :OF RENTON, . City Clerk • Jesse Tanner,'Mayor .. - Marilyn J:Petersen . April 29,,1998 _ • ' . , - APPEAL FILED BY: William H. Chapinan/Preston,Gates&Ellis; ` : • ' ' . • , • , Representative for Lisa Verner/Western"Wireless, , • ; ' RE , Appeal of Hearing.Examiner's decision 4/13/98 denying Conditional Use . Permit for installation of communication antennas at Shurgard,,- ' - • 1755 NE 48th St.,. , File No. CU-97-092 (AAD-97-149). , : . • To Parties.of Record: - • .. Pursuant to.Title IV, Chapter 8,.Rentori City Code of Ordinances,,written appeal of the' " - hearing examiner's decision on the Western Western.request for conditional use'permit', _ has been f led with the City Clerk.:. _ , In accordance with.Renton Municipal Code'Section 4-8=16.B.,within five days of receipt , • ' ' of the notice of appeal,the.city clerk,shall notify all'parties of record of the receipt_of the . . appeal'. . . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that*written appeals and:other pertinent documents' ' - will be reviewed.by:the;Council's Planning and:Development Committee. .The Council, - , - secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the'Planning and - Development Committee meeting. If you,'are not listed in local telephone directories and , wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 235-2586 for • information. The recommendation of the'Committee wil1"be presented for consideration , bythe full'Council at.a subsequent Council meeting. ._ . . Attached is a copy-of theRenton'Municipal Code'regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions`or;recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering`the.. • • merits of the appeal,based upon the written record previously established. Unless a ' ' ' . • , ` showing can be,made'that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available : • at the prior hearing held by,the hearing examiner,no further evidence or testimony,on this ' . - matter will be accepted.by the City Council: - , . , , ' Foradditional information or assistance,please feel free to call. ', , ,. • Sincerely, Marilyn 1terse n : ' - _ . City Clerk. Attachment. ; 200 Mill,Avenue South.-.Renton, Washington 98055.- (425)235-2501•/FAX(425)235-2513 .. , ' ' ' .. L: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ' City of Renton City Code Title IV - Building Chapter 8 - Hearing Examiner Section 16 - Appeal 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9- 13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could,not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-93) E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8- 10B or C, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C. H. In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended fmdings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc • Howard Seelig Greg Anderson Jim Price Martin Seelig 3650 131st Avenue SE, #400 1980 112th Ave NE, #270 P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98006 Bellevue, WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98009 Jack Stevens Michael Magula Rick Wyatt 7711 111th Place SE 7617 111th Place SE 7728 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan Irwin Sharon Ward Jennifer Henning 7701 111th Place SE 7714 111th Place SE Senior Planner Newcastle, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 City of Renton APPEAL RECEIVED HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENAM eIP cioxNCIL.. FILE NO. LUA97-149, AAD APPLICATION NAME: Western Wireless/Shurgard RENTON CITY COUNCIL The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 13, 1998 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): - Name: Lisa Verner/Western Wireless Name: William H: .Chapman/Preston Gates & Ellis Address: 3650 131st Ave SE #400 Address: 701 Fifth Ave #5000 Bellevue, WA 98006 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. •425-586-8823 Telephone No. 206-623-7580 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: . See Attached Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: • Correction: • OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation,if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Reinstatement of Zoning Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Administrator's 1/20/98 decision Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: - Other /‘e Aiite 2„, Z7 �sf� Appellant/Representative Signature DAte NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc City of Renton City Code Title N-Building Chapter 8'-Hearing Examiner Section 16,-Appeal , 4-8-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14)calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) A. The written notice of appeal shall fully,clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s)in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant • to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). • B. Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or'recommendation,findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal,and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82) D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party.offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council,and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1-25-93) • E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G. If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-1 OB or C,and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration,or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C. H. In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord: 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc - • p PRESTON GATES & ELLIS L L P ATTORNEYS April 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council: Please find enclosed Western Wireless' appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13,.1998 decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's grant of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 1755 NE 48th Street. As set forth in the enclosed appeal, the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact below and should therefore be reversed by the Renton City Council pursuant to Renton City Code 4-8-16(F). The project description and background are most clearly set forth in the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision, and in the project file attached as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing Examiner's decision. The critical facts are as follows: • Western Wireless is proposing to install a 100' tall wireless communications facility with 12 antennas and four equipment cabinets. The 100' height will allow future carriers to collocate on this facility. • The facility would be located at a Shurgard Storage on land zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). • No residentially zoned property is located within 300 feet of the proposed location. • The Shurgard Storage currently supports several rooftop antennas. These rooftop antennas support a different type of technology and are not sufficient to meet Western Wireless' engineering requirements. • . The original appellants to the Zoning Administrator's decision, Howard and Martin Seelig own the undeveloped parcel just east of the Shurgard property. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANCHORAGE • COEUR D'ALENE • HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES • ORANGE COUNTY • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON, D.C. 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7078 206-623-7580 Fx: 206-623-7022 www.prestongates.com Renton City Council ._ _' } April 27, 1998 Page 2 • The Seelig property is also zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). • To date,the City had not received any development proposal from the Seeligs for the Seelig property. The Hearing Examiner committed the following substantial errors of law and fact in reviewing the Zoning Administrator's decision: 1) The Hearing Examiner impermissibly substituted his policy preferences for the laws adopted by the City Council. In particular, the Hearing Examiner ignored the City Council's policies encouraging collocation of wireless communications facilities and the , siting of support structures in non-residential zones. 2) The Hearing Examiner disregarded over 100 double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material on the impact of wireless communications facilities on property values in favor of a two-page, completely unsubstantiated property value opinion from an appraiser with no experience on the subject who admitted that he had not conducted an appraisal of the subject property. 3) The Hearing Examiner applied the wrong standard of review by engaging in a de novo analysis of the Zoning Administrator's decision. In so doing, the Hearing Examiner ignored the law that states that on appeal, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight, and that the burden is on the original appellants (the Seeligs)to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. For the reasons set forth in the enclosed appeal, Western Wireless respectfully requests the Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's 4/13/98 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 decision. Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP /a(;•-• :. By William H. Chapman Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KMIN:dh PRESTON• GATES & ELLIS L L P ATTORNEYS April 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council: Western Wireless hereby appeals the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision overruling the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision to grant Western Wireless' application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 1755 NE 48th Street. As set forth below, the record reflects that the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact that require reversal of his decision pursuant to Renton City Code ("RCC") 4-8-16(F). The City Council should therefore reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly and reinstate the Zoning Administrator's original determination. I. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Impermissibly Substituting His Policy Preferences for the Laws Adopted by the City Council. In the City's Comprehensive Plan and new wireless communications ordinance (RCC 4-38),the Renton City Council codified a number of goals and guidelines for the siting of wireless communications facilities, including support structures,towers, and antennas. The Hearing Examiner's role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision to determine if it was consistent with the policies expressed in the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to disregard the City Council's carefully implemented policies and to substitute his own view of the necessary criteria for the siting of telecommunications facilities. Close review of the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, points out that this is exactly what has occurred. The Hearing Examiner's decision to implement new policy must be reversed. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANCHORAGE • COEUR D'ALENE • HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES • ORANGE COUNTY • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON, D.C. 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7078 206-623-7580 Fx: 206-623-7022 www.prestongates.com /- .` 1 Renton City Council.,_ v April 27, 1998 _ Page 2 A. The Hearing Examiner Abused His Discretion By Penalizing Western Wireless for Complying with the City Council's Preference for the Collocation of Wireless Communications Facilities. In RCC 4-38-1 "Purpose and Intent", the Renton City Council set forth the five goals of the its wireless communications ordinance. Significantly, two of these five goals relate to collocation.1 Goal 1 is to "minimize the total number of towers throughout the community," and Goal 2 is to "encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites." (RCC 4-38-1(A)). RCC 4-38-18 "Collocation" specifically requires providers to "cooperate with other WCF providers in collocating additional antennas on support, structures," and to "exercise good faith in collocating with other providers and sharing the permitted site." The preference for collocation expressed by the City Council in RCC 4-38 is also stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan at Policy U-101, which"require[s] that cellular communication structures and towers . . . be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." Moreover, the City's preference for collocation is specifically a factor in the criteria to be used in determining whether.a Conditional Use permit should be granted. Two of the criteria, the availability of suitable existing towers and other structures(RCC 4-38-14(9)) and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan(RCC 4-38-14(10))reinforce the City Council's strong policy determination to emphasize collocation. In compliance with these statutory requirements and policy statements on collocation, Western Wireless submitted a proposal for a monopole that allows for collocation. In its initial Proposal submitted to the City on July 3, 1997, Western Wireless expressly pointed out that"in conformance with the City of Renton Municipal Code and as a matter of corporate policy, Western Wireless uses support structures which are designed for the purpose of collocation by other carriers." (Exhibit 1). The proposed facility is capable of accommodating two additional carriers. The fact that Western Wireless was specifically complying with the City's collocation requirements by building a monopole that would allow for collocation was noted by the Zoning Administrator in his decision. In his analysis of the Conditional Use criteria, the Zoning Administrator noted twice that the design of the proposed facility would enable one or two additional purveyors to collocate without the necessity of constructing additional monopoles in the immediate vicinity in compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies for - - collocation.2 (Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8-9). 1 RCC 4-38-2 defines"collocation"as"the use of a single support structure and/or site by more than one wireless communications provider." 2 In her testimony before the Hearing Examiner,Jennifer Henning from the City of Renton Development Services explained that Western Wireless could not collocate with the existing antennas on the Shurgard roof because Western's technology required elevations approaching 100 feet. As the first purveyor of this technology on this site,Ms.Henning further explained,Western Wireless was required by the City to build a structure that would allow for collocation by future applicants. Ms.Henning pointed out that"there is tremendous demand for wireless communication facilities and we do have six or seven purveyors that have been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in this area." Allowing collocation of additional carriers on this site,Ms.Henning indicated"meet[s]the intent of our ordinance."(Tape 1, Side A of 3/10/98 Hearing). • I Renton City Counci._ April 27, 1998 Page 3 Despite the City Council's clear preference for collocated facilities as codified in the City's ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner pointed to Western Wireless' collocation efforts as a reason to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. In Finding 25, for example, the Hearing Examiner, after noting that Western Wireless has allowed for collocation on the proposed monopole, stated that the new antennas resulting from such collocation would "further interfer[e] with the view." The Hearing Examiner further stated that because Western Wireless' 100 foot monopole would allow collocating carriers to locate approximately 15 to 20 feet below the top of the tower, Western Wireless could (and implicitly should)have proposed an 85' monopole instead. Similarly, in Conclusion 28, the Hearing Examiner summarily states that Western Wireless' proposal is not compatible with the proposed site, and suggests that other sites would be more appropriate. Significantly, the Hearing Examiner raises the question and speculates about whether"one or two more additional, but maybe overall shorter, arrays overcome possible disadvantages and provide better aesthetics?" (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 28). The flaw in this analysis, however, is that the Hearing Examiner is impermissibly penalizing Western Wireless for complying with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan implemented by the Renton City Council. By finding that collocation would result in "additional antennas" that would further interfere with views, and suggesting that Western Wireless should have proposed a shorter tower(which would not have allowed for collocation),the Hearing Examiner is engaging in policy analysis that has already been conducted by the City Council. Many collocation structures could be shorter if they only had to support one set of antennas, but the tradeoff, as the City Council recognized in its ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, would be a greater number of structures spread throughout the community. The Hearing Examiner may hold personal opinions about the aesthetic impacts of multiple antenna arrays on collocated sites and may feel that many 85' towers are visually more palatable than one 100' tower, but these policy decisions are not his to make. The clearest example of the Hearing Examiner's disregard of the City Council's policy determinations in favor of collocation is in Conclusion 28, in which he suggests that he is reversing the Zoning Administrator because Western Wireless has not considered whether additional shorter arrays could have provided better aesthetics than the proposed single tower. As stated above, the City Council has already considered the issue of collocation, and has adopted an ordinance that states that one of its goals is to "minimize the total number of towers throughout the community." (RCC 4-38-1(A)(1)). For the Hearing Examiner to deny a permit because the applicant did not consider building additional shorter towers in violation of the stated goals of the City Code is a clear abuse of his discretion. Upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision in this case would place future applicants such as Western Wireless in the untenable position of complying with the City's collocation requirements, only to have permits denied because they did not propose multiple shorter towers. The City Council cannot allow this Renton City Counci]',,,. ) April 27, 1998 Page 4 invasion of its legislative authority to continue, and must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly. B. The Hearing Examiner Ignored the City Council's Goal of Siting Towers in Non-Residential Areas and Disregarded Substantial Evidence that There Will Be Little Visual Impact to the Surrounding Residential Properties. RCC 4-38-1(A)(1) states that one of the goals of the wireless communications facilities ordinance is to "encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas." To give teeth to this statutory purpose, RCC 4-38-11(B) expressly prohibits Monopole II Facilities3 in most residential zones, and RCC 4-38-11(C) and (D) prohibit Monopole II Facilities in most non-residential zones if located within 300 feet from a residential zone. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit also specifically includes consideration of the "proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries." (RCC 4-38-14(B)(2)). Again in compliance with the City of Renton's statutory requirements and policy guidelines, Western Wireless specifically sited its tower in a manner that would have the least possible impact to residential neighborhoods. The proposed facility is to be located at a Shurgard Storage facility zoned Commercial Arterial (CA)that already contains roof-, mounted wireless communications equipment. The proposed tower would be located more than approximately 330+feet from the nearest residential use, which is a single family neighborhood in the City of Newcastle. After carefully reviewing the photosimulations depicting the view of the proposed monopole from nearly ten different perspectives'', the Zoning Administrator determined that"the photosimulations provided do not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these areas. Residential areas to the east would have partially screened views of the lower portion of the facility due to the existing tree cover." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 8-9). Furthermore, the Zoning Administrator determined in his analysis of the"proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries" criterion of the Conditional Use Permit that the proposal is located in a commercial area at a commercial enterprise, and "meets or exceeds locational criteria in relation to residential neighborhoods." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 6). Despite the Zoning Administrator's careful analysis of the photosimulations of the facility from all perspectives, the-Hearing Examiner summarily concluded that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice,single family homes."5 3 Western Wireless'proposal is a Monopole II Facility. RCC 4-38-11(A)defines"Monopole II"as"a wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure,sixty(60)feet or greater in height,erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances." 4 The photosimulations included perspectives from 1)from NE 48th/SE 76th looking south,2)from Lake Washington Blvd NE looking east,3)from just offsite looking to the SE corner of the site,4)from 111th Place SE looking west, 5)from 1126 Ave SE looking SW,6)from 1-405 near the northern city limits looking south,and 7)from Ripley Lane looking east. 5 The homes referred to throughout the Hearing Examiner's decision are the City of Newcastle residences located approximately 330'feet upslope from the Shurgard building. • Renton City Councilt_ April 27, 1998 Page 5 (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 11). The Hearing Examiner continued on to suggest that the"impact on the single family uses further upslope" required modification of the 300 foot setback required by the City Council. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner argued that in this case "topography nullifies the [300 foot] setback . . . and is insufficient to buffer the use." (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). Because of his conclusion that the City Council was simply wrong in choosing 300 feet to buffer the impact of the tower on the neighboring Newcastle residential zone, the Hearing Examiner indicated that he would use his discretion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. In so doing, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors of law and fact. 1) The Hearing Examiner Impermissibly Redefined Statutory Language. As with the City Council's policy on collocation, the Hearing Examiner ignored the straightforward dictates of the Renton City Code to implement new policy. RCC 4- 38-11 (D) specifically states that Monopole II Facilities may be allowed with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit in a Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, but that such a facility is prohibited if located within three hundred feet of a residential zone.6 The Hearing Examiner was not free to read into RCC 4-38-1,1(D) alternative notions of ,when Monopole II Facilities are prohibited. The degree to which the.Hearing Examiner felt free to reject the City Council's policy is apparent from Conclusion 18, in which he states that"it would seem that there are different ways of viewing 300 feet." The Hearing Examiner sought to justify his rewriting of policy by reasoning that because "in this case that separation [300 feet] will not serve the spirit of hiding or screening the monopole," he is free to use the Conditional Use Permit process as a means of denying the permit. The Hearing Examiner, however, does not have the authority to create new policy reinterpreting the meaning of the term "300 feet" to serve what he views as the "spirit of hiding or screening"underlying the City Council's wireless communications facilities ordinance. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner clearly has the discretion to analyze the application pursuant to the criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in RCC 4-38-14. ,He may not, however, abuse this discretion by imposing greater requirements than those explicitly set forth by the City Council in other sections of the Code. 2) The Hearing Examiner's Conclusions Regarding Visual Impacts Are Not Supported by the Record. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Hearing Examiner has ignored the substantial evidence in the record that establishes that there will be very little visual 6 Western Wireless will leave aside for the purpose of this appeal the argument that the three hundred foot prohibition contained in 4-38-11(D)only applies to property zoned residential in the City of Renton,and that the Hearing Examiner's analysis appears to overlook the fact that all of the residential properties upslope from the proposed site are located in the City of Newcastle. Renton City Councils—' April 27, 1998 Page 6 impact to the surrounding residential properties, and instead reaches the opposite conclusion with nothing in the record to support his position. Simply stated, there is no Finding in the Hearing Examiner's decision that supports his Conclusion 11 that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes" and Conclusion 18 that there will be "impact on the single family uses further upslope." Equally damaging to the Hearing Examiner's conclusion is the fact that the record contains at least ten photosimulations from a variety of perspectives, including several that were specifically requested by the Environmental Review Committee, and that were relied upon by the Zoning Administrator to determine that the facility "do[es] not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these areas." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 8-9). Not only did the Hearing Examiner completely ignore the photosimulations in favor of his own conclusory, unsupported Conclusions, he also split hairs in finding that the photosimulations in the submittal were not taken from an affected residential property. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 17). The photosimulation taken from 111th Place SE looking west was taken from the right of way immediately behind the Newcastle residential properties upslope from the Shurgard. As Jennifer Henning testified at the hearing, the City's policies are primarily intended to protect views of significant features such as Lake Washington and Mt. Rainier as seen from public areas, and do not protect the individual property rights of individuals. In addition, City staff and the applicants are restricted to taking photos from public viewpoints unless specifically requested by private property owners. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Upon cross examination from Mr. Anderson at the hearing, Martin Seeli_g admitted he had not requested any photosimulations to be created from his property. Photosimulations from the right of way immediately adjoining the residential properties, therefore, provide adequate protection of the views sought to be preserved by the City's view preservation policies. The Hearing Examiner's decision to disregard the available photosimulations to make conclusory determinations on the impact to the Newcastle residents is a substantial error that must be reversed. II. The Hearing Administrator Committed a Substantial Error of Fact By Relying Upon a Completely Unsubstantiated Property Value Opinion. In Finding 14, the Hearing Examiner stated that the appellants presented evidence that the monopole would cause residential property devaluation of approximately 5% to approximately 2% (if the tower were moved), and would have a smaller impact on possible office development on the Seeligs' property. The Hearing Examiner then went on to find in Finding 15 that the appraisals submitted by Western Wireless were "too far afield from the current situation" and were therefore "quite irrelevant" in comparison to Mr.Anderson: At any time,did you ask Western Wireless or the City for photosimulations from your site? Mr. Seelig: No. (Tape 1,Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Renton City Council,._ April 27, 1998 Page 7 the Seeligs' testimony. Building entirely upon these Findings, the Hearing Examiner concluded the following: There will be a most certain diminution of property values. An appraiser provided sufficient evidence that there would be a loss of value to the appellants' property and that of their neighbors. Other studies do not refute that. Prime view properties and views of Lake Washington are definitely of value. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 24) The Hearing Examiner went on to conclude in Conclusion 25 that"it is recognized that interfering with the aesthetics has a negative or depressing impact on values." The Hearing Examiner reached this conclusion not through any review of empirical data, but instead by asking himself the rhetorical question "why . . . in most cases, does the City require screening of rooftop equipment?" (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 25). The answer, the Hearing Examiner concludes, is "clearly . . . because it is unsightly, because it diminishes the view of those forced to look over the site, and probably because it adversely affects property value." Id. On the basis of these summary and speculative conclusions, the Hearing Administrator concluded that Western Wireless' proposal has too great an impact on a few neighboring property owners and reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision. Close analysis of the property analysis relied upon by the Hearing Examiner,,however, reveals a document based entirely on speculative opinion and completely lacking in factual support. In relying upon such clearly deficient testimony and documentary evidence, and by ignoring relevant cross examination, the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of fact. A. The Expert Relied Upon By the Hearing Examiner Never Prepared an Appraisal of the Subject Property, Never Consulted the Renton Zoning Code to Determine Relevant Development Standards for the Subject Property, Never Conducted Any Study on the Impact of Communication Facilities in the Past, and Admitted The Potential Redevelopment of the Shurgard Site That is Permitted Outright Could Block the Seeligs' View. In his testimony and in his March 9, 1998 letter(Exhibit 7)to his clients, the Seeligs, James Price admits that he did not prepare an appraisal of the Seeligs' property. In his testimony, he states that his process for preparing his analysis consisted of walking the site, taking photographs (included with his letter), and"trying to get a feel for how the view would be affected." (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price did not obtain any comparables, did not review any appraisals on the subject of telecommunications facilities impacts on property values, and did not conduct any other analysis to gauge the potential impact that the proposed tower would have on the property. Instead, he simply • Renton City Council',__,% April 27, 1998 Page 8 _ reasoned that because "this is primarily a view property and the view would be affected significantly by a 3-foot-wide-tower with, initially, at least one antenna, the effect on the subject property would be substantial." (Exhibit 7, p. 1-2). With absolutely no, explanation for how he reached his conclusion, he then summarily states that"in my opinion, the property value would be approximately 5% lower as a result of the monopole project." (Exhibit 7, p.2). On cross examination, Mr.. Price admitted that he had never conducted an appraisal or otherwise studied the impact of communications facilities on nearby properties. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). He admitted that he had not reviewed the City of Renton development standards prior to conducting his analysis. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). After being informed that the Renton City Council was discussing a potential moratorium on multi-family development in commercial zones that would prohibit the Seeligs from developing a residential site on the subject property, Mr. Price admitted that the proposed tower would have a smaller impact on office development, and would have no effect on retail development. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price also admitted upon cross examination from Ms. Henning that the potential for redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create"substantial blockage of, the view." Taken in its entirety, Mr. Price's testimony and letter to his clients cannot support the conclusory weight placed upon it by the Hearing Examiner. Although'Mr. Price stated that he was an appraiser by profession, nothing in his testimony indicates that he used any of his technical skills to reach his conclusions.. The simple fact of the matter is. that Mr. Price did not even attempt to justify his assessment that property values would drop 5% as a result of the project. A summary opinion without any supporting data that property values would drop by 5%or 10% or would increase by 20% is not a competent appraisal. Anyone can assert an unsubstantiated opinion about the effect that such a facility would have on property values, but the Hearing Examiner is not free to consider it an expert opinion to serve as the basis for a denial of permit. B. The Hearing Examiner Committed Substantial Error By Dismissing Four Professional Appraisals That Provided Well Founded, Relevant Data on the Issue of Monopole Impacts on Nearby Properties. The Hearing Examiner's reliance on one man's unsubstantiated opinion is particularly egregious given his cursory treatment of four actual appraisals submitted by Western Wireless documenting the effect that monopoles have had on property values throughout the United States, including Seattle. (Exhibits 10-13). All four studies, totaling over one hundred double-sided pages, include evaluations based upon actual comparable sales data, and provide summaries of the addresses of the assessed properties, and the locations of the comparables relative to the communications facility being studied. In dismissing the relevance of all four studies in one paragraph, the Hearing Examiner pointed out that some of the studies were conducted in other states, or that the topography in some was not similar to the present case, or that the types of facilities were • Renton City CouncilL April 27, 1998 Page 9 not identical to the monopole proposed here. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 15). The Hearing Examiner ultimately concluded that all four studies were "quite irrelevant" in comparison to Mr. Price's study, which was site specific. In choosing to dismiss all four of these studies in favor of Mr. Price's two page letter, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial error. While it may be true that site specific analysis is generally preferable to non-site specific analysis, and it is always , • possible to point out differences between different properties, to completely dismiss over one hundred double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material as "irrelevant" is clearly erroneous, if not arbitrary and capricious conduct. This is so particularly in light of the fact that the analysis ultimately relied upon by the Hearing Examiner was two pages long and did not contain a single property comparison, or any other shred of numerical data to support its entirely summary conclusion. Of particular relevance to the present case is data contained in Exhibit 10, which analyzes the impact of a free standing monopole in Lake City at NE 125th Street and 28th Ave NE. It is difficult to understand why the Hearing Examiner would characterize an appraisal of the impacts of a monopole located in Seattle as"quite irrelevant." Mr. Price's response to cross examination regarding potential redevelopment of the Shurgard facility further highlights a critical point. On cross examination, in response to the question of whether the Seeligs' view over the Shurgard Building to Lake Washington is unobstructed,Mr. Price stated that the"view is limited-until you get'a little bit higher on the property because the buildings do block it to some extent." (Tape.1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). During the same cross examination,Ms. Henning pointed out that current zoning allows the Shurgard site to develop to a 55 foot height with no additional review, and could exceed that height with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Price admitted that this potential redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create"substantial blockage of the view." The point to be made here is that the Seeligs' current views are not pristine and are already subject to "substantial blockage" that is permitted outright even in the absence of Western Wireless' proposal. As the record makes clear, the Shurgard roof is already encumbered by approximately 15 antenna masts. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 10). The Seeligs' property is located in a commercial zone and is located next to a developed commercial area. It is too late for the • Seeligs to claim rights to an unencumbered view of Lake Washington, and if the Seeligs wish to preserve the views that they currently have, they certainly are free to purchase a view easement to do so. The Seeligs should not, however, be allowed to stop development in a commercial zone, particularly when the City's telecommunications ' ordinance specifically encourages the placement of collocatable towers in commercial areas. Renton City Counci April 27, 1998 Page 10 III. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Applying the Wrong Standard of Review to the Zoning Administrator's Decision. A. The Hearing Examiner Did Not Review the Zoning Administrator's Decision According to the Standards of the Renton City Code. RCC 4-8-11(B)(4) states that in an appeal from an Administrative Conditional Use, the Hearing Examiner may reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision if the decision was (a)in violation of constitutional provisions, (b) in excess of the authority or • jurisdiction of the agency, (c) made upon unlawful procedure, (d).affected by other error of law, (d) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted, or(e) arbitrary and capricious. As the Hearing Examiner'indicated during the hearing, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). The Hearing Examiner's review, therefore, was not de novo, and it was.not the Hearing Examiner's role to engage in a re-evaluation of the:evidence and.to.substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator. Instead, the burden in this case was upon the Seeligs to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. Conspicuously absent from the text of.the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, is any finding or conclusion that the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or in any manner. deficient.8 Indeed;the Hearing Examiner referenced the Zoning Administrator's decision only twice, and in both instances, these references are merely to support a conclusion made by the Hearing Examiner. Although the Hearing Examiner's first two Conclusions indicated his awareness that his role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision on an arbitrary and capricious standard, the rest of the Hearing Examiner's decision constitutes a complete re-evaluation of the evidence presented, and an entirely new decision on the merits. The case cited by the Hearing Examiner defining the term"clearly erroneous," Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255 (1969), specifically points out the error of such.de novo review when a"clearly erroneous" standard applies. The Ancheta court explains that"[courts] do not expect that the [reviewing body] will substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body . . . We expect that the [reviewing body] will give deference to the expertise of the administrative tribunal." Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 260. As indicated in Ancheta,the Hearing Examiner's failure to limit his role to review of the underlying decision, and instead to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator, is a substantial error of law that must be reversed by this City Council. 8 Instead,the Hearing Examiner summarily stated that"the appellants have demonstrated that the decision should be reversed"and that"the appellants must prevail"without ever identifying how the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. • Renton City Council-- - April 27, 1998 Page 11 B. The Hearing Examiner Erroneously Applied a De Novo Standard of Review. Close examination of the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions indicates that he erroneously engaged in a de novo review of the evidence. In Conclusion 4, the Hearing Examiner stated that"the appellants must prevail" because"the approval of the monopole [was] contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." As the Hearing Examiner frames the issue, the question is one of"balancing [the] various _ Comprehensive Plan.policies." (Hearing Examiner Decision, Conclusion 26). In particular,the Hearing Examiner cites Renton's Comprehensive Plan Policy U-5, which "encourages appropriate siting . . . in a manner that reasonably,minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses;" Policy U-100, which "requires that cellular communications structures and towers sited in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts;" • and Policy U-101, which requires such facilities to be"designed to diminish aesthetic impacts and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." In the Hearing Examiner's balancing of the issues, despite the fact that Western Wireless' proposal will allow for collocation, the monopole does not sufficiently minimize aesthetic and environmental impacts to be considered compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In making this determination, however, the Hearing Examiner has weighed the evidence de novo. In Conclusion 16, the Hearing Examiner summarily concludes that the proposal is "the 'coup de grace' [in] a virtual `crown of thorns', and in Conclusion 28 asks whether"a more careful alignment" might provide better aesthetics. Significantly, however, he totally fails to identify any error committed by the Zoning Administrator,who weighed the same evidence and came to the contrary conclusion. The Zoning Administrator considered correspondence'from surrounding property owners who were concerned with the aesthetic impacts of the proposal, reviewed photosimulations of the proposal from several vantage points, including points of view specifically requested by the Environmental Review Committee(Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8), and determined that the proposal was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular,the Zoning Administrator noted that the proposal would allow for collocation of one or two more carriers, and therefore was specifically in compliance with Policy U-101. Although the Zoning Administrator's balancing of the Comprehensive Plan policies may have differed from that of the Hearing Examiner, it was not the Hearing Examiner's role, nor was it within his authority,to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator in the absence of a specific identification of clear error or arbitrary and capricious conduct. Renton City CouncL - - April27, 1998 Page 12 IV. Because the Hearing Examiner Committed Substantial Errors of Law and Fact, the City Council Should Reverse His Decision and Reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 Decision Granting Western Wireless an Administrative Conditional Use Permit at 1755 NE 48th Street. For all of the reasons set forth above, Western Wireless respectfully requests the Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision. Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP By /. (" Pt t "): William H. Chapman Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KMIN:dh JL'IYI DI•LALJIVIN UHILJ GELLL1J , 'f-Gl-0o , 10•u4 ; CKC3I1J1N, CLUUK 4J-I 4GOZObn.1.0;* 1/l0 • - 1 1 i It II• • PRESTON GATES & ELLIS T, LP ATTnaNEYS CITY OFRENTON FAX COVER SHEET APR 2 71998 RECEIVED April 27, 1998 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (Dale) To: Michele Neumann From: Kollin K. Min (Individual) No. of Pages: 16 City of Renton Clerk's Office (Including Cover Page) (Company) Re: # 37926-00001 425-235-2513 f1'alocopy No.) 425-235-2581 (Confirmation No.) ' If you do not receive all of the pages,please contact: Telecopy operator: X Name: Darcy Hansen Ext.: 5536 COMMENTS: Michele— As we discussed this morning, please find enclosed Western Wireless' appeal from the Renton Hearing Examiner's April "13, 1998 decision, File Number LUA 97-149, AAD. This facsimile includes 1)the completed Renton appeal form that you faxed to me last week, 2) a two page Executive Summary of the appeal, and 3)the appeal itself. As you will recall, I delivered the filing fee to you last Thursday, April 23, 1998. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206-623-7580. Thanks once again for all of your help in this matter. • C:IDDWMNEUMANN.DOC • • The information contained in this facsitnile is confidential and may also be attorney-privileged. The information is intended only Liu the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient.,you arc hereby notified that any usc,dissemination,distribution or copying of this conununication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the 14:simile in error,please immediately notify us by a collect telephone call to(206)623-7580,and return the original message to us via the U.S.Postal Service. Thank you. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTiehgunlp INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANalroanas • COCUR D'Ai.KNE • Los ANQIILRR • YORrLAND • SRATTLE • S '' KANIi • IIONCI KONG • WASHINGTON. D,C, 701 rIr'Tn AveNUh SUITS 5000 C+r.ATrLL:, WASErINOTON 95104-7078 206-623-7580 FX: 206-623-7022 www.prestongates.com JCIVI DI •rICCJ1U1V UAICJ 6£CLLI3 7 '.} Zt aC) i AD'U4 i riCJIUN, rLUUK '+ - 4.-GOZOZDl0; L/lb • APPEAL • HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA97-149, AAD . APPLICATION NAME: Western Wire less/Shur gard The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated April 19, 1998 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: Lisa Verner/Western Wireless Nye: William H. Chapman/Preston Gates & Ellis Address: 3650 131st Ave SE #400 Address: 701 Fifth Ave #5000 Bellevue, WA 98006 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. 425—5 86-88 23 Telephone No. 206--6 23-7 5 80 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS(Attacks additional sheets_if necessarv) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: • FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: • See Attached Correction: • • CONCLUSIONS; No. Error: • • Correction: • OTHER: • No. Error. • Correction: • • 3_ SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief (Attach explanation,if desired) • x Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief_ 'Reinstatement of Zoning Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Administrator s 1/20/98 decision Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: . Other xe4. et7., Appellant/Representative Signature te NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Cale,and Section 4-8-16,for specific procedures. heappeal.doc JCN 1 157 ;rKCJ 1 uN GA 1 CJ &ILL 1 J ; 4—L!—iti ; 15;U5 ; rums WIN h'LOOK 40-1 4252;i52513;# 3/16 11 I1 PRESTON GATES & E 1. I. 1 S LLP ATTORNEYS April 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council: Please find enclosed Western Wireless' appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's grant of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 1755 NE 4861 Street As set forth in the enclosed appeal, the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact below and should therefore be reversed by the Renton City Council pursuant to Renton City Code 4-8-16(F)_ The project description and background are most clearly set forth in the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision, and in the project file attached as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing Examiner's decision. The critical facts are as follows: • Western Wireless is proposing to install a 100' tall wireless communications facility with 12 antennas and four equipment cabinets. The 100' height will allow future carriers to collocate on this facility. • The facility would be located at a Shurgard Storage on land zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). • No residentially zoned property is located within 300 feet of the proposed location. • The Shurgard Storage currently supports several rooftop antennas. These rooftop antennas support a different type of technology and are not sufficient to meet Western Wireless' engineering requirements. • The original appellants to the Zoning Administrator's decision, Howard and Martin Seelig own the undeveloped parcel just east of the Shurgard property. A PAIATro:k$Ile INI'I.fli INC OTFIP.R LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANCHOJIAGL • COLUIC WALLNL • HMO KUNII • LOS ANoI!LI. • ORANCiU COUNTY • POKULANU • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SPOKANI • WASIIIWITON, I).f;. 701 FIFTH AVENUE Sum 5000 SEArrl.l, WASHI"NC+TON 98 104-7078 206-623-75H0 FX: 206-623-7022 www.prestongatcs.com StN'I I$T;rKtS'I ON (JA'I LS &CLLL I S ; I-L/-`Jti ; 10-U0 ; r'KLJ I UN, rLOUK w-' Liz0z 0z010,}F '-1/10 • Renton City Council April27, 1998 Page 2 • The Seelig property is also zoned Commercial Arterial(CA). • To date,the City had not received any development proposal from the Seeligs for the Seelig property. The Hearing Examiner committed the following substantial errors of law and fact in reviewing the Zoning Administrator's decision: 1) The Hearing Examiner impermissibly substituted his policy preferences for the laws adopted by the City Council. In particular, the Hearing Examiner ignored the City Council's policies encouraging collocation of wireless communications facilities and the siting of support structures in non-residential zones. 2) The Hearing Examiner disregarded over 100 double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material on the impact of wireless communications facilities on property values in favor of a two-page, completely unsubstantiated property value opinion from an appraiser with no experience on the subject who admitted that he had not conducted an appraisal of the subject property. 3) The Hearing Examiner applied the wrong standard of review by engaging in a de novo analysis of the Zoning Administrator's decision. In so doing, the Hearing Examiner ignored the law that states that on appeal, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight, and that the burden is on the original appellants(the Seeligs)to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. For the reasons set forth in the enclosed appeal, Western Wireless respectfully requests the Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's 4/13/98 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 decision. Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. Thankyou for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP By William H. Chapman Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KMIN:dh SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:05 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-1 4252352513;# 5/16 l�fiL PRESTON GAT ► S & ELLIS LLP ATTORNEY 5 April27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council: Western Wireless hereby appeals the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision overruling the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision to grant Western Wireless' application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for installation of a monopole at the Shurgard Storage located at 1755 NE 48th Street. As set forth below, the record reflects that the Hearing Examiner committed several substantial errors of law and fact that require reversal of his decision pursuant to Renton City Code ("RCC")4-8-16(F). The City Council should therefore reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly and reinstate the Zoning Administrator's original determination. I. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Impermissibly Substituting His Policy Preferences for the Laws Adopted by the City Council. In the City's Comprehensive Plan and new wireless communications ordinance (RCC 4-38),the Renton City Council codified a number of goals and guidelines for the siting of wireless communications facilities, including support structures,towers, and antennas. The Hearing Examiner's role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision to determine if it was consistent with the policies expressed in the City Code and Comprehensive Plan, The Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to disregard the City Council's carefully implemented policies and to substitute his own view of the necessary criteria for the siting of telecommunications facilities. Close review of the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, points out that this is exactly what has occurred. The Hearing Examiner's decision to implement new policy must be reversed. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES ANCHORAGE • COL'Uk D'AI.IuNR • HUNG KGNii • 1,0 AN[IHI.F.' • ORANUR COUNTY • POKTLANIW • SAN 1'RANCISCO • SEATIl.N - SI•GKANM • W ANHINIIT(IN, 701 FIFTH AVFNIIN ,SI.II'l'li 5000 SI:ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7078 206.623-7580 NX: 206-623-7022 www.prestongares.com 3CI111 OT .MCC31UN &CLLIJ i 4-2/-`ib ; 10.UO i r'Kr iO1N, t'LOOK 4r 42bZiib2bl0i$ b/lb • Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 2 A. The Hearing Examiner Abused His Discretion By Penalizing Western Wireless for Complying with the City Council's Preference for the Collocation of Wireless Communications Facilities. In RCC 4-38-1 "Purpose and Intent", the Renton City Council set forth the five goals of the its wireless communications ordinance. Significantly, two of these five goals relate to collocation.' Goal 1 is to "minimize the total number of towers throughout the community," and Goal 2 is to"encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites." (RCC 4-38-1(A)). RCC 4-38-18 "Collocation" specifically requires providers to "cooperate with other WCF providers in collocating additional antennas on support structures," and to "exercise good faith in collocating with other providers and sharing the permitted site." The preference for collocation expressed by the City Council in RCC 4-38 is also stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan at Policy U-101, which "require[s] that cellular communication structures and towers . . . be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." Moreover, the City's preference for collocation is specifically a factor in the criteria to be used in determining whether a Conditional Use permit should be granted. Two of the criteria, the availability of suitable existing towers and other structures(RCC 4-38-14(9)) and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan(RCC 4-38-14(10))reinforce the City Council's strong policy determination to emphasize collocation. In compliance with these statutory requirements and policy statements on collocation,'Western Wireless submitted a proposal for a monopole that allows for collocation. In its initial Proposal submitted to the City on July 3, 1997,Western Wireless expressly pointed out that"in conformance with the City of Renton Municipal Code and as a matter of corporate policy, Western Wireless uses support structures which are designed for the purpose of collocation by other carriers." (Exhibit 1). The proposed facility is capable of accommodating two additional carriers. The fact that Western Wireless was specifically complying with the City's collocation requirements by building a monopole that would allow for collocation was noted by the Zoning Administrator in his decision. In his analysis of the Conditional Use criteria, the Zoning Administrator noted twice that the design of the proposed facility would enable one or two additional purveyors to collocate without the necessity of constructing additional monopoles in the immediate vicinity in compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies for collocation.2 (Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8-9). 1 RCC 4-38-2 defines"collocation"as"the use of a single support structure and/or site by more than one wireless communications prcrvider." 2 In her testimony before the Hearing Examiner,Jennifer Henning from the City of Renton Development Services explained that Western Wireless could not collocate with the existing antennas on the Shurgard roof because Western's technology required elevations approaching 100 feet. As the first purveyor of this technology on this site,Ms.Henning further explained, Western Wireless was required by the City to build a structure that would allow for collocation by future applicants. Ms.Henning pointed out that"there is tremendous demand for wireless communication facilities and we do have six or seven purveyors that have been Iicensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in this area." Allowing collocation of additional carriers on this site,Ms.Henning indicated"meet[s] the intent of our ordinance."(Tape 1, Side A of 3/10/98 Hearing). St;N I 15T:rKtSTUN GATES &ELL I S ; 4-27-98 ; 15:06 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-) 4252352513;# 7/16 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 3 Despite the City Council's clear preference for collocated facilities as codified in the City's ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner pointed to Western Wireless' collocation efforts as a reason to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. In Finding 25, for example, the Hearing Examiner, after noting that Western Wireless has allowed for collocation on the proposed monopole, stated that the new antennas resulting from such collocation would "further interfer[ej with the view." The Hearing Examiner further stated that because Western Wireless' 100 foot monopole would allow collocating carriers to locate approximately 15 to 20 feet below the top of the tower, Western Wireless could (and implicitly should)have proposed an 85' monopole instead. Similarly, in Conclusion 28, the Hearing Examiner summarily states that Western Wireless' proposal is not compatible with the proposed site, and suggests that other sites would be more appropriate. Significantly, the Hearing Examiner raises the question and speculates about whether"one or two more additional, but maybe overall shorter, arrays overcome possible disadvantages and provide better aesthetics?" (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 28). The flaw in this analysis, however, is that the Hearing Examiner is impermissibly penalizing Western Wireless for complying with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan implemented by the Renton City Council. By finding that collocation would result in "additional antennas"that would further interfere with views, and suggesting that Western Wireless should have proposed a shorter tower(which would not have allowed for collocation), the Hearing Examiner is engaging in policy analysis that has already been conducted by the City Council. Many collocation structures could be shorter if they only had to support one set of antennas, but the tradeoff, as the City Council recognized in its ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, would be a greater number of structures spread throughout the community. The Hearing Examiner may hold personal opinions about the aesthetic impacts of multiple antenna arrays on collocated sites and may feel that many 85' towers are visually more palatable than one 100' tower, but these policy decisions arc not his to make. The clearest example of the Hearing Examiner's disregard of the City Council's policy determinations in favor of collocation is in Conclusion 28, in which he suggests that he is reversing the Zoning Administrator because Western Wireless has not considered whether additional shorter arrays could have provided better aesthetics than the proposed single tower. As stated above,the City Council has already considered the issue of collocation, and has adopted an ordinance that states that one of its goals is to "minimize the total number of towers throughout the community_" (RCC 4-38-1(A)(1))_ For the Hearing Examiner to deny a permit because the applicant did not consider building additional shorter towers in violation of the stated goals of the City Code is a clear abuse of his discretion. Upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision in this case would place future applicants such as Western Wireless in the untenable position of complying with the City's collocation requirements, only to have permits denied because they did not propose multiple shorter towers. The City Council cannot allow this JLI`Il ui •i wLJlviv uHIL:J CYLLLIJ , '*-G(-oo , 10•U/ , rI L iVIV, CLUUK 4ZbL0b2bl:i ti/lb Renton City Council - April 27, 1998 Page 4 invasion of its legislative authority to continue, and must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision accordingly. B. The Hearing Examiner Ignored,the City Council's Goal of Siting Towers in Non-Residential Areas and Disregarded Substantial Evidence that There Will Be Little Visual Impact to the Surrounding Residential Properties. RCC 4-38-1(A)(1) states that one of the goals of the wireless communications facilities ordinance is to "encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas." To give teeth to this statutory purpose, RCC 4-38-11(B) expressly prohibits Monopole II Facilities3 in most residential zones, and RCC 4-38-11(C) and(D) prohibit Monopole U Facilities in most non-residential zoncs if located within 300 feet from a residential zone. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit also specifically includes consideration of the "proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries." (RCC 4-3 8-14(R)(2)). Again in compliance with the City of Renton's statutory requirements and policy guidelines, Western Wireless specifically sited its tower in a manner that would have the least possible impact to residential neighborhoods. The proposed facility is to be located at a Shurgard Storage facility zoned Commercial Arterial (CA)that already contains roof- mounted wireless communications equipment. The proposed tower would be located — more than approximately 330+ feet from the nearest residential use, which is a single family neighborhood in the City of Newcastle. After carefully reviewing the photosimulations depicting the view of the proposed monopole from nearly ten different perspectives4,the Zoning Administrator determined that "the photosimulations provided do not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these areas. Residential areas to the east would have partially screened views of the lower portion of the facility due to the existing tree cover." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 8-9). Furthermore, the Zoning Administrator determined in his analysis of the"proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries" criterion of the Conditional Use Permit that the proposal is located in a commercial area at a commercial enterprise, and "meets or exceeds locational criteria in relation to residential neighborhoods." (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 6). Despite the Zoning Administrator's careful analysis of the photosimulations of the facility from all perspectives, the_Hearing Examiner summarily concluded that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes."5 'Western Wireless'proposal is a Monopole II Facility. RCC 4-35-11(A)defines"Monopole II"as"a wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure,sixty(60)feet or greater in height,erected to support wireless cotmntmication antennas and connecting appurtenances." 4 The photosimulalions included perspectives from 1) from NE 486'/SE 766 looking south,2)from Lake Washington Blvd NE looking east,3)from just offsite looking to the SE corner of the site,4)from 111'h Place SE looking west, 5)from 112th Ave SE looking SW,6)from I-405 near the northern city limits looking south,and 7)from Ripley Lane looking east 5 The homes referred to throughout the Hearing Examiner's decision arc the City of Newcastle residences located approximately 330' feet upslope from the Shurgard building, St.N 1' 1j1":1'KtCs'I ON GA'1'Ls & LLL I S ; 4-27-90 ; 15;Uti ; rKLS'I'ON, 1-LOOK 48-) 4252352513;g 8/1ti Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 5 (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 11). The Hearing Examiner continued on to suggest that the"impact on the single family uses further upslope" required modification of the 300 foot setback required by the City Council. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner argued that in this case "topography nullifies the [300 foot] setback . . . and is insufficient to buffer the use." (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 18). Because of his conclusion that the City Council was simply wrong in choosing 300 feet to buffer the impact of the tower on the neighboring Newcastle residential zone, the Hearing Examiner indicated that he would use his discretion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. In so doing, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors of law and fact. 1) The Hearing Examiner Impermissibly Redefined Statutory Language. As with the City Council's policy on collocation, the Hearing Examiner ignored the straightforward dictates of the Renton City Code to implement new policy. RCC 4- 38-11 (D) specifically states that Monopole II Facilities may be allowed with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit in a Commercial Arterial (CA)zone, but that such a facility is prohibited if located within three hundred feet of a residential zone.6 The Hearing Examiner was not free to read into RCC 4-38-11(D)alternative notions of when Monopole II Facilities are prohibited. The degree to which the Hearing Examiner felt free to reject the City Council's policy is apparent from Conclusion 18, in which he states that"it would seem that there are different ways of viewing 300 feet." The Hearing Examiner sought to justify his rewriting of policy by reasoning that because"in this case that separation [300 feet] will not serve the spirit of hiding or screening the monopole," he is free to use the Conditional Use Permit process as a means of denying the permit. The Hearing Examiner, however, does not have the authority to create new policy reinterpreting the meaning of the term "300 feet" to serve what he views as the "spirit of hiding or screening" underlying the City Council's wireless communications facilities ordinance. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98, Conclusion 18). The Hearing Examiner clearly has the discretion to analyze the application pursuant to the criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in RCC 4-38-14. He may not, however, abuse this discretion by imposing greater requirements than those explicitly set forth by the City Council in other sections of the Code. 2) The Hearing`Examiner's Conclusions Regarding Visual Impacts Are • • Not Suppr ed by the Record. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Hearing Examiner has ignored the substantial evidence in the record that establishes that there will be very little visual 6 Western Wireless will leave aside for the purpose of this appeal the argument that the three hundred foot prohibition contained in 4-3R-11(D)only applies to property zoned residential in the-City of Renton,and that the Hearing Examiner's analysis appears to overlook the fact that all of the residential properties upslope from the proposed site are located in the City of Newcastle_ SLIN l 15Y 1i tS'I'UIV (AILS ; 4-27-Uri ; 15:US ; ritLSTOIN, 1-LOOK 4U-) 4252 i5251;i;If 1 U/lb • Renton City Council _ April 27, 1998 Page 6 impact to the surrounding residential properties, and instead reaches the opposite conclusion with nothing in the record to support his position. Simply stated,there is no Finding in the Hearing Examiner's decision that supports his Conclusion 11 that the proposal will "intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes" and Conclusion 18 that there will be "impact on the single family uses further upslope." Equally damaging to the Hearing Examiner's conclusion is the fact that the record contains at least ten photosimulations from a variety of perspectives, including several that were specifically requested by the Environmental Review Committee, and that were relied upon by the Zoning Administrator to determine that the facility"do[es] not raise concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the facility as seen from these areas," (Zoning Administrator 1/20/98 Decision, p. 8-9). Not only did the Hearing Examiner completely ignore the photosimulations in favor of his own conclusory, unsupported Conclusions, he also split hairs in finding that the photosimulations in the submittal were not taken from an affected residential property. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 17). The photosimulation taken from 111th Place SE looking west was taken from the right of way immediately behind the Newcastle residential properties upslope from the Shurgard. As Jennifer Henning testified at the hearing,the City's policies are primarily intended to protect views of significant features such as Lake Washington and Mt. Rainier as seen from public areas, and do not protect the individual property rights of individuals. In addition, City staff and the applicants are restricted to'taking photos from public viewpoints unless specifically requested by private property owners. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/I0/98 Hearing). Upon cross examination from Mr. Anderson at the hearing, Martin Seel admitted he had not requested any photosimulations to be created from his property. Photosimuulations from the right of way immediately adjoining the residential properties, therefore, provide adequate protection of the views sought to be preserved by the City's view preservation policies. The Hearing Examiner's decision to disregard the available photosimulations to make conclusory determinations on the impact to the Newcastle residents is a substantial error that must be reversed. 11. The Hearing Administrator Committed a Substantial Error of Fact By Relying Upon a Completely Unsubstantiated Property Value_Qpinion. In Finding 14,the Hearing Examiner stated that the appellants presented evidence that the monopole would cause residential property devaluation of approximately 5%to approximately 2%(if the tower were moved), and would have a smaller impact on possible office development on the Seeligs' property. The Hearing Examiner then went on to find in Finding 15 that the appraisals submitted by Western Wireless were "too far afield from the current situation" and were therefore"quite irrelevant" in comparison to Mr.Anderson: At any time,did you ask Western Wireless or the City for photosimulations from your site? Mr.Seelig: No. (Tape 1.Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:09 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49.4 425235251:3;M/1E3 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 7 the Seeligs' testimony. Building entirely upon these Findings, the Hearing Examiner concluded the following: There will be a most certain diminution of property values. An appraiser provided sufficient evidence that there would be a loss of value to the appellants' property and that of their neighbors. Other studies do not refute that. Prime view properties and views of Lake Washington are definitely of value. (Dearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 24) The Hearing Examiner went on to conclude in Conclusion 2$ that"it is recognized that interfering with the aesthetics has a negative or depressing impact on values." The Hearing Examiner reached this conclusion not through any review of empirical data, but instead by asking himself the rhetorical question "why . _ . in most cases, does the City require screening of rooftop equipment?" (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Conclusion 25). The answer, the Hearing Examiner concludes, is "clearly . _ . because it is unsightly, because it diminishes the view of those forced to look over the site, and probably because it adversely affects property value." Id. On the basis of these summary and speculative conclusions, the Hearing Administrator concluded that Western Wireless' proposal has too great an impact on a few neighboring property owners and reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision. Close analysis of the property analysis relied upon by the Hearing Examiner, however, reveals a document based entirely on speculative opinion and completely lacking in factual support. In relying upon such clearly deficient testimony and documentary evidence, and by ignoring relevant cross examination, the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of fact. A. The Expert Relied Upon By the Hearing Examiner Never Prepared an Appraisal of the Subject Property,Never Consulted the Renton Zoning Code to Determine Relevant Development Standards fix the Subject Property, Never Conducted Any Study on the Impact of Communication Facilities in the Past. and Admitted The,Potential Redevelopment of the Shurgard Site That is Permitted Outright Could Block the Seeligs' View. In his testimony and in his March 9, 1998 letter(Exhibit 7)to his clients,the Seeligs, James Price admits that he did not prepare an appraisal of the Seeligs' property. In his testimony, he states that his process for preparing his analysis consisted of walking the site, taking photographs (included with his letter), and"trying to get a feel for how the view would be affected." (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price did not obtain any comparables, did not review any appraisals on the subject of telecommunications facilities impacts on property values, and did not conduct any other analysis to gauge the potential impact that the proposed tower would have on the property. Instead, he simply SENT BY;PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:09 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-) 4252;352513;#12/16 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 8 reasoned that because"this is primarily a view property and the view would be affected significantly by a 3-foot-wide-tower with, initially, at least one antenna, the effect on the subject property would be substantial." (Exhibit 7, p. 1-2). With absolutely no explanation for how he reached his conclusion, he then summarily states that"in my opinion, the property value would be approximately 5% lower as a result of the monopole project." (Exhibit 7, p.2). On cross examination, Mr. Price admitted that he had never conducted an appraisal or otherwise studied the impact of communications facilities on nearby properties. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). He admitted that he had not reviewed the City of Renton development standards prior to conducting his analysis. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). After being informed that the Renton City Council was discussing a potential moratorium on multi-family development in commercial zones that would prohibit the Seeligs from developing a residential site on the subject property, Mr. Price admitted that the proposed tower would have a smaller impact on office development, and would have no effect on retail development. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). Mr. Price also admitted upon cross examination from Ms. Henning that the potential for redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create"substantial blockage of the view." Taken in its entirety, Mr. Price's testimony and letter to his clients cannot support the conclusory weight placed upon it by the Hearing Examiner. Although Mr. Price stated that he was an appraiser by profession, nothing in his testimony indicates that he used any of his technical skills to reach his conclusions. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Price did not even attempt to justify his assessment that property values would drop 5%as a result of the project. A summary opinion without any supporting data that property values would drop by 5%or 10% or would increase by 20% is not a competent appraisal. Anyone can assert an unsubstantiated opinion about the effect that such a facility would have on property values, but the Hearing Examiner is not free to consider it an expert opinion to serve as the basis for a denial of permit. B. The HearingExaminer Committed Substantial Error 13v Dismiaping Four Professional Appraisals That Provided Well Founded. Relevant Data on the Issue of Monopole Impacts on Neal Properties. The Hearing Examiner's reliance on one man's unsubstantiated opinion is particularly egregious given his cursory treatment of four actual appraisals submitted by Western Wireless documenting the effect that monopoles have had on property values throughout the United States, including Seattle. (Exhibits 10-13). All four studies, totaling over one hundred double-sided pages, include evaluations based upon actual comparable sales data, and provide summaries of the addresses of the assessed properties, and the locations of the comparables relative to the communications facility being studied. In dismissing the relevance of all four studies in one paragraph, the Hearing Examiner pointed out that some of the studies were conducted in other states, or that the topography in some was not similar to the present case, or that the types of facilities were JCIN I ISr;rKIrS I U1N UA I LS ALL I S ; 4-27-58 ; 15:10 ; FRt S'l'ON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;#13/16 • Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 9 not identical to the monopole proposed here. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 15). The Hearing Examiner ultimately concluded that all four studies were "quite irrelevant" in comparison to Mr, Price's study, which was site specific, In choosing to dismiss all four of these studies in favor of Mr. Price's two page • letter, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial error. While it may be true that site specific analysis is,generally preferable to non-site specific analysis, and it is always possible to point out differences between different properties, to completely dismiss over one hundred double-sided pages of professionally prepared appraisal material as "irrelevant" is clearly erroneous, if not arbitrary and capricious conduct. This is so particularly in light of the fact that the analysis ultimately relied upon by the Hearing Examiner was two pages long and did not contain a single property comparison, or any other shred of numerical data to support its entirely summary conclusion. Of particular relevance to the present case is data contained in Exhibit 10, which analyzes the impact of a free standing monopole in Lake City at NE 125th Street and 28th Ave NE. it is difficult to understand why the Hearing Examiner would characterize an appraisal of the impacts of a monopole located in Seattle as"quite irrelevant." Mr. Price's response to cross examination regarding potential redevelopment of the Shurgard facility further highlights a critical point. On cross examination, in response to the question of whether the Seeligs' view over the Shurgard Building to Lake Washington is unobstructed,Mr. Price stated that the"view is limited until you get a little bit higher on the property because the buildings do block it to some extent." (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). During the same cross examination, Ms. Henning pointed out that current zoning allows the Shurgard site to develop to a 55 foot height with no additional review, and could exceed that height with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Price admitted that this potential redevelopment on the Shurgard site would create "substantial blockage of the view." The point to be made here is that the Seeligs' current views are not pristine and are already subject to"substantial blockage" that is permitted outright even in the absence of Western Wireless' proposal. As the record makes clear, the Shurgard roof is already encumbered by approximately 15 antenna masts. (Hearing Examiner 4/13/98 Decision, Finding 10). The Seeligs' property is located in a commercial zone and is located next to a developed commercial area. It is too late for the Seeligs to claim rights to an unencumbered view of Lake Washington, and if the Seeligs wish to preserve the views that they currently have, they certainly are free to purchase a view easement to do so. The Seeligs should not, however, be allowed to stop development in a commercial zone, particularly when the City's telecommunications ordinance specifically encourages the placement of collocatable towers in commercial areas. SENT BY:PRESTON GATES &ELLIS ; 4-27-98 ; 15:10 ; PRESTON, FLOOR 49-, 4252352513;#14/16 Renton City Council April 27, 1998 Page 10 III. The Hearing Examiner Committed a Substantial Error of Law By Applying the Wrong Standard of Review to the Zoning Administrator's Decision. A. The Hearing Examiner Did Not Review the Zoning Administrator's Decision According to the Standards of the Renton City_ ode. RCC 4-8-11(B)(4)states that in an appeal from an Administrative Conditional Use, the Hearing Examiner may reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision if the decision was(a)in violation of constitutional provisions, (b) in excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency, (c)made upon unlawful procedure, (d) affected by other error of law, (d) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted, or(e) arbitrary and capricious. As the Dearing Examiner indicated during the hearing, the Zoning Administrator's decision is entitled to substantial weight. (Tape 1, Side B of 3/10/98 Hearing). The Hearing Examiner's review, therefore, was not de novo, and it was not the Hearing Examiner's role to engage in a re-evaluation of the evidence and to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator. Instead, the burden in this case was upon the Seeligs to demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator's decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. Conspicuously absent from the text of the Hearing Examiner's decision, however, is any finding or conclusion that the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or in any manner deficient! Indeed, the Hearing Examiner referenced the Zoning Administrator's decision only twice, and in both instances, these references are merely to support a conclusion made by the Hearing Examiner. Although the Hearing Examiner's first two Conclusions indicated his awareness that his role was to review the Zoning Administrator's decision on an arbitrary and capricious standard, the rest of the Hearing Examiner's decision constitutes a complete re-evaluation of the evidence presented, and an entirely new decision on the merits. The case cited by the Hearing Examiner defining the term"clearly erroneous," Ancheta v, Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255 (1969), specifically points out the error of such de novo review when a"clearly erroneous" standard applies. The Ancheta court explains that"[courts] do not expect that the [reviewing body] will substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body _ . . We expect that the [reviewing body] will give deference to the expertise of the administrative tribunal," Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 260. As indicated in Ancheta, the Hearing Examiner's failure to limit his role to review of the underlying decision, and instead to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator, is a substantial error of law that must be reversed by this City Council. B Instead,the Hearing Examiner summarily stated that"the appellants have demonstrated that the decision should be reversed"and that"the appellants must prevail"without ever identifying how the Zoning Administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. JCN l T:rxtsroN w l r;5 &CLL I S ; 4-27-98 ; 15:11 ; rNI S'I'ON, hLOOK 49-) 4252352513;#15/16 • Renton City Council - April 27, 1998 Page 11 E. The Hearing Examiner Er.____A-Qn. fiecard of Review. Close examination of the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions indicates that he erroneously engaged in a de novo review of the evidence. In Conclusion 4, the Hearing Examiner stated that"the appellants must prevail" because"the approval of the monopole [was] contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." As the Hearing Examiner frames the issue, the question is one of"balancing [the] various Comprehensive Plan policies." (Hearing Examiner Decision, Conclusion 26). In particular, the Hearing Examiner cites Renton's Comprehensive Plan Policy U-5, which "encourages appropriate siting , , . in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses;"Policy U-100, which "requires that cellular communications structures and towers sited in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts;" and Policy U-101, which requires such facilities to be"designed to diminish aesthetic impacts and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." In the Hearing Examiner's balancing of the issues, despite the fact that Western Wireless' proposal will allow for collocation, the monopole does not sufficiently minimize aesthetic and environmental impacts to be considered compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In making this determination, however, the Hearing Examiner has weighed the evidence de novo. In Conclusion 16, the Hearing Examiner summarily concludes that the proposal is "the 'coup de grace' [in] a virtual `crown of thorns', and in Conclusion 28 asks whether"a more careful alignment" might provide better aesthetics. Significantly, however, he totally fails to identify any error committed by the Zoning Administrator,who weighed the same evidence and came to the contrary conclusion. The Zoning Administrator considered correspondence from surrounding property owners who were concerned with the aesthetic impacts of the proposal, reviewed photosimulations of the proposal from several vantage points, including points of view specifically requested by the Environmental Review Committee(Zoning Administrator's 1/20/98 Decision, p.8), and determined that the proposal was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Zoning Administrator noted that the proposal would allow for collocation of one or two more carriers, and therefore was specifically in compliance with Policy U-101. Although the Zoning Administrator's balancing of the Comprehensive Plan policies may have differed from that of the Hearing Examiner, it was not the Hearing Examiner's role, nor was it within his authority, to substitute his judgment for that of the Zoning Administrator in the absence of a specific identification of clear error or arbitrary and capricious conduct, JCIV1 6I .rKCJIVly wi1r &tLL1J ; 4-G!-�ti ; 15;11 ; 1'Kts'1'OIN, 1''LOOK '1i-0 4�5�;�5�51:3; 1(i/1Ei Renton City Council April27, 1998 Page 12 IV. Because the Hearing Examiner Committed Substantial Errors of Law and Fact, the City Council Should Reverse His Decision and Reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 Decision Granting Western Wireless an Administrative Conditional Use Permit at 1755 NE 48th Street. For all of the reasons set forth above, Western Wireless respectfully requests the 'Renton City Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's April 13, 1998 decision, and to reinstate the Zoning Administrator's January 20, 1998 decision, Western Wireless also respectfully requests the opportunity to present its case to the Renton City Council through oral argument prior to the City Council making its decision. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP r By /t - E`er William H. Chapman Thomas H. Wolfendale Kollin K. Min KM1N:dh 4 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-29296 C:04-23-1998 CASHIER ID : N 16:59:00 A:04-24-1998 5007 APPEALS & WAIVERS $75.00 APPEALS & WAIVERS AAD-97-149 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: MIN, KOLLIN CHECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Send Copies to: CITY ATTORNEY_� �� /7etiv CITY COUNCIL Y`'^ ' FINANCE/INFO SERVICES FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION ° `' HEARING EXAMINER HOUSING&HUMAN SERVICES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE COMMUNITY SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT. PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE NEWSPAPER CODIFIER q PARTIES OF RECORD PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS / ADMINISTRATIONJJ 1/4' "'`'G/"y` AIRPORT � ��%4wti 02 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES �� Building/Zoning/Plan Review X J PLANNING &TECHNICAL SVCS. }'jufu Property Management ie_2��"jyZA.N TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ,ZetAte44 Traffic Engineering f UTILTTY SYSTEMS /P,t aidb.) V2 7/9? 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 13th day of April ,1998, 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: <-'7/4 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_)3#I day of 611- , 1998. —filLCIUde Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 4et,c,07YLA ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of CUP for Western Wireless LUA97-149,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT . r April 13, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Howard Seelig Martin Seelig File No.: LUA97-149,AAD LOCATION: 1755 NE 48th SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for installation of communication antennas by Western Wireless at Shurgard 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 March 10, 1998 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. • The hearing opened on Tuesday,March 10, 1998,at 9:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. 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: Site vicinity map proof of posting and publication,and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Proposed site development Exhibit No.4: Detailed view of proposed compound area Exhibit No. 5: Two elevation views of proposed Exhibit No.6: 3' x 8' model of proposed monopole 1E project *Peat' was atscardc t Ofer at5nwA1 6,6 C ux+-Ci-se, Exhibit No.7: Letter from Mr.Price to Seeligs dated Exhibit No. 8: Letter from Susan Irwin to Hearing March 9, 1998 Examiner dated March 9, 1998 Exhibit No. 9; Aviation Study Exhibit No. 10: Appraisal material from Alfred Chai Exhibit No. 11: Telecommunications Tower Facility Exhibit No. 12: Bell South Mobility Cellular Tower Impact Investigation Sites Exhibit No. 13: Wicker Appraisal Associates Exhibit No. 14: Photograph series Exhibit No. 15: House Bill No. 6515 Exhibit No. 16: Photographs of Shurgard Storage and adjacent-site(10) • 4 f � Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 2 Parties are: Appellants,Howard and Martin Seelig P.O.Box 1925 Bellevue,Washington 98009 Representing the City of Renton Jennifer Henning 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Representing the applicant Greg Anderson 3650 131st Avenue SE,#400 Bellevue,WA 98006 The Examiner explained that the hearing was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinances 3071 and 3809,and that this appeal had been before the Examiner previously:but was remanded back. 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. The applicant to this proceeding would also be given an opportunity to respond. The appellants appeal the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)by the City of Renton for Western Wireless' proposal to install a telecommunications monopole with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted on top of the monopole which would have an overall height of 100 feet above ground level. Jennifer Henning,representing the City of Renton,gave a history of this application. The City adopted a Wireless Communications Ordinance(WCO)on an emergency basis in June of 1997. This application for Western Wireless to install a monopole was received in July 1997. An administrative CUP was granted and in September 1997 that decision was appealed. The appeal was heard on December 2, 1997, at which time it was .remanded back to the City. During late November and early December,City Council refined the WCO and adopted Ordinance 4689 to replace the emergency ordinance which went into effect at the end of December 1997. Staff issued a new report for the administrative CUP using this newly adopted ordinance on January 2, 1998. This appeal applies to the decision by the Zoning Administrator to approve the CUP. The environmental review for the proposed action is complete and that is not the subject of the appeal today. This is a proposal to install a new 85 foot tall telecommunications monopole. This would be mounted with an array of 12 panel antennas which would be mounted at the top 9f the monopole and would add another 15 feet. The overall height of this facility would be 100 feet from the ground surface. There would also be four 30 inch by 30 inch by 6 foot high equipment cabinets that would be installed near the monopole and there would be either a chain link fence or a masonry wall surrounding this equipment compound. It would occupy about a 400 square foot compound area. The proposal is to install this facility in the southeast corner of the existing Shurgard site located at 1755 NE 38th Street. There are some existing wireless communication facilities located at this site. These consist of omni-directional antennas and panel antennas that are either attached directly to the building or are locate-eon a stanchion which is elevated a little bit above the building. The.WCO permits Monopole II structures within 300 feet of residentially zoned parcels. There are no City of Renton or Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 3 City of Newcastle residentially zoned parcels within 300 feet of this proposal. A Monopole II is any freestanding telecommunications tower essentially that is over 60 feet and under 150 feet in height. The WCO criteria to be examined include the height of the proposed tower,the proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries,the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties,the surrounding topography,the surrounding tree cover and foliage,the design of the tower with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness,proposed ingress and egress to the site,potential noise, light and glare impacts, availability of suitable existing towers and other structures and compatibility with the general purpose,goals,objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning ordinance and any other plan,program,map or ordinance of the City. There is no availability of suitable existing towers and other structures for this facility to locate on in this area. This particular proposal for the 85 foot tower does meet the maximum permitted height allowed for Monopole II structure,with the additional 15 feet for the antenna array. The proposal is approximately 350 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel. The adjacent property to the east is owned by the appellants, is currently vacant and zoned Commercial Arterial(CA). Newcastle residential property is located further to the east up the hill. The topography rises from Lake Washington on up the hill to Newcastle. There is commercially zoned properties to the north and south,I-405 to the west, and across I-405 are the Port Quendell properties and Lake Washington. Wireless communications facilities are allowed to occupy commercial zones. Development that has occurred on sites in this area has been graded to create level areas,and the adjacent vacant site to the east is higher than the subject parcel. There is deciduous tree cover on it. The hillside to the east of the proposed site is vegetated with both coniferous and deciduous trees which help screen views to and from the residential area up-slope. The applicant provided several photo simulations from public street areas looking to the west and the tower could not be located. The applicant was not able to provide views from private individual property owners on the east looking to the west. The hill slope located east of the monopole has the capability of providing some absorption for the monopole as it is viewed from the west. In terms of views from the east,the monopole would appear to be in more of the foreground setting. The photo simulations from several vantage points indicated that while the pole could be seen and was prominent, it was not considered to be so dominant as to stand out above everything else in a commercially zoned area. Appellants' parcel is approximately 330 feet wide and 660 feet long, and the proposed monopole would be located adjacent to the center portion of that site's frontage. That site is zoned CA and could be developed with a retail,commercial or service use. There were no alternate locations on the subject property that were proposed for,the monopole, although there were some discussions between the appellants and the applicant to move the monopole elsewhere on the site. The monopole would be galvanized steel; it would not be reflective in nature. A landscape plan was not required for this proposal because the compound location is already partially screened by an existing building. The applicant has stated they will provide some type of screening, whether it is landscaping or fencing in conformance with City ordinances. The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)needs to be consulted in the case of monopoles and this is the applicant's responsibility. The engineering requirements for co-location of this facility indicate they need to be up at 85 feet with the additional 15 feet for the antennas. Given the height of this proposal, it is anticipated at least one or two additional carriers could co-locate. There are 6 or 7 purveyors that have been licensed by the FCC to operate in this area. ' Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 4 The proposal was consistent with CP policies with regard to location of utilities. Expansion of the personal communication system within the City is necessary to ensure there is a high quality of service offered to the local and regional community. The applicant states that this facility has been located and designed to minimize impacts to the community while providing a valuable communications service. The design of this tower at this particular height,would allow co-location of other facilities rather than the addition of new monopoles on a site such as this. The applicant states this specific location was selected in that it is far removed from residences and that none of the surrounding land uses would be detrimentally affected by the operation of the antenna array at the site. The height of the monopole does make it visible from surrounding on and off site uses. If the FAA requires marking or lighting of the monopole,the visibility of the structure would increase. Furthermore, the CA zone allows this and it meets the height and development standards of that zone. It also meets the criteria listed in the WCO. Martin Seelig,appellant herein, introduced a 3 foot by 8 foot monopole model, and placed it 32 feet from the Examiner's location,which is the exact dimension proposed to be located from his property line. Mr. Seelig particularly addressed Ordinance 4689, Section 4-38-14.b.10 Conditional Use Criteria. He stated that no meaningful effort was made by the applicant to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. No recognition was made of the fact that the adjacent property,the one most significantly affected, already bears the burden of 18 separate antenna poles,each approximately 15 feet high, sprawling from Shurgard's building C and operated by three different purveyors. These poles now obstruct appellants' view of Lake Washington. That number of poles is as many as are located on any other facility in the City, and appellant stated that was enough. With the proposal of an additional 12 or more antenna by Western Wireless and the potential for many more co-located sets,the appellants' site would bear the brunt of the burden for view obstruction. The appellant stated that applicant has not substantiated its requirement for a 100 foot high pole, and the City has not analyzed factors to determine if the applicant has suitable justification,nor has the public had an opportunity to scrutinize the applicant's rationale. The ERC failed to require photo simulations from the most adversely affected adjacent property. Mr. Seelig also questioned the safety factor of this tower's location in a windstorm or earthquake. Were the tower to be located west of the Shurgard properties,the entire lower portion of the tower would be hidden from view by residential uses. Mr. Seelig suggested the most preferable location would be in the right of way west of the Shurgard site,not the southeast corner of the site. The zoning on the appellants' site would allow up to 96 residential units, each of these units with a lake view. Furthermore,the appellants' site is located to the north and to the south of other multi-family residential properties substantiating the residential potential of the appellants' property. The proposed tower elevations would be from an elevation 36 to 136. Elevations on the appellants' parcel range from 55 to 145 with an average of about 100. The building finish floor elevations would range from 65 to 155. That is the full range of the elevation of the pole and its antenna and any other future co-located antenna. With regard to the CP policy requiring cellular communications structures be sensitively sited,Mr. Seelig stated there is a complete absence of sensitivity when siting a swaying 100 foot tower close enough to an adjacent property that it could topple onto the adjacent land. The staff report states that if the FAA requires marking or lighting of the monopole,visibility of the structure would increase. The FAA has not yet made its determination, and until this factor is analyzed,the environmental impact of the tower cannot be established. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 5 The report further states that photo simulations did not show the facility to be obtrusive or blocking existing views. That is because the photo simulations were not taken from the location which is most affected;namely, the appellants' site. Regarding other available sites,the appellants':site already bears the burden of 18 poles and 3 different competing phone companies. City policy would enable one or more additional purveyors to co-locate on the pole. However,there is no City policy which states one property owner should bear a disproportionate burden for the City's cellular communications need. - The hearing recessed to observe what appellant had marked out in the City parking area to give a perspective of the location of the proposed tower. On cross-examination,Ms.Henning pointed out that the City's policies regarding view protection are primarily intended to protect views of significant features such as Lake Washington and Mt.Rainier as seen from public areas. The policies do not protect the individual property rights of an individual,but public view points from public streets,parks and the like. Responding to cross-examination by Mr.Anderson,Mr. Seelig stated that an impact to his property as it stands now would be potential sale of the property. If the potential for a 100 foot high three foot wide monopole to be located 32 feet from the property line were disclosed there would be a diminution of value. Jim Price, 1980 112th Avenue NE,#270,Bellevue,Washington 98004,testified on behalf of the appellants as a member of the Appraisal Institute. He stated his qualifications and experience in the appraisal of real property in the area. After reviewing the site he stated that a multi-family development would be the highest and best use of the property. If the property were developed for 96 units,quite a bit of the existing,buffer would be removed in the process. The center of the property on the westerly side would be most affected and with lesser impact on the north and south boundaries of the property. This type of land would generally sell on the basis of price per unit that can be developed on the property. A range of between$20,000 and$25,000 per buildable unit is a rough range;therefore, it would have a value between$1,920,000 and$2,400,000. Because it is primarily view property,Mr. Price felt there would be a 5 percent decrease in value as a result of this tower,or an affect of$96,000 and$120,000 on this property. If it were moved to the western portion of the Shurgard property, it would have a lessened affect, or an approximate 2%decrease in value; something in the range of $38,000 to$48,000. If the tower were moved even farther west in the road right of way, it would have a lesser affect. Responding to cross-examination by Ms.Henning,Mr.Price stated that an alternative use for the appellants' property would be an office development. It is not really in a location for a retail use. There would be some smaller impact as a result of office development on the property. If it were a retail use, it probably would not have much affect at all. Jack Stevens, 7711 111th Place SE,Newcastle,Washington 98056,whose property overlooks the subject site from the east, stated that his house is valued around$400,000. The antenna array at the top of the pole would probably be in line of sight off his deck, approximately 340 feet. Mr. Stevens also questioned how the 300 foot measurement for notification of affected landowners was derived. He had only been informed by another neighbor of this proposal. He also pointed out that the trees located on the appellants' site which are supposed 1 Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 6 to block the tower are only about 100 feet wide so there is a very narrow corridor where the array would be blocked. He has also requested of the appellants that these trees be trimmed. Michael Magula, 7617 111th Place SE,Newcastle,Washington 98056,whose property is adjacent to the appellants',read a letter from Susan Irwin(Exhibit 8), another concerned homeowner,expressing her dismay over lack of adequate notice to concerned parties,as well as opposition to the proposal. In the photo simulations,the proportions of the current Shurgard building to the proposed monopole did not appear correct, and Ms.Henning agreed that it was off Mr.Magula pointed out that according to Ordinance 4689,photo simulations of the proposed facilities from affected residential properties is required. The only photo simulation taken from east to west was taken from the corner of 76th and 111th Place SE. This location is about 330 feet north of the proposed location. Mr.Magula stated that the construction of a 100 foot telecommunications monopole definitely adversely affects his property value and visually impairs his view of Lake Washington. The possibility of a flashing red light on top of the tower is going to further denigrate a natural view of the lake. He recited several portions of the staff report and questioned how the erection of this tower would preserve the existing character and land use. He stated that it is not possible to locate a structure of this height in a residential view.neighborhood without adversely impacting property values and that this project should be denied. With regard to posting requirements,Ms.Henning stated that she had posted signs on the corner of the Shurgard site, another on Lake Washington Blvd., another at the property corner on 76th on the power poles. That is the traditional method of posting along with newspaper publication. Also notification is mailed to any property owner within 300 feet of the property boundaries. The property owners on 111th Place SE were not notified because they were beyond the 300 foot radius. Rick Wyatt, 7728 111th Place SE,Newcastle,Washington 98056,whose property overlooks the subject site, stated that he also was not aware of any notification of this proposal: He further stated that prior to purchasing his property and building on it,he checked all around the appellants' property,found the height restrictions and so forth to be such that they would not adversely affect his property value at any time in the future. Now it looks like that is in question. What he does not want to see as part of his view is this type of tower. His house is located on the east side of 111th Place and is higher than the homes of the other witnesses. Responding to earlier,comments,Mr.Anderson stated that,Western Wireless had withdrawn their application to the FAA in September and hired an aviation consultant. The consultant concluded that no lighting or additional marking would be required on the site. He also stated that they were willing to do whatever the City required to mitigate impacts. The Examiner noted for the record that there were no mitigation measures imposed and that was what the appellants were concerned with. Mr.Anderson read House Bill 6515 Amended into the record. A discussion ensued regarding re-engineering of the network to different locations,different heights,topographical constraints, co-location possibilities. Closing arguments were then presented by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements. • c Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 7 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 3:10 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Howard L. and Martin A. Seelig,hereinafter appellants,filed an appeal of an administrative determination approving a conditional use permit for Western Wireless,hereinafter Western,for a monopole antenna assembly(File No. CU-A-097-92). After a public hearing it was determined that improper criteria had been used in the administrative review. The matter was therefore remanded to the Zoning Administrator for review under the proper standards. (Since the matter was remanded the same file number was also used for this appeal.) 2. The administrative conditional use permit; if ultimately approved,would allow Western,the underlying applicant,to construct a freestanding, eighty-five(85)foot tall monopole that will be one hundred (100)feet tall when equipped with its array of antennas. The proposal will be located on the grounds of a mini-storage complex located at 1755 NE 48th Street in the City of Renton.`The site is at the extreme north end of the.City just east of Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405. 3. This case is very similar to another brought by the appellants(File No. LUA97-028,AAD), although in that matter the array that was approved was to be located on the roof of a building located on the same site. Those antenna panels would be approximately 15 feet tall or top out at approximately 30 feet above the ground level. 4. The appellants own the property that is immediately east of where the antennas will be located. While the subject site is only approximately 300 feet deep,the appellants'property is approximately 600 feet deep. The proposed monopole would be located approximately in line with the middle of the appellants'parcel. The appellants allege that the number of antennas already on the roof of this adjacent structure coupled with this 100-foot tall monopole is impairing their property value. 5. The emergency Wireless Ordinance was replaced by Ordinance 4689. The new ordinance refined some of the criteria but did not substantially change issues relevant to this appeal or the underlying application. 6. There will be ground level electronic storage buildings secured behind a chain link fence or possibly walled in open structure. The record reveals that the proposed location of the ground level structures, generally interior to the complex, are not really part of the challenge. The appeal is generally directed at the monopole structure,the most prominent,visual element of the applicant's proposal. 7. The monopole and support buildings are proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the subject site. The proposed site is just west of the common property line between the appellants'property and the subject site. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 8 8. In the applicant's submittals is a"PROPOSAL"that identifies the tower as 85 feet tall,with a 5.5 foot long array atop it. This information is in error. The array will be 15 feet tall for a total height of 100 feet. The Airport Director also noted this discrepancy. 9. The base elevation of the site is approximately 36 feet above sea level. 10. The building on the subject site where the monopole would be erected already supports approximately 15 antennas masts from other cellular phone providers. Under the existing regulations,the existing mixture of panel, stanchions and omnidirectional antennas are of a height that they are or were permitted outright in this zoning district. The monopole, a Monopole II under current definitions, requires approval of a conditional use permit: 11. Staff approved the Administrative Conditional Use. In general,they found the proposed complex compatible with the surrounding area. 12. The following conditions were imposed as a result of environmental and land use review: The ERC conditions: "The applicant shall provide screening around the equipment compound in the form of either: a wall;wood fence,or slatted chain-link fence of an appropriate height to screen the equipment cabinets from off-site areas. The applicant shall submit a drawing and written description of the design solution to meet this mitigation measure to Development Services Division project manager,prior to the issuance of a building permit." Administrative Conditional Use conditions: "The applicant shall submit either: 1)a landscape plan to the City's Development Service Division which provides for the installation of a dense screen of ornamental vegetation on the perimeter of the equipment compound;OR,2)a detail of the proposed fence design or wall design that demonstrates how the wall/fence would screen the equipment compound from off-site areas." 13. The appellants allege that the proliferation of antennas on the building and the monopole proposed for near the building, in addition to being unsightly,will reduce their property value. This office finds that the vast array of existing antennas adorning the building is unquestionably unaesthetic. They are a collection of dissimilar poles and panels that definitely detract from the.visual appearance of the subject site and surroundings. 14. The appellants presented evidence of property devaluation for residential units and supplemented it with evidence that the monopole would adversely affect any property values. Because the appellants' property and other upslope properties are primarily view properties,the value would suffer with the erection of a monopole as proposed. Moving it approximately another 330 feet further away and somewhat lower in grade would lessen its affect. The estimates of devaluation ranged from approximately 5%to approximately 2%of the value if the tower were moved. There would be some smaller impact on possible office-development on the appellants'property. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 9 15. The property valuation studies submitted by the applicant are too far afield from the current situation. In one the tower or towers were between a half mile and more than 3 miles away in agricultural areas. In another,the distance is unstated,but is again in rural farmland and emerging subdivisions in upstate New York. In addition,the topography demonstrated in many of the views shows flat terrain as opposed to the current situation. The rental situations represented in another study are also too dissimilar to the current situation. In some cases the towers were unseen as they were atop the study locales and so view was unimpeded or the antennas were of the type that now exist on the subject site, the much shorter,mast antennas and not 100 foot tall monopoles. In others words,these studies are quite irrelevant given the current context compared with the evidence provided at the hearing that was site specific. Testimony in a prior hearing on property values was related to the much shorter rooftop arrays and not the proposed monopole. 16. Ordinance 4689 requires photo simulations of the proposed facilities from affected residential properties. "4.38-5(B)(2): Photo simulations:Photo simulations of the proposed facility from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances." (Subsequently additional criteria were added: "A diagram or depicting where the photo simulations were taken shall be included with the application.)" 17. The photo simulations in the submittal were not from an affected residential property. 1.8. The applicant has another tower proposed as part of their cellular complex. They describe what they believe are its ideal characteristics and suitable locational criteria. To quote: The location of this site is ideal because the topography allows digital wireless coverage for the surrounding residential and commercial uses, including the NE Sunset Blvd. corridor. Additionally, extensive ground cover in the form of existing structures, trees, shrubs,and mature tree growth on the perimeter of the grounds make this an ideal wireless communications location. View from adjoining land uses would be minimally obstructed, if at all. Western has no plans to remove any existing vegetation. (Letter from the applicant regarding another selected site at 3410 NE 12th Street(5 August, 1997).) 19. The current site's location and situation differs markedly from that described as "ideal" for the Sunset location. 20. The proposal will not generate any appreciable noise. There would be a small fan that would be operating. 21. Section 4-38-14(B)of the Wireless Communications Facilities Chapter specifically defines the criteria used in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit for facilities such as the one proposed by the applicant. • B. Conditional Use Criteria: The governing authority shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority concludes that the goals of this ordinance are better served thereby. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurg'ard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 10 1. Height of the proposed tower. 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. 4. Surrounding topography. 5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage. 6. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 7. Proposed ingress and egress. 8. Potential noise, light and glare impacts. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures. 10. Compatibility with the general.purpose, goals,objectives and standards of the , Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan,program,map or ordinance of the City. Section 4-38-13 specifies: A. Visual Impact 1. Antenna Height: Antennas may not extend more than fifteen(15)feet above their supporting structure,monopole, lattice tower,building or other structure. 2. Existing Character: Site location and development shall preserve the pre- existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall.be'preserved or improved,and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the• surrounding area. • 3. - Screening of Equipment Shelters and Cabinets: Accessory equipment facilities used to house wireless communications equipment shall be located within buildings or placed underground when possible. When they cannot be located in buildings, equipment shelters o r cabinets shall be fenced, screened and landscaped to screen views from adjacent residential or commercial zoned properties. Any landscaping shall be in conformance with City Code Section 4-31-34,Landscaping. Accessory equipment facilities located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view. 4. Exposed Metal Surfaces: Accessory equipment facilities may not be enclosed with exposed metal surfaces. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 11 22. The current or proposed total of 18 separate antennas on the roof of the current building are operated by three different purveyors. 23. The applicant's application states that the higher monopole was determined to meet engineering requirements but there is no explanation as to those•requirements. 24. The appellant pointed out surrounding terrain features including hills north and south of the site which might be able to accommodate an antenna at approximately the same elevation without rising substantially above the terrain. The presumption is that use of existing higher terrain could be used to position the applicant's facility in a location that possibly minimizes the intrusive aspects of the proposed monopole in the proposed location. 25. The applicant has agreed to allow possible additional competitors to co-locate on the proposed monopole at a lower elevation. This would introduce yet additional "outrigger" antennas on the monopole further interfering with the view. It also shows that a lower tower can provide reasonable cellular coverage since any other "co-locatee"would have to be approximately 15 to 20 feet lower than the current 100 foot elevation. 26. The proposed tower elevations would be from an elevation 36 to 136. Elevations on the appellants' parcel range from 55 to 145 with an average of about 100. The building finish floor elevations would range from 65 to 155. That is the full range of the elevation of the pole and its antenna and any other future co-located antenna 27. Monopoles in the vicinity of airports need to be reviewed by the FAA. Depending on the FAA determination, a flashing red light, strobe light or visible paint color might be required for aviation safety. Apparently, an applicant initiates this determination by the FAA. The FAA has not yet made its determination which means the full consequences of the monopole may not yet be known: A flashing light could be required. There was considerable question as to whether the applicant had even made a current application with the FAA. It appears that the applicant had made application but then withdrew it. FAA records show that their study No. 1261-97 for this site was applied for in September 1997 and terminated by the applicant on November 20, 1997,with an indication that they would reapply. The FAA does not have any new application. The appellants allege it was withdrawn so that the possible requirement of lighting was not part of the current record. The applicant countered that a private consultant said the monopole was acceptable in this location. That information is not definitive. 28. Apparently there was a discussion of alternate sites for the proposed monopole. The only location under review at this time is the one submitted by the applicant for the monopole at the southeast corner of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the Administrative Conditional Use decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellants have demonstrated that the decision should be reversed. The decision is reversed. 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 • Howard Seelig Martin Seelig • Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD • April 13, 1998 Page 12 and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 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 appellants must prevail. While there is evidence that supports the underlying decision,the entire evidence demonstrates that t the full impacts of allowing the,proposed 100 foot tall monopole violate the spirit of Sections 4-38-13 and 4-38-14; particularly,the approval of the monopole is contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul of the City's land use regulations. The Comprehensive Plan is the document which is used to determine whether something is "appropriate." "Appropriateness" is not something the law generally deals with,but"appropriateness" is the governing principle of land use law. "Appropriateness"particularly comes into play when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. Unlike uses that are permitted outright in a specific zoning district, certain uses may be permitted if they comply with the additional criteria found in the code and particularly comply with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. On the other hand,the Zoning Code is the rational aspect of the City's land use regulations but in many instances it gives due deference to the Comprehensive Plan,to the character of an underlying community. But the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code function together. Again,many provisions in the Zoning Code require uses be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. So what happens if a use appears to meet some of the goals,policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan but not others? Which should be given more weight? Should any specific provisions carry the day, so to speak? Maybe that is why some permits are "conditional." They may be judged appropriate or inappropriate based on a-wider range of goals and objectives: on balancing the health,vitality and aesthetics of the community. Again,the actual name of the permit and the language of its provisions demonstrate that some permits might be better served by being conditioned or,if appropriate, denied. 7. The approval of a conditional use permit is discretionary. That means that judgment and discretion are required. If such judgment and discretion were not required, it would be a simple matter of reading the Zoning Code and saying: yes,the monopole is 35 feet taller than the normal height limits and is permitted. The antenna.array is an additional 15 feet and it is permitted. Therefore,the monopole with. antenna array is,permitted. While thatcertainly might be expeditious,that is not how this permit is granted. This permit is discretionary. It may be permitted but it shall not be permitted if it is not appropriate in this locale. - 8. Clearly,the Federal Government has limited to some extent what the City may do. But those limitations indicate that: - (Section 4-38-3) A. The City zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another. , B. The City zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. 1 Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 13 9. Requiring either the relocation of the proposed facility to another site or the reduction in its height is neither violative of the spirit or letter of City Code or Federal provisions. Clearly,the City has permitted other providers at this location. How much competition is required? While that probably is not spelled out,the fact is those competing providers have scaled their facilities to be very much less intrusive, if not any more aesthetic. This applicant is opening up another whole dimension with its much taller monopole proposal., Perhaps the time to be discriminating is at this juncture-when we now go from rooftop arrays of only 15 or so feet above the height of the underlying building to 100 feet above the surrounding terrain or approximately 85 feet above the buildings. 10. The City would not be discriminating if it approved more arrays that match the current arrays. It might actually be discriminating if it approved this monopole and the current providers came forth with proposals to replace their"low-rise" arrays with additional monopoles. 11. There are clearly other methods or locations which might permit this applicant to provide reasonable service without erecting a monopole that will top out at 100 feet and intrude into the viewscape of some very nice single family homes and be smack in the middle of the viewscape of prime commercial office property. Just because the applicant has found a willing lessor does not mean that this is an appropriate locale for the proposed monopole and antenna. There appear to be other high spots in the surrounding terrain both north and south of this location. Would placing a shorter array at either of these locations permit a less intrusive array to be better screened or camouflaged? 12. We have this very applicant's letter describing what makes a good cellular site: one which is well screened from surrounding uses and where the vegetation will remain. The current site is anything but a good location. The applicant's criteria which "make [a site] an ideal wireless communications ' location" are in stark contrast to the subject proposal. Terrain,and the absence of onsite vegetation which can be protected, is completely absent. The applicant has to a great extent relied on the existing tree cover,provided by the appellants'property to screen the site but in no way protects the appellants' property from the monopole. As the applicant indicates in its Environmental Checklist,the subject site is almost totally devoid of landscaping, instead almost totally developed with buildings or asphalt. 13. We also have the City's own decisions on some prior similar facilities where they required a very permanent screening with covenants requiring that the trees on a rather large multiple acre site remain to screen the facility(file No. Cu-V-93-002, Cellular One Antenna). 14. It is clear that the site is inappropriate for a monopole. It remains appropriate for the smaller arrays that are now located there. 15. Clearly siting cellular facilities is either like a house of cards or a row of standing dominoes. Each element depends on the next. But since we are starting from scratch,the foundation should be firm,the locations should be sensitive and the justifications overwhelmingly in the favor of protecting the character of the surroundings if that is possible. 16. An accident in topography or geography or maybe just a very willing lessor seems to have created a location which has become the focus of all installations along the I-405 corridor. There is already a veritable forest of antenna atop this one building "decorating"this one site. The subject proposal provides the "coup de grace" by creating a virtual "crown of thorns." Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 14 17. It appears that it is time to share the wealth or spread it a bit thinner as it were. The burden of this high technology should be shared with others in other neighborhoods and not be absolutely concentrated in this one location,thereby unduly(and at this time it is unduly)burdening this one area. 18. In this case we not only have the impact on the appellants' immediately adjoining parcel,but also the impact on the single family uses further upslope. While the code does provide at least a 300 foot separation, in this case that separation will not serve the spirit of hiding or screening the monopole. While one can view the 300 feet that was determined as an appropriate setback from residential uses as definitive, it would seem that there are different ways of viewing 300 feet. On a relatively flat horizontal plain,that 300 feet would create a visual scaling effect,that is,perspective would reduce the visual intrusion and landscaping could be installed or existing landscaping used to buffer the 100 foot tall structure. A reading of the Ordinance was to protect residential uses from unsightly structures by requiring a 300 foot setback and buffers. Clearly,the 300 feet was established to "blend"them into the background and horizon line by a combination of sheer distance and landscaping. 19. As the Zoning Administrators(there were two during the initial review)found: "Staff would beg to differ with the applicant on the justification provided with regard to diminished impacts. While the monopole would be sited a'minimum distance of 300 feet from adjacent residential land uses,the aesthetic or visual effects would be substantially greater than the existing commercial use. The height of the monopole would be visible from surrounding on-site and off-site areas,and if any marking or lighting is required to satisfy the requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration, the visibility of the structure would increase." 20. In this case topography nullifies that setback. It opens the view of the structure to uses immediately up the slope.and 300 feet is insufficient to buffer the use. While no specific ordinance language would require a greater setback due to the nature of the surrounding uses,the conditional use permit process itself provides a means of determining_if a.use is appropriate or appropriately conditioned so that it does not adversely affect its surroundings. The proposed use is one of discretionary approval at this locale- it is not permitted outright. It is not permitted outright by the underlying zoning. That means judgment calls must be made. There are"clearly tradeoffs. The use serves a use that is in demand,but one area should not be required to bear the entire burden of a community good if there are other ways of accommodating the use,even if it means imposing some additional burdens on the applicant. 21. Again,we have examples of what kind of screening the City Council has required(file No. Cu-V-93- 002, Cellular One Antenna). Here the applicant and underlying property owner claim that the existing use on the site precludes much additional landscape screening. They also claim the existing.trees upslope screen the proposed use.. They have no legitimate right to claim trees on another property work for buffering. Those trees might be removed. This application is very unlike the case cited,where the tower is located on a.site with large screening trees. 22. Additional goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan suggest,that high class and quality office uses be encouraged. If the City is desirous of encouraging high class,high quality office uses or possibly multiple family dwellings(moratorium aside.for the moment),the type of space that could benefit by sweeping views of Lake Washington,the way to encourage it is not by adding to the unquestionably unsightly array of rooftop antenna,and now a 100 foot tall utilitarian monopole. / Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 15 23. One cannot help but agree with the appellant in this case: "Enough is enough." How much visual blight does one property have to bear at the expense of either the applicant wireless "public utility" or the lessor landowner in the guise of serving the public? Yes, cellular is a public service. Yes,the public is benefited by a certain amount of open competition,but it is also enriching some at the expense of others. It is enriching the applicant, it is enriching the underlying landowner/lessor, almost completely at the expense of the appellant and his neighboring upslope, single family neighbors. 24. There will be a most certain diminution of property values. An appraiser provided sufficient evidence that there would be a loss of value to the appellants'property and that of their neighbors. Other studies do not refute that. Prime view properties and views of Lake Washington are definitely of value. 25. It is recognized that interfering with the aesthetics has a negative or depressing impact on values. Why else, in most cases, does the City require screening of rooftop equipment? Certainly there must be a reason to screen such equipment. Clearly, it is because it is unsightly, because it diminishes the view of those forced to look over the site, and probably because it adversely affects property value. While reasonable accommodation of cellular antennas is built into.the Ordinance and its exemptions,those exemptions do not negate the impacts of such facilities on adjacent properties. The visual impact is not reduced because of the so-called public benefit. The blight remains. That is one of the prime reasons that Monopole II structures are subject to Conditional Use review and why they may be appropriately denied in some locations in the City. This is one of those locations. 26. So we return to one of the original issues:the balancing of various Comprehensive Plan policies. There are clearly policies that support an adequate and up to date utility infrastructure. Those are not in doubt. The difficulty is weighing the less tangible goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Those seem to carry less weight both metaphorically and metaphysically in making decisions. They are harder to employ. They are always interpreted as "feel good"policies that attempt to preserve the elusive attributes of a community such as neighborhood character. Or"encourage appropriate siting ... in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses; " (Policy U-5)or"that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environmental and adjacent land uses" (U-100); "require that cellular communications structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts,and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical." (U-101) 27. What condition or conditions were imposed to make this tower compatible and diminish its aesthetic impacts? The Zoning Administrator required the following in the January 20, 1998 decision: The applicant shall submit either: 1)a landscape plan to the City's Development Services Division which provides for the installation of a dense screen of ornamental vegetation on the perimeter of the equipment compound; OR 2)a detail of the proposed fence design or wall design that demonstrates how the wall/fence would screen the equipment compound from off-site areas. The condition would require the screening of the nearly invisible,ground level equipment compound. Nothing would and nothing probably could truly screen the monopole. At this point the City does not even know if a strobe light or blinking red light might also be required for aviation safety. The condition is inadequate. It does not satisfy any of the goals and policies that strive to screen such structures. • Howard Seelig Martin Seelig • Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 16 28. In conclusion,the record demonstrates that the subject proposal is not compatible with the subject site and should be denied. While there is nothing that specifically requires a demonstration of specific suitability, and that is not the reason for this denial,the record does not demonstrate that this is the only site that would serve the applicant's purpose. Are there other sites that can serve at a slight disadvantage or maybe no disadvantage? Would a more careful alignment or even one or two more additional,but maybe overall shorter,arrays overcome possible disadvantages and provide,better aesthetics? It is not anti-competitive or prejudicial or playing favorites to suggest that the existing three or so providers already at this site are enough for one locale in the City.. In addition, even those providers are not attempting to extend 100 feet into the air into the view of the neighboring properties. DECISION The decision of the Zoning Administrator is hereby reversed. The Conditional Use Permit is denied. ORDERED THIS 13th day of April, 1998. LHFRED J.KA N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, 1998 to the parties of record: Howard Seelig Jennifer Henning Greg Anderson Martin Seelig 200 Mill Avenue S 3650 131st Avenue SE,#400 P.O.Box 1925 Renton,WA.98055 Bellevue,WA 98006 Bellevue,WA 98009 Jim Price Jack Stevens Michael Magula 1980 112th Ave NE,#270 7711 111th Place SE 7617 1,1 lth Place SE Bellevue,WA 98004 Newcastle,WA 98056 • Newcastle, WA 98056 Rick Wyatt Susan Irwin Sharon Ward 7728 111th Place SE 7701 111th Place SE 7714 111th Place SE Newcastle,WA 98056 Newcastle,WA 98056 Newcastle,.WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson'Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal . Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD April 13, 1998 Page 17 . 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.,April 27, 1998. 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 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. MAR-10-1998 16:5i8 +1 425 451 8203 P.01 Seelig Family Prop_erties FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: D1nrrh I0) MO To: -•rPc1 �-rnJcmnn, I-lcar irl(' Fxrlrn;rer FAX#: ;) .ti 5.5-..)r,.3 FROM: (1 r'Ff►1 S?Pe RE: • # PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: (0 19 U f1)ri I en Qpin -16 ry P cos(('4- Day y whir Li in(nrpnrr+es marsh., bur on} 00)i Q� Ylt;� �7�: ���,y Phone: 425-454-0885 Mailing Address: Street Address: • Fax: 425-451-8203 P.O. Box 1925 1309 114th SE, Suite 107 Bellevue, WA 98009 Bellevue, WA 98004 . rafR-10-199E; IA: +1 425 451 2203 P.r12 SEELIG FAMILY PROPERTIES P. O. BOX 1925 BELLEVUE, WA 98009 425-454-0885. 10 March 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton RE: LUA-97-092, CU-A, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Ordinance 4689 Section 4-38-14. B10 Conditional Use criteria compatibility with the general purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan—why proposal for the monopole is not compatible with the Plan. (Underlined portions in quotation marks refer to Pages and Sections in City of Renton Report and Decision Environmental Review and Administrative Land Use Acton, Decision Date January 20, 1998.) Policy U-5: Encourage appropriate siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of all utility systems in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. No meaningful effort was made by the Applicant to observe this policy. No recognition was made of the fact that the adjacent property, the one most significantly affected, already bears the burden of 18 separate antennae poles each about 15 ft, high sprouting from Shurguard's Building"C." and operated by three different purveyors These 18 poles now obstruct the Appellant's view-of Lake Washington. That number is as many as are located on any other facility in the City. And the other facilities are not blocking adjacent property owners' Lake views. With the proposed addition of 12 more antennae by Western Wireless and potential for many more collocated sets on the proposed monopole, the Appellant's site would bear the brunt of the burden for view obstruction and have clearly the worst impact of any property in the entire City. Applicant stated height of monopole was determined to meet engineering requirements. No explanation was provided as to why its requirements are more technologically demanding than the 3 other purveyors on Shurguard's site, but an explanation should be provided and analyzed by the City. Applicant has not substantiated its requirement for a 100-ft, high pole and the City has not analyzed factors to determine if Applicant has Page 1 of 5 59 +1 425 451 8203 P.03 suitable justification. Nor has the public had an opportunity to scrutinize Applicant's rationale. Policy U-100: Require that the site and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner which minimizes impact on environmental and adjacent land uses. Adjacent land has already been adversely impacted by erection of 18 view obstructing antennae atop Shurgard Building C. That is enough. City already achieved its collocation objective with three purveyors collocating in one location.. Environmental Review Committee failed to require photo simulations from the most adversely affected adjacent property and the City disregarded its own policy by failing to require siting of the monopole in a manner so as to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. How can one possibly believe that placing a 10 story tower 32 ft. from an adjacent property line would minimize the impact to an adjacent land use, especially when the tower could be located 330 ft. from that land use? No account was taken of an actual or, even worse, perceived threat. Someone who stands 32 it from a 100-ft. high tower knows full well that if that thing were to fall, it is close enough to fall and hit her or him. In a windstorm, a 100-ft. tower has got to do plenty of swaying. And what about when the earthquake comes? Which way is that tower going to fall then? That is the perceived and real threat to an inhabitant of adjacent property. The Applicant has not addressed that problem, and its request for Conditional Use should be denied. "City's goal is to require collocation," (page 3, Section 4) There are already 18 antennae located on Shurgard's Building"C" on the site. The City has met its goal. Assuming that the building is not structurally capable of supporting yet more antennae(it was not designed to be an antenna farm) more antenna could be located on new poles on Shurgurd's west property line but at the same elevation as the others. There is already a demonstrated effectiveness by 3 existing providers at that elevation. Applicant did not provide any engineering justification to enable staff or the public to evaluate its claim that additional height be required, another reason for denial of Applicant's Conditional Use. "This facility facility (monopole)would allow 1 or 2 other purveyors.to collocate." (page 3, Section 4) This is intentionally understated. The proposed pole is at elevation 36. The base of the existing roof top antennae is at approximate elevation 48. Pole top is at elevation 121. There could easily be a total of 4 sets of 15-ft. high antennae mounted on the pole at elevations 58, 79, 101 and, 121. That would really create some aesthetic blight not yet contemplated by the Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee should consider the potential impact of additional antennae and consider it now in view of the City's collocation goal. When considering the impact of additional collocated, monopole mounted antennae added to the existing roof top mounted antennae, the view impact would be overwhelming and the Conditional Use Application should be denied. The Applicant proposes no mitigation measures for its 10-story pole and antennae located 32 ft. from the Appellant's property line, but the Applicant should have. Page 2 of 5 OM-10-199S 17:00 +1 425 451 F12E13 P.114 • "Relocation of the tower farthcr from the residences would not decrease visibility." (page 8, Section 10A) This is untrue. Were the tower to be located west of the Shurgard buildings, the entire lower portion of the tower would be hidden from view by residential uses. The most preferable location if such a tower deserves to be built(and the Appellant does not believe it is deserving) should be in the right of way west of the Shurgard site, not the southeast corner of the Shurgard site. "Proposal_i5in►ton d tQ.Qyoid impacts to residential_neighborhoods." (page 6, Sections 2 and 3) Unequivocally misleading. Zoning on Appellant's site would allow 96 residential condo units. Appellant has layouts which show each of these with a lake view. Furthermore, Appellant's site is located adjacent to the north and south of other multifamily properties, substantiating the residential potential of Appellant's property. "Vacant site to the east is higher than the subject." (page 6, Section 4„ Surrounding Topography) This is very significant. Proposed tower elevations would be from 36 to 136. Elevations on Appellant's parcel range from 55 to 145; average about 100. Building finish floor elevations could range from 65 to 155. That is the full range of the elevation of the pole and its antennae and any other future collocated antennae. The proposal is one plainly and simply"in your face" or in this case, "in the Appellant's face". "Design of Tower with Particular Reference to Design Characteristics That Have Effect of Reducing or Eliminating Visual Obtrusiveness." (page 7, Section 6) Photo simulations as previously stated were not made from Appellant's site—only 32 ft. from the tower. No mention is made of the residential potential of Appellant's site—for 96 units, according to City Code. No alternative locations were proposed and Appellant knows why. The proposed location poses no view obstruction to the Shurgard parcel, while it maximizes obstruction to Appellant's parcel. That fact is not stated in the City's Report. In other words, no significant effort was made by the Applicant to reduce visual obtrusiveness. "Any movement of the monopole to the north or farther west would not measurably diminish the view of the facility." This is simply untrue. With new legislation now under consideration by the State Legislature, the Applicant could likely choose a location in right of way west of Shurgard's west property line. That would be 330 ft. from Appellant's,. property line. The west property line location would also serve to obstruct views to the west from the Shurgard property. Clearly, that was most objectionable to Shurgard and was therefore not proposed. Shurguard property is now a combination of retail (health club)and warehouse use. The future could bring more intensive uses. However, it would be the most significant effort that could be made by Applicant to reduce visual obstruction. If the pole were 3300 yards or even 330 yards from Appellant's property line, we would not be here today, but 32 ft. puts an unreasonable burden on Appellant's property. Policy U-101: Require that cellular communication structures be sensitively sited (Page 9)...There is a complete absence of sensitivity when siting a swaying 100 ft. tower close enough to adjacent properties that it could topple onto the adjacent land. That is surely detrimental to adjacent landowners. "If FAA requires marking or lighting of the Page 3 of 5 00P-1O-199E 17:On +1 425 451 8203 P.05 monopole. visibility of the structure would increase." This has yet to be established. The FAA has not yet made its determination, and there is considerable question as to whether Applicant even has a current application with FAA. How can the environmental impact of the tower be established unless this factor has been analyzed? "Photo simulations_..do not show the monopole facility to be obtrusive or blocking existing views." (page 3, Section4, Aesthetics) This is true. Specific reason for this is that photo simulations are not taken from the location, which is most affected, namely the Appellant's site. "Environmental Review Committee also retested addjtionaLphoto simulations be provided"...(page 8) However, the Environmental Committee did not request or evaluate simulations from the Appellant's site, which is surely impacted the greatest. Why? Applicant's use is entirely out of scale with any currently existing use or building bulk in the vicinity. No use exceeds 3 stories, approximately 30 ft. The proposal far exceeds that heights at 100 ft. "Availability of Suitable Existing Towers and Other Structures." (page 8, Section 9) Appellant's site already bears the burden of 18 poles and 3 different competing phone companies. City policy would enable one or more additional purveyors to collocate on the pole. There is no City policy which states one property owner should bear a disproportionate burden for the City's cellular communication needs. Western Wireless has been beaten out by three other competitors. Construction of the monopole is an effort in one-upmanship, dearly at Appellant's expense. Mr. Examiner, clearly errors have been made and the Conditional Use Application should be denied. EXHIBITS The Appellant has prepared two different exhibits to demonstrate the adverse impact of the proposal on its property and the failure of the City to comply with its own policies. The first is a full size model of the pole placed 32 ft from the Hearing Examiner's chair— the same distance as the tower is proposed to be from the Appellant's property line. The second exhibit is located outside in the City Hall parking lot. The Appellant has noted that the red line on the curb in front of the building is 32 ft. from the face of the City Hall building. The window glass on the face of the building between the dark vertical aluminum sections is 42" wide, slightly more than the diameter of the proposed tower. The City Hall building is approximately 70, 30 feet less than the proposed tower and its antenna. If one were to stand with his or her heels just inside the red line and look up at the glass between the dark vertical sections on the building, one can begin to get the perspective of the tower, but without any of its protruding antennae or other collocated Page 4 of 5 Ni?R-1l_1-1'99'8 17:01 +1 425 451 821_1. P.86 antennae. Appellant also placed several yellow colored ribbons on a tree at the end of the parking lot. That tree is visible from the glass doors outside the Hearing Examiner's Chamber and is located 331 feet from the face of the building. If one were to stand at that tree and observe the same glass space between the vertical lines, one could get the relative perspective of a tower placed on Shurgard's west property line compared to the perspective of the tower placed as proposed by the Applicant. From these observations, one would conclude that in violation of City Policy U-100 and others, no effort was made to minimize the adverse impacts on the Appellant's view, an important element of the Appellant's property value and subsequently its land use. For this reason, the Appellant believes the Conditional Use Permit should be denied. The Appellant would like to call upon Jim Price, MAI, to place an actual value on the damages that the Appellant will face as a result of the proposed action. Sincererly, MARTIN A_ SEFI,IG, APPELL • Page 5 of 5 TOTAL P.4:. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600-S. Washington Avenue,Kent,Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months NOTICE OFgppEgL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language an A RENroN,WgSHINGTON...,,,.;,., ',;,,j} continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Renton Hearin earing will be held by tfie ip Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the meeting in the Councril�Chambe s on the • State of Washington for King County. wash nd t floor of city Hall, Renton The notice in the exact form_attached,was published in the South County ro cons deih fo jaW1 ig Hall at Renton, Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers APPEAL OF WESTERN WItRELESS , AAD-97-149 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a The appellant, the issuance of a ondtonal use rd Seel'ith a total 9 appeals Appeal of Western Wireless the City of Renton for the permit by Wireless project(File No: Western Western Wirelessproposes installation of a of 12 panelp antennas mmounted aole t�the top of The the mono ole which would have an overall LegaluNumber 4288he fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$39.07 height of 100 feet from the ground. • Location:1755 NE 48ih St. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Building, Renton. Municipal ��. �./7 � % �S'���< said petitions are All interested persons to - the Public Hearin invited to be present at Legal Clerk, Souh County Journa g• • published in the South County Journal February 27, 1998.4288 .. ..LSubscribed and sworn before me on thi34day of AL2aLpli09 ``\• ���`�•i1'^G] F47 / I F ` :—.7 Q..f l D�/l(;� � ; .. lt�;%: Notary Public of the State of Washington .,a.,y '' cn- residing in Renton s °— • = King County, Washington G Iiltt 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 March 10, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: APPEAL OF WESTERN WIRELESS AAD-97-149 The appellant, Howard Seelig, appeals the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Western Wireless project (File No. LUA-97-092,CU). Western Wireless proposes installation of a telecommunications monopole with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted at the top of the monopole which would have an overall height of 100 feet from the ground. Location: 1755 NE 48th St. 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: February 27, 1998 Account No. 51067 AADPUB.DOC 7 � western® wireless I. Introduction Western Wireless Corporation is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide Commercial Mobile Radio including Personal Communication Services. This license requires that Western Wireless complete construction of a certain percentage of its system within stringent time constraints. In order to meet these federally mandated requirements, Western Wireless will seek to install Minor Communication Utilities throughout the Puget Sound area. Western Wireless plans to bring the benefits of competition, such as lower rates and high quality service,to the public through its provision of PCS services. This year Western Wireless acquired the E and F block PCS licenses for the Seattle Basic Trading Area(BTA)which operates at 1885 to 1975 MHz. A hypothetical cell layout was developed by identifying demographic areas where we will have high demand for its PCS services. Search rings were then released for each site with radio frequency engineering design parameters (i.e. height,type of antenna, ground elevation etc...). The radius of a cell is dependent on the required signal strength at the mobile phone and surrounding morphology. Also, worth noting is the frequency band (1900 MHz) being higher than cellular(800 MHz)has higher attenuation, or loss, making the radius of cell sites smaller. The morphology of the local area also affects the attenuation of the signal. For example, sites in heavy urban areas will be closer together due to building loss as opposed to sites in rural areas. The height of the antennas is critical in determining the radius of the cell. The higher the site, the greater the coverage radius. Western Wireless is looking to secure the site at 1755 NE 48th to insure overall coverage and call quality. The proposed site meets all of the Western Wireless engineering requirements. Western Wireless sent out a team of engineers to set up a test transmitter and to perform a drive test analysis on the site. This analysis measures signal strength to determine whether the site will provide the required level of coverage to insure system call quality. The results of the drive test indicate that the antennas need to be located at 100' above ground level (AGL) in order to maintain adequate signal strength. If the height is lowered below 100', an additional site will be required in the area to provide the same coverage as the proposed site. During the process of selecting Shurgard Storage, Western Wireless Acquisition Specialists sought to locate a site that would meet the necessary engineering objectives while meeting the requirements of the City of Renton. The project location is a developed commercial property situated next to I-405 and the addition of the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on the property or the surrounding area. II. Facts On July 14 , 1997, Western Wireless submitted an application to the City of Renton for an Administrative Conditional Use to place a wireless communications facility at 1755 NE 48th Western Wireless Corporation 3650 131 st Avenue SE,#400 Bellevue,WA 98006 (425) 586-8700 FAX(425) 586-8666 i Street. The Department a :arming assigned file number LUA-09,-v92, CU-A, ECF to the project. The proposed installation consists of a three-sector antenna array of nine panel antennas mounted on an 85-foot tall monopole with accessory radio equipment at grade. On September 16, 1997,the Department of Planning approved the Administrative Conditional Use and the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance. In issuing the decision,the City added conditions and mitigation measures requiring the construction of a fence designed to screen the accessory radio equipment. An appeal of this decision was filed with the Office of the Hearing Examiner on October 6, 1997. III. Discussion A. Environmental Review In reviewing the proposed project pursuant to RCW 43.21C.240, Staff identified all possible environmental impacts and required adequate mitigation. As expected for a project of this nature, Staff focused the majority of the environmental review on the matter of aesthetics. The Determination of Non-Significance clearly notes that the project will not have a significant impact. The proposed monopole will resemble existing light standards along I-405 and will thus not change the character of the area. Photo simulations demonstrate that, while visible,the facility will not be obtrusive or infringe upon existing views. Additionally,the proposed monopole will serve to reduce future impacts on the area by providing space for as many as two future wireless service providers. The mitigation required by Staff consists of a fence designed to screen the accessory radio equipment. Western Wireless will,prior to obtaining its building permit, submit a design and specifications of this fence for the City's approval. B. Administrative Conditional Use In granting the Administrative Conditional Use, Staff based its decision on a fair review of the conditional use criteria. This decision can in no way be considered in error, contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or arbitrary and capricious. The proposed project meets all of the following provisions for an Administrative Conditional- Use and Staff correctly applied these criteria as concerns the proposed project. RZC 4-31-36.C.1 The Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan,program, map or ordinance. Western Wireless' proposal is consistent with the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan notes on page V-43, "When new antenna structures are required for the cell site, monopoles or lattice structures are often utilized. Monopoles generally range in height from 60 feet to 150 feet." The proposed monopole is consistent with this statement in that the overall height of the pole will be 85 feet. The aprehensive Plan continues, "Monopoics are generally more aesthetically acceptable, but changes in the system such as lowering antennas is not possible without major changes." The proposed facility is a monopole capable of accommodating additional service providers. RCZ 4-31-36.C.2 Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location... The proposed location shall not result in either detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed use is suited for the proposed site. According to the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association(1996)the most important reason customers cited for purchasing a wireless phone is the ability to communicate in an emergency. Furthermore, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (March 1997) note that 70% of wireless users say that cost per minute and monthly charges for their service are extremely important in selecting a wireless service. The proposed site will not only allow for enhanced coverage in the area surrounding the project location but will play an integral part in the overall system. As previously stated,the addition of Western Wireless to the market will effectively drive down the cost of wireless service,however, the proposed site is required to provide a competitive level of service. The site is a fully developed commercial enterprise providing storage facilities to the public. The site is highly commercial in appearance and use is therefore conducive to the proposed use as demonstrated by other wireless carriers siting at this location. RCZ 4-31-36.C.2 Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue effects on adjacent property. The site is well suited for this type of use in that it is far removed from residences. None of the surrounding land uses will be detrimentally affected by the operation of an antenna array at this site. The principal effect on neighboring properties will be visual. The impact has been minimized to the extent possible by using a monopole as opposed to a lattice tower. RCZ 4-31-36.C.4 Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood The proposed facility is not located in an area of the City that is used or zoned for residential use. The character of the area is commercial and this proposal is commercial in nature. RCZ 4-31-36.C.5 Parking... No additional parking is proposed. The facility will be unmanned and will be briefly visited by a technician once a month. RCZ 4-31-36.C.5 Traffic... The proposed facility will have no traffic impacts. RCZ 4-31-36.C.7 Noise, Glare... The facility will have a small fan that will generate very little noise. The monopole will be painted with a non-glare finish. RCZ 4-31-36.C.8 Landscaping No landscaping is proposed but screening will be achieved by a decorative fence. RCZ 4-31-36.C9 Accessory Uses... No accessory uses are part of this proposal. RCZ 4-31-36.C.10 Conversion... No existing building or structure conversion is proposed. RCZ 4-31-36.C.11 Public Improvements... The site is fully serviced by public services. Additional Conditional Use Criteria per Ordinance 4260. 4-38-14.B "Conditional Use Criteria: The governing authority shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that goals of this ordinance are better served." 4-38-14.B.1 "Height of the proposed tower." The proposed tower is 85 feet high which is the maximum permitted height for this zone under the requirements of the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance. Any lower height would significantly impair the ability to operate this facility and would result in the proliferation of more monopole facilities in the City of Renton. 4-38-14.B.2 "Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries." The proposed tower is 85 feet high which is the maximum permitted height for this zone under the requirements of the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance. Any lower height would significantly impair the ability to operate this facility and could result in the proliferation of more monopole facilities in the City of Renton in order to acquire adequate coverage. 4-38-14.B.3 "Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." According to City of Renton zoning staff all adjacent properties are zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). Presently, adjacent uses are either commercial or the property is vacant and unused. 4-38-14.B.4 "Surrounding Topography" East along N.E. 48th Street the elevation increases sharply. West the elevation drops towards I-405. Areas north and south of the property are of a similar elevation however some distance north of the site the elevation begins to increase. Due to the sharp increase in elevation to the east the monopole needs to be 85 feet high. 4-38-14.B.5 "Surrounding tree coverage and foliage." Significant stands of trees exist east of the site. Further north of the site, trees and foliage exists and may provide some limited screening for properties north. South and west of the site very few trees exist to provide screening. The residential properties most likely affected by this site are east and they will enjoy substantial screening due to existing trees immediately adjacent to the east. 4-38-14.B.7 "Proposed ingress and egress" The Shurgard site is fully developed and presently has ingress and egress via S.E. 76th Street. No alteration to the present access is proposed and the facility should not affect neighboring properties access to their sites. 4-38-14.B.8 "Potential noise, light and glare impacts." A small fan (not an air-conditioning unit) will be installed in the cabinet containing the communications equipment. The fan will emit noise well below the City of Renton's maximum permitted noise limit. The facility will be painted with a none glare paint. No portion of the facility should emit glare. 4-38-14.B.9 "Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures" As a matter of corporate policy Western Wireless always seeks to collocate antennas with other carriers or use existing structures. In doing so our costs are considerably reduced and as evidenced by the City of Renton's zoning code, collocation is usually the preferred option among local jurisdictions. Unfortunately we were unable to find an existing structure or tower in this area for our use. While this site contain antennas for other wireless carriers, we are unable to use the existing structures since they do not provide sufficient height. There are no available structures or towers in the immediate vicinity which would be able to provide sufficient height to meet our needs. 4-38-18.1 "No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet applicant's engineering requirements." The attached letter from Western Wireless' engineering division explains the geographical area being served and the lack of existing support structures for our antennas. As mentioned previously as a matter of corporate policy Western Wireless always seeks to collocate antennas with other carriers or use existing structures. Using structures at their present height within this geographical area would-certainly have required the proliferation of antennas and monopole structures. =�'�.'.. v_ Ai VE:W.f'n��S.b,.' , ,ex: _ xt R s-: i a+,-i.i.Ar• :"may t�Y 4-r-. �.. "4 ?v :.. ,-a =wc- u:xa-x -z .:x a ,: ���. :.:�.. �, .. .-4 ti:if'.`y-.:`:�., . .. � t h.. c '+;�.. `;[ Tzar: �:s.-� ��c C^L�' 3.4KF''+� -':o - '''<-i,'70;l. -;:.='; - ;::,z„,-,- 4. _,*.•„,%- . .‘,5:,....t,.-,. �'� :,-' xf. 4-,'fK.�L'}.j(�.. ��'nR;.:Mz`WE z. .-.:py� . �_; ��- .r< Y,� _.t:u"1G''>,++�ts."`3"g.�7 y.; Apr. -ia. .�h� �.:� ?� a•s'S=. �i� `A ; ^"�a ...5� ....ie4Vb.-b .:.: ✓Ks-. .:< f 5�...SS M<_'S N 'YC1E 'r £'. 1�TF. ��y. . , - .:' - ..,tt.a � tf -. �t2, '3r ` €`.a s z ,Fi -' •r,� B=Ar Y.n. v . a' , z .. T,.�s S"F r"`.�h� 4 ♦ �'o s£t�Z ��'- r"1 � 4'i�5�t �a�c' �_ +,.4'�`�,5 =r_ . . .4'" k,_ •` 4 4.1„. le ,,j Y Y western . 1 1 ( wireless • ����y as p .1..�. ` 1 t .p."� [G i• 4Y ^' F^ i-ase �5 `'k.' FRSYa'Y i +yi ...:..'..,..._..,'"...:.,... • • .11 ail id 111 MI • r .1 • \ II 1.1 111111 f. a EXISTING • . • • • • • • • • • • • • : . SHURGUARD .. et1,-,..'i;.4 :,,,''..'.::,t."'..;:':..-.:,i...?„i,..:e....-i"..1„...,:.,,:.'.'...,'.:'..'.., STORAGE ,., E-3 411 -A • ...._ , . • • 1.;.‘.1'../.1-.4.III view looking • .,. .. East > PROPOSED ?2,19. ,t 7. ,c,.. •, ,i,1 4,,,t , „I ...i. :„ . ,,,3•. 'r,- ,,,' .). • •444 .'' 4 "', 9`"'i• --' V.• 4.41.-• li•-• • r.i.:'i,.V.,'‘,a1;eili,11,, ...,..!JA.4-.,,,.0,-,- m ..,.7. 1-5.tvp' ro .-.4...,,A—:.,.E..,.(....;;X:a.;, , n.4_,A,..t.,',. . ' • i ''.11., --'''' ?iic.. .7.rt‘ki+4: •„tal '• •. me;..; 15.,,,,, 1. „,,, e.-,4 ..-- -P ,:-: ..-0-'4.**,':t•• ,?$4.04.',:lit's0.Y,4<,f,. • „ ill ,t4 c, : -.4 - .. , 't- • • •r-la,,,,i .i -0,,,,N' , '4" ': 1 I vf ki = ci3 •i-e4.„-- 4 r doki,:$L.,'••'a'' I n N-1 i otp............4i,...., -• ,. 44; -' ,,•,* .„ i x 10, ,••••• '. C:.A.1 CLI .,„ ,.. ...t • . G. ...... : .,..,v 4 •:O.S...,....',' IIV,..• .' ,•+,,,' , - • ....1 co •,,,..4,,,.. --, .1 . 1• ' '.14‘1'1 Ct. 4t. 1 r t); :* .01 • " ...pw ..... - •,, • it ' , , r vo!,, . 4 k. ,..c.... ,. .,,, s.,4. , 0%,,•,', i gt-..... -444 0.,',,- NA 4 ,41.. IL .r., ,, - A 0,,, r or - 't• -3 4,t,ift,..•,,'t. .. ,4. .4 • Mill..- ) . ' .,t, • ,, s „,„ ' i„, ..•••c.,...f., .414 , s, ,. s I • ,--4,;.,t4i'fq.,„ ','• -.1,.., ,'', v ?y,,,,111.•,2,A.,eii-..t .'.: :•;.,":'`. '--•=•'44, 4 s .:i 'AVVI.,A 4,..IN,'4.0•,::, ";', -W',' 41)`,.:ei, . v 4.,,,, '•' 11',,11.:4‘ -s• ,,, eL t s‘ q $1# A, •• I < • • , ,viNior I-2' = ^ 10 t•'t4.**-•?Pr, 'zl.c'tipj- •19...0, ,; ,._.-s4r , . 1 • CD eo-• "...,.,;,,,,,t:A.-!,,v,11,-;-,. ,_,1 •,.,.,,,,,,.,„•'.4. , ....i r • ,. ,.r ' .4-‘)•'":"''''' i,-,. ,,,,t 4, .,it., , ''? .s .. — LLI ,...-.•.a ,..4.,,v.p.4,s,&:4„,,,..,,,.,, ..„ ,,,, A„,...4.... 's,,,i r.,,o , rr , (/) k.47'..e..-Tirt`i'Ky 'lro j.,4P,44.41;"••••• ..1. i , „Vj'AP,..,•,:z V, .V;:s••••42,....e• 10,..• .. -,,:t'.... .' . .0 4)•,),1 •A.,3, • i' V,..1,•,. „,,,,, '.:"•ha'.•`....".i,l'...4 sr•..,,.„ „,,,,, • ...... . 6 79111 . •• .ji, , • !, Cl— ..,, • I ' ',.. 0 ,•,,, 4i t .— :f ' n $;•14, 145' ,. ' Ilk 1 t: • .4. ., ,,,,, ,.. A _ _ - . •;tt .:-04.t.li., J • • , 4 . ,. 4....4,r): 1 AIVA16 r , , 'X., , Ir•- • .1. Iv a A ft.:- 4 ,- •.4 t.. , 5/ . 0".1; • co \.0 ' , --,, • ,, 4/ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • xd• . Iii ..-. b.. ' , • , . . • k ... I • . •- ._ . .., • A . . ILLII )4•:,.4. 4' gi 1 • 04a •• • (D 14:::(1 0.'‘.:,$-.,..,11 , II . - 't- ' • . . 1 • - ,::.. •-. "27 .„ • N"""". L $ , • r-i- .1,,, . --- _ . t. !* ,o • , • : , • f:t 0 'cr 0 .., ' • , •4' . t. 1 ',. 44(.•• "4 '— .4' 1. • • . 1) F:Z 0 • I (i) *.•% 1. ' di'-" ,'4 . • 44Z.„„.% 11"0•• CO• liesj ci) in 0 r... , - ; ,,, • ii,, • .. .,,, . $. . ,.:1-.... t,. e-a , „JIM. — : • Z(f) — 47: •-1 4: , "4))I I...te Pt ,,,,„, ) (A 1 _ .' ' CD VI, 1/4.4 ,a r, . . Cr,, 1: ..„1.,..:, i. -e ti: . '-' , ., _ .;•04 e., 1 Rit i .a 2 :.•r . • I— 0 4:t( 0 ' v.::-.% 1 •,.1 r , . 4 °1 , >< Z ,:. , r•iitli.....,+,..,„ , • .. LI.... _ • 7,!:‘,1:, • } LI •,l'*•, , ,• : . ka 01) ..1.... 7.- ...;,.,:.,4 Ci) li.,,,, ,........,- 5,,,,,' 41 .3-. •Igkikr ' . '74,:'• .{.1,:.:;,1,071.1•,Z,•,,,,'.""ltk,.-..„,V...4':%•,'...t. ;ye."' 1,,'1,,S,e0...y"..r...„j:,,,,I,,,••,-..-.8.41,,ci,",,4,-.y.,. ''TI*7:41649,'"-. ..."..0•••'01 'S'•-o•eas....,•rt,41-..lios..•-/.442.4,.i.1•:: .1r.d..,Litols•......,:to.-,tc•-..h..c...,....-,.:,,4,i....... .4-..,-,....1,4e.,,,a..... , ••••/• .•i'ricgse4:- ..' , :tr.,-'4',- . . . . • ..-. :-...1-__ , •. •/.4a/.€!,:t''. .:.' • ' ',*1 •''•'• '*.'',A''"k/k.......""* t....ti e*;..,VI- • . . ., - i'. •• 7 :' ' ''i ' Al„... ..".• '4.." , . : . . , --- '', • • • 1., NI .' • ' V. ,..ti . .rtit,.." ,.,,,,,,3:. ''',•• 1 'f. ... . .,4. .... ..,,,f.:!. ',v. •.,....' — ' - ;0%„••• - . s 1 , 1 i • - iv,* i,=•••• = C'D i,..A4 i ., . '4. ,.. • --el • . )4 co: v, . , ,• .. .'1 .'- l ,. .Cm ' 1" - '' - 4 Y 4 .''' ..•*-- cjj a' , • -,.. ,,,. ., ..... . .., ,!.. -x',/, • ,e 0., • .....„. :,. ..-.. ...„ `,94,:'4--' '-.• 4"mi 0 6,%, . ‘. y.• ,,,,,_ 1 °' 4.4,,,, : , ';,1.•..0.',.:44.1i! Ni. '..1'';' ..1:,.i:• . _ . . CO ..... . ...,..., , •,, . 6 . • , , ;, •'' ... . - "' •-1..',..:. .: . ..,-.. •. . ..... ., 04'. 0„,e-.. .4 ......., . . . ., . -• . 7,,•7i :3-04. --,r s • — .,. ' -ilh=1.• '' - , '' - - •"".',..',..:. . ..rt • ' ' i 47 ' 1 . •"., Ir. 4.•• • . V', ..,' •- '0' .. rr NW"— - ... ; '...'. - ';',.i... — .-'• -,,••••„.„1,,?? —-4. -: t., . , , '? . ' . *;* '* *-." ' .."...‘" '.,...''''4‘'1.1y- 4•' i....4.•-,..-.GIN .. , '")it • "7.'-: m ,_J • ., -.' . ' '' ' ‘‘‘-•,..,Y:T 4. ;.•A yr 1: . — Imo— ...„ :,..,,,...- .. -lac, ...)..Iict 1 •. -,4,. ,, ,k •% „. t e —41111 / ; •el ..- •-.• ,,, ' ... --.. .-:. -.F.A. ..,:!%, ... •r.r'r• !'?:.,. . . • c. . -' ;'.%. -•'.•2;• '..•t---' .": I - s r .1-•'.- , t • , .1V:1, ,.• " -•s.r. '-,.... A•. :* ,..,:iii. '.'111,". • ‘•*'..,•' A‘"•kg 't.41;•7 tk • - ..lit 4-•-• `., F....• F.,1- • . .4- ,,,, , •: • -• ..# . 1. `t'.,'••••.:,'',.‘•- ---; •i ‘ ,s• 0 .0- - ,,,...• 'S • g ,,,r N-q.. .. .-- h ..A,Ai:r. ' ••...,„ • k.. LLJ - ,6,- .-,-*.• • . :-4, .0,tylae of0,911.4.505r ....-: . ...r '"--4-P": • "'''•'''' :. • , , 0 p,.:t,-..it 7.-7.•..',"-.„...7',.. t,'`.2.: I,, i4k;'1 Ci._, -. .._. :,1#6,.,v,..-, • -7-.. ..-: -. .. .,.,.k, '1 t`rs' .--- —-0,---71-4:3_: .;L.- -AC ', ',•- 0 'TIT'Z.'•.g.r•Varr •• ' . •• . -,--•- ,,, ,t , C ' 41 . -7-, -1f.t.:;041,11j,•:'74^ •'': v; . • . ' , -:. • r CL . ... ; • i 7. ,24 ..11H . 1 .,. . --Tc. •••'•• ' '' )'f r i,"...--r' • ,;'' . '' r , L., ..4' A .. .i. il ., , . . •i' 'N4 4 r.,rtr tr ''." .!. • ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , 'I ."'.. . • • .1-: . ., .. . . ,,. .,,,..........„. :., • r„...,... xo ... ..,. ... . .:. 5 ' '... ,••••":,L;': •ir LLI ,. . .,..., ;4.; ;--- .. :,, "', • •' * 4- • J - • . . . • CC .. ". .10. ,- 1. • .4-'.q 1.,•: .,• •, • i,4 eil '• ' - .4... • ' s -• -7- "''''..)11 ' (ID . ,• • ..'•- -.', '; ^ •,'••- '...,./ ' I i,..";i " _ ,.. -, • r '"'' ' . ''A+ '• , ! ::' - • .... ' 1.11•6p.,""' ..%., . • U. ,• t - • ct yr- , ,. . . _. .. -.. , . 0. .‘• • • it. . 1,, ... -.. . -- ....,,....,..-*•.. , 4 .10„,,,......• . .. . , .,, . IZ ii.t mi. Al:L.:y.4 •-'-' ''• •;.1.14.,••1!'% -, .•Al-,-;.g, •'_ ....„.. -. 4,,‘ 0.,). --44' •: A,,t-f. ‘1.., • el.,,rst. .,"' •. : .' . ' ". . '' liT.'-‘i i 'I • • ' 'r .. - • • . AX.' ..`• ' . :1,'At 4 A-,'',X I -..*i .. . a. . 6,1 •• . • .4 "" ••tglite..;,,..ki ,,,y • ,yr..r••• 11 ''. CC 0 CV) 47' . 4,v4 . .. . 0 ..,....,...r.11-14. ,,.... t. ;.. -,,,,, . , • '..:,'il ,..,. _ , ,,,.„. ..,. ,,. • ..,_1 .•.,. •- , • (4111° . . .:., • ..,-.,.., „ , .. , --. .:,J17'r'.., • -,.. 1 •-, . -., . ,.. ...,-'>-•.s.W.4.,. 4• . > r -. ' •••,1•• v•-4.- Alt: • 1 .0t -;.,,,.%. -,-40., . • - 4:. r;* • • v•..--4 .,..,.1.,A,., :„.., .., , 4,,,... • —' ......, -,...r.„ ..• ...„ 0•. .... . ...../ .. .-..„.. .. . , . . .„ ,,, L , .. s_.....- tvne-7:- .--• -, : • F-- (1) f,. ,. ...-._ : .49...--rls....v -:•-. :-.-. - . Z iii it,..-..-e,- ,•.,,,,rr ....-47$70-''. 'kr. -•• ., U) 11101.1 ,r• e a.... ' '. t • 111 ammo .i. •: • '134:. -''4•1r4i1 i.•.'•• W:••, IMI • P.'• ><,-., ;„,b: '..... F. • ' ' • . ''' •'):..- .A4/11* F.?•A'r'' . . • .. . • fz.,:..: -i.;,..,•,.-:•.•4g,.....4.,r..4.,'.4..r• •-.,,...re',.*.,‘,:a.....4,..,,,,L,..-.4.-Pa:/•':.4..;•1: . ....ivm,Y.;2',.4.-v•:;,',,,r", • western wireless November 11, 1997 Mr. Howard L. Seelig Seelig Family Properties P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Shurgard Storage Site Dear Mr. Seelig: I am writing this letter at the request of Katie Johnson, Zoning Coordinator, regarding Western Wireless's telecommunication site at Shurgard Storage. Katie had indicated you were concerned about the monopole that Western is planning on installing and had suggested the monopole be installed on a utility easement that was granted to the City of Renton. I have enclosed a copy of the utility easement which I believe is the same one that you had suggested to Katie. As you can see, the grant of easement is to a specific party, the City of Renton, and only that party has any right to its use. Western would not be able to utilize that easement because we were not granted any rights. Also, in this particular instance, there is language in the easement prohibiting the Grantor from erecting any buildings or structures over the easement right-of-way. That prohibition would specifically prevent Western from putting a monopole on the easement if we could make such an arrangement with the Grantor. I understand your concern with Western's plans for the installation of a monopole but unfortunately, our options are very limited as to the location in the Shurgard facility. I hope this letter has been useful in addressing your concerns and in conveying Western's viewpoint on this matter. Sincerely, Edwin Lee Attorney at Law cc: Katie Johnson LIO /•. .,, A: • • • • • l� I 1 ct ct EASEMENT • CD THIS INSTRUMENT, made this_?day of A.,: ; .'t 1975; by and between '?ooert i:. ni11Pr AVM ct x1 • and • 1 and and hereinafter called "Grantor(s)," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee." WITNESSETH: That said Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of $ 1.'-) paid by Grantee, and other valuable consideration, do • . by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrant unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for public utilities (including water and Fever) with necessary appurtenances over, through, across and upon the following described property in King County, Washington,•more particularly described • as follows: THE EAST 15' OF TRACT 182, C. D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN, DIV. NO. 3 (VII, P 81).: RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, 7 WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE EAST 30 FEET OF TRACT 182 C. D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN, • DIV. NO. 3. (V. 11, P. 81) RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE • DURING CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BY THE GRANTEE BUT NOT LATER THAN AUGUST.1 1976. . • • • • • • • . • . • • Said heretofore mentioned grantee, its successors or assigns, shall have the right, without prior notice or proceeding at law, at such times as may be necessary to enter upon said above described property for the purpose of construct- ing, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstructing said utilities, or making any connections therewith, without incurring any legal obligations or liability therefore, provided, that such construction, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstruction of said utilities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the private improve- ments existing in the right(s)-of-way shall not be disturbed or damaged, they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the Grantee. The Grantor shall fully use and enjoy the aforedescribed premises, including the right to retain the right to use the surface of said right-of-way if such use cpdoes not interfere with installation and maintenance of the utilities. However, J_ the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over, under or across the ul, right-of-way during the existence of such utilities. This easement, shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be bind- ing on the Grantor, his cessors, heirs and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the law ere of the above properties and that they have a good end lawful right to e e t this agr ement. , • and and and STATE OF WASHINGTON SS (COUNTY OF KING I, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington,hereby certify that on this /Siiay of (lusscaf' 1975 personally appeared before me and /2 e 64.4/ cc In,Glt r and and s and to me known to be individual(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that /le Gt,/ t ?lta LL. signed and sealed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. da 4 Notary Public in d for thq State of Washington, residing at ..[t te.4 : • '.! • ....' •••,..'-:,•.,:)..:.:1:4,.‘..",':-•,::-. ....ii--:.,:f.. ".. -:1--PdtgaiiQrat-' - ,.i,..t.'„,.... ,i;,)g,:o.,:.>....-s,-:-.,...,,,..).;.f !..„,4., -.7_,.4•, , ... - ..... , . V ••••••••••0.......pe•Novv• ' ; • 41.64.irov • t•A ..,.0.0. ! % • • 4P. o• A • 'sore 4 iriCr/X'if 0% • . < t ii% &IP . . 3 • • • •••••-•••• . i • . . . t • g . 4 • IA . . % . • tiN 1 :t . t•ii • i • 1 % ,,2 • i ] t 1.6 el • % . ' a V 1 . vt ) •. • . , I • it i % . i •=. % I ; 40• • . . .• J • .• ' 4. .. .... .. ..... • . , 1 N o . • • • % .. Lb % • • V Vire ly. * A '• 44% N• * . 0 af9T7pie',...412g1,02 . . 4. • i a • • ' Vs et .1; • ---; tA, . Cig • . . L9 I . .. . . • • • CL . 0 I C —a. -F77/ 14.11 •• 'ANISW.7 VA161. . . --.1 • _D. I .. A i I • I t • . • . . A °MI" . ir.11 . e, 44.04 % • I . '1. . .. .. , . • . Ir 't$ / • 1 , . / • ; % / ,/ • . P.i. .. , . • •/••• . p . , . • .f 1.5 e=1 V Z ..9.5'.. . J 5 "*.F........ . 7 ; .. • :. I \\ .... C=1 r-""-—4. .,‘:\1/4.. • • • . • :.‘.. • . :. 0 41, J. , 4[7 • 00e 11•We V A A I i Al•.4 fre Alio . .•. I, I • 4 le / . • L. . , . . • • • R •carts 197)cci g PM 2 14 DIRECTR-RORD ' ELECT,o°;:KIECyc CO$.wtN. CEPUTY CU U1 ti rl O 84y SSO®6 'HSYM'NO.LN31t amerl... .a. maw 'DcI1 1Vd171NPlli lrOLN311 "iff"Nim31"20j41.11 .2*."111.4 ,pzombi-1iit puny JOI anti . . I ti } , western® November 11, 1997 1 / wireless PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RFNTON Ms. Jennifer Henning NOV 141997 Project Manager RECEWED City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Proposed Western Wireless Installation at Kennydale Shurgard (LUA 97-092) Dear Ms. Henning: I'm this letter to inform you of the progress that has been made in attempt to work out a viable solution with Mr. Howard Seelig. I have met with Mr. Seelig twice,the most recent meeting was this morning. The area of the site that we originally discussed as a reasonable alternative is not possible. The space shown on our site plans in an easement area. There is an easement for ingress and egress and easements for utilities. Upon visiting the site this morning with Mr. Seelig and Mr. Rick Turnure, Western Wireless Construction Manager, Mr. Seelig still felt that there was a possibility of locating the monopole at the southwest corner. The easement to the City of Renton, for public utilities, prohibits the erection of buildings or structures over this area. I have sent a copy of this easement, and a letter from Mr. Edwin Lee, Attorney-at-Law, explaining these restrictions, to Mr. Seeling. Western Wireless has offered to relocate the proposed site behind building "B", but this alternative does not seem to interest Mr. Seelig. I believe Western Wireless has exhausted the alternatives available at this proposed location. If you have any further suggestions, I would be happy to attempt to make them work; otherwise, it appears I will see you on December 2nd in front of the Hearings Examiner. Thank you again for all of your assistance, and please feel free to contact me at either 425-586-8994 or 425-864-0568. Sincerely, Western Wireless Gor\Aii Katie hnson Attachments XA . western® ► ► wireless November November 11, 1997 Mr. Howard L. Seelig Seelig Family Properties P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Shurgard Storage Site Dear Mr. Seelig: I am writing this letter at the request of Katie Johnson, Zoning Coordinator, regarding Western Wireless's telecommunication site at Shurgard Storage. Katie had indicated you were concerned about the monopole that Western is planning on installing and had suggested the monopole be installed on a utility easement that was granted to the City of Renton. I have enclosed a copy of the utility easement which I believe is the same one that you had suggested to Katie. As you can see,the grant of easement is to a specific party, the City of Renton, and only that party has any right to its use. Western would not be able to utilize that easement because we were not granted any rights. Also, in this particular instance, there is language in the easement prohibiting the Grantor from erecting any • buildings or structures over the easement right-of-way. That prohibition would specifically prevent Western from putting a monopole on the easement if we could make such an arrangement with the Grantor. I understand your concern with Western's plans for the installation of a monopole but unfortunately, our options are very limited as to the location in the Shurgard facility. I hope this letter has been useful in addressing your concerns and in conveying Western's viewpoint on this matter. Sincerely, Edwin Lee Attorney at Law cc: Katie Johnson /•• • • AL • • • ' • `` , • f EASEMENT ti • THIS INSTRUMENT, made this 15 of ":rar:t 1975; by and between Rooert E. Miller - ctal and • i • i end and hereinafter called "Grantor(s)," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee." WITNESSETH: That said Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of $ "•T) paid by Grantee, and other valuable consideration, do • . . by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrant unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for public utilities (including water and rewer) with necessary appurtenances-over, through, across end upon the following • described property in King County, Washington,,more particularly described • as follow: THE EAST 15' OF TRACT 182, C. D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON • GARDEN OF EDEN, DIV. NO. 3 (VII, P 81).: RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • TOGETHER WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE EAST 30 FEET OF TRACT 182 C. D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF•EDEN, • DIV. NO. 3. (V. 11, P. 81) RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE • DURING CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BY THE GRANTEE BUT NOT LATER THAN AUGUST.1 1976. . • • • • • • • • • • • I . • • )" 0 � f Said heretofore mentioned grantee, its successors or assigns, shall have the right, without prior notice or proceeding at law, at such times as may be necessary to enter upon said above described property for the purpose of construct- ing, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstructing said utilities, or making any connections therewith, without incurring any legal obligations or liability therefore, provided, that such construction, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstruction of said utilities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the private improve- ments existing in the rights)-of-way shall not be disturbed or damaged, they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were immediately before the property vas entered upon by the Grantee. The Grantor shall fully use and enjoy the aforedescribed premises, including the right to retain the right to use the surface of said right-of-way if such use O does not interfere with installation and maintenance of the utilities. However, J the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over, under or across the al, right-of-way during the existence of such utilities. This easement, shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be bind- ing on the Grantor, his cessoro, heirs and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the law ere of the above properties and that they have a good end lawful right to e e t this agr ement. • and and and STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 SS (COUNTY OF KING I, the undersigned a notary public in and for the State of Washington,hereby certify that on this /Sf1iay of 44454c444 1975 personally appeared before ))me and /246Gc./ e and and i and to me known to be -individual(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that /la GLI./ e >7ts,LL,4 signed and sealed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. dzeitez.4 Notary Public in d for the, State of Washington, residing at .Get Li!C< d '• • • ... i'• " iim Z . . . . • • 3 • ,... % .c. of a, /row rent CI I'v Armors driko ti 0,Lb .r . sr • • •\.• • •••• • • /X:.a. a r. ..., • • . ri al ---a° • 'S.C. 76 72-'` _sw . • ., I., k, .. el e. ,.. • . -, .. 6 : / / % . v . . ' i •' • " . . .11L . . ‘• • I • • . •.. ... 11 it. • . % • -i •••• - ..ro., . B , . • • • . „A . 1., /.5414.1• r-fe-Ael— L .. . . • . de I 1 . r . ,t V 1 q:r • ,7a7/1/7•(4.%Al, 1 r--- • . .411.. .... • ID I . . . ...D i a S . 167 • ..... . ... .4 •14') i h • , •411 C% % Zravae7 AM LieR •, • /‘ I . • 1, . t•. t : • • . • I 4 . .. . • I . • . . \ 1 • • 1. . • .16 % • i IF. . 11 ii • alki il p0 qt IV . 0 i f 1 ‘ . V ti [ . li r=3 11- rl, 4f-rsar •I I • I 1 . .[ I . I I I I % V4 • s C•.., •• ••• II I . • Y •l' • . . • it 1 ••••••••••°' I .•••‘ I . pa f• 4 > • ., %* ope x roast vow • .. k < X••40,• 4 .. V ./ • • 0. % i 0.•.#0. . ...................1.. I A •[I • • w."--r .. I.. •''... I-4- . .i."'•':!'":: ''''' '.:'''.•!:.°...'Pl.”.. ..'" .t '• '- MRVRIFIIII•M:'''ei: ..rPigrilmriw ;... ...„, •-..,. ...:..v..•.;-...,,,;-..r....c.::::::, ..,. tali '`. iil iigilaW _ i I .. . CS FILED for RMord a RPa+ j c. 411111ftio AENTUN A!llTvICIPAL BLDG. ftENTON.WASH. 9lOU 4 o N • -4 1-6 dind33 'NM'00 MA-5:Or10313 .1 SG21003d-W133200 b ?id 8 133 rtst 1 r. r-, 4 NOUT,..11r1997 13:15 SEEL I G +1 4257463980 P.01 . . . ,, . 4300 Coiptt :ity , .. . . .. • . •. . - Seelig Family Properties I.. ... • : FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET ....: • , i • DATE: _LI A 0 .: ,. ... , i •' 1 . A r-,_,-- . ,.. :. . . ipi : \I€tslAilFk IkkIN) WI . 6( FAX NUMBER 211 .49-)-7 .i . I ! .1' FROM: izTAJAY2.9 5--" 2i,14.... • . . . I ; I •.:-,. , • • '.. ,: RE: LA)A • 11 09Z : .i.?.. - • , ! - •), ,• ....‘ '. #pAGHS 1NCLuDIN0 pus PAGE:; 2-- 1, .. se„,vrtA.44;4,- • •. I, .:. . 1.,AztA..41....7 A-4.4(A Chm-v-2 avi 20.4e...,,,,,Chvt tatiA, 4-44; 21,44%.---t . • '' ! <Ar CirmotrA-4(fr..42) . IXA-gi 4,14,...C.Li ktit.4.44 #4,44,11.A.Of6edt‘i 10-Pa agete ,".4):. .. 774 at-ritifewl •PtE 04444.4•V fee 54 Ate 4"; 0147 14.1eilildva-A!..441-4n-, LtAre AI Zase le-tedzi '1• : 4...4.4 ---xof ., 14f444A,Nfo.454,&.3.,,,izt 44-1 ,.4)-fr-A44frfejeit.4A,Ige9ook...t:z.iti os--• fiLRAL,-,m,,,,--,- ...-..? • ':.;'• ; . : . e4.44 a.44,-e,..ve-........,,,,;,,,..e.rv, 4,...,4,"....f . .agvie 01 ii-a/0 ,,471.....€---.‘„f s4,..c.<"L.(Azity.::,: • 4. • 4,414644,01-0101-74re.....4w1 R&M it-bli--0-46444-244101.4- 1Ahreat .::i.r, : I r • 1,4,4 feA00-elt I Loa-4 .11-F-AP 7,1';69 642t24L4 -e-,4ta's'I'ki ) 411/14,A+1. CA.-.1 i,r,..t k 744..t-gnt/t. /1.t-,„/ivekret 44 -1.41'4,_i A,,,....f i„tyraw-e.-rAti.-4 ct.inra,..,,,, ft txA , , ..,6- • ! - ' ItA-1-&,,, 11/4.tie....v Ark...4.r i.f ,4,16,4.7 Z-A",+ 11/416(i:e 4) Arr---KT-e g,ligivt.freCe , • .: ::. :i;• , , 13-e%C.1"--#,4-711/4,4V • 714:-,ilv'r"d(4^"ii- 4A4:4 14•-• 1 •e° -e<fr.- ,1-4".7 ' • ' <-4s-cr'tzi-7 ,. 1 . .• •. • Phone: 206-454.0815 Mailing Address: Street Address: FAX: 206-451.8203 P.O. Box 192598001 1309- 114th Ave.SE ,.,. . la4wn3 Bellevue, WA Bellevue, WA 98004 . . 7- SEP-O6-1996 09:43 i 1 97% P ::, • .01. ..:',• . : • 1 ... . . • .-: . • . . : •. • . i • ' if- xL.. V. NOU,11®1997 13:15 SEELIG +1 4257463980 P.02 Abed?sr Ali,*'dr 1)S W1Yo44 -Lr Slight"____ . ai T. &tof E filar ale-aF2rtK K • tear'-al Ali'47irw_ zt z• A • • 4�i' v I qI. r 9 •. I:O r :F 2 Rf • p.,. _ .. .1.0iesu•s�.�sat:u -. eacr:.'> +:a7 ! t 7 i Ir$�cl: Art Yr4J7 't ' -y {.-_ n. Ali3t i • /tR ar moo �� •''I)ItcMeD buILTr % LeT _ �{-n-• ter fair 2 �:.OY 2. �� ;ter A«j s�rasn�' p - . aaaeas•�roe+ys�I�,�pr;c. i Paz +y M. �,. �/- �"�' / MIR•-.................____. 22(C� j I ' from..i 1 Tr/s+4•e/aleorri .tar embio nit , - o�Nluks/ : . • - Lttn1J� BULL•I N•ezc..: ' • I- • wrilEYl•f I i r�i4Eq .y . --......:� ..�1�' i 41.Witifieg /fs tIt I� f� (AiF Co V I_►1? IUD bC l - • its t1 • y• lz w'sritt .. 6 <CAN!1.:••••-�:,,%!.. ....W...•3 v ILEA}rok i-K- 1f �I /C 144654 4 ��,•.' A i In E4L 2 raf me atsherir rs..sl, i IRK,tN5C-PtE0 T . ul E�rw6 '2rroe • ac�j 14Z.dt46sofi9 / _ ES ,AO Vttl.1716C o t 74tr/UMW EVE Lar 183, '. N 'Ell At it rtoft 46 0 .c.b a::f�il-e0 e� J - - CV t4 or/Lid Ate-At 1a s6irtt t.: c ,, Tyr; Pa/Rea:Di Ns ucP4 -- txit Ad. s VA.& +CLY � :' li KoUtDt-! C:,:. l-}�vJC H-V-) O ENIr`iu7 Sit 4'AGF3 % G 07" ; I. ,�ct,zc0I.Rrco� OF 7 FOR ADD .,ddB' 7- i t zs' ? *% - . . . • MOTES,. i ` 7n.11 Gri'LlM1T3 :;;�.:4 IA•6•/! - : ran CA Air•oat a a.«.•.-•tlogx !. ;-•: .I r'0e 9�I w.t wAirli' • • . s_...kiii i,',.:* f, _rtPr7A1, ,s.: )1., -4 . i . . . . : *� 13 %Up vn rift it vault N • • . atrnrcioal ��- • I'.l • 5a2r= • - - r"`„ . UV ZOO. S tB��a 9 '�*- +sue • s ilar. lb■ I . I - TOTAL P.02 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Washington,on December 2, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months APPEAL OF ADMIN. CONDITIONAL prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language USE PERMIT FOR WESTERN WIRELESS continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County AAD-97-149 Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the Appellant,isSsuanligce Familyn Properties, use es- PP 9by P appeals issuance of a conditional use per- State of Washington for King County. mit by the City of Renton for wnsterm The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Wireless telecommunications monopole project (File No. LUA-97-092,CU-A). Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Western Wireless proposes installation of a during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a 85-foot high telecommunications monopole mounted with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted at the top of the monopole. Notice of Appeal Hearing Overall height would be 100 ft fro-- the ground surface. Location: 1755 NE 48th St. as published on: 11/21/97 APPEAL OF ADMIN. VARIANCE FOR WILLIAMS CARPORT The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $56.15 AAD-97-166 Applicant is appealing the City of Legal Number 3912 Renton's decision not to grant an adminis- trative variance for this project (File No. LUA-97-144,V).The proposal is to allow a carport within the required 5 foot side yard setback. The carport, which has already al Clerk, So h County Journal been constructed, is setback one foot from the northwest property line. Location:2308 SE 19th St. II n Legal descriptions of the properties not- Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of / le , 19`l ed above are on file in the Hearing Examiner's office, first floor, Municipal Building, Renton.All interested persons to `\���IIIIIIIItf��� , said petitions are invited to be present at ```� �N. M F ii�� r�Y • - 114,..C,, ,a,_ the Public Hearing. � �,f,c". SIGN F's''�'� Published in the South County Journal . ;.:o bra., „ November 21,1997.3912 Notary Public of the State of Washington oTAP,y . co= residing in Renton "'=- King County, Washington -—o-- 3 LAC'OOp.O2`` `////, 1 I(IAI.ISI— ,\```\ 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 18th day of December ,1997, 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: 7/46;ii.,1 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1 eriA day of , 1997. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at __)A,-/tML"- ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard LUA97-149,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT December 18, 1997 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Howard Seelig Martin Seelig File No.: LUA97-149,AAD LOCATION: 1755 NE 48th SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for installation of communication antennas by Western Wireless at Shurgard 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 December 2, 1997 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,December 2, 1997,at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. 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: Staff analysis on Conditional Use proof of posting and publication,and other Permit for LUA97-092,CU-A,by reference. documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Photograph of Keller Building Exhibit No.4: Photograph of subject site Exhibit No.5: Applicant's written statement Exhibit No.6: Letter from applicant's counsel to including photo simulations appellant regarding easements Exhibit No.7: Letter from Western Wireless to Exhibit No.8: FAX letter from Seelig to Jennifer Jennifer Henning dated November 11, 1997 Henning dated November 11, 1997 Exhibit No.9: Photograph of Shurgard front yard Parties are: Appellants,Howard Seelig and Martin Seelig P.O.Box 1925 Bellevue,Washington 98009 Howard Seelig - Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 2 Representing the City of Renton Jennifer Henning Neil Watts 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Representing the applicant Greg Anderson 3650 131st Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98006 The Examiner explained that the hearing was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinances 3071 and 3809,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. The applicant to this proceeding would also be given an opportunity to respond. This appeal is in response to the proposal by Western Wireless to install an 85 foot high telecommuncations monopole with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted at the top of the monopole. The overall height with the antenna panels would be 100 feet from the ground surface. A request to continue the date for this hearing for another 60 days was presented by the appellant,stating that they needed extra time for data and witness gathering. After hearing argument by the parties,the Examiner denied the request and the hearing proceeded. Howard Seelig,one of the appellants, stated that there is a dense concentration of antennas on the roof of the Shurgard warehouses adjacent to their west property line at the present time. The argument for this location for the antennas was that it had the needed height. The telecommunications provider proposes a pole for the mount of the antennas,establishing that rooftop mounting is not the only viable option. He stated that the pole, considering its height, diameter and antennae mounted on it, is wildly out of scale with existing potential development in the vicinity, and most offensive aesthetically. The applicant will lease the pole site from Shurgard as have prior applicants. The proposed location on the rooftop is adjacent to the valuable frontage of appellants' property but farthest from the valuable frontage of the Shurgard property. Appellants suggest that the-pole be located on Shurgard's frontage which places it farthest from theirs,but it would still have an adverse impact on their property. Mr. Seelig stated that should Shurgard resist installation of the pole on their frontage,that resistance will conclusively show that the pole has a substantial adverse impact,and would represent a gross inequity towards appellants. Mr. Seelig concluded that in the event their appeal is denied and the application is approved,that it be approved with the condition that the pole be located as close as possible to the southwest corner of the subject Shurgard site. Martin Seelig,appellant herein, stated that the application should be.denied because City policy states that the poles will not be sited if it can be demonstrated that adverse affect has been created. The proposed 100 foot high tower placed on their property line is a definite adverse impact. Further,the City did not give any consideration of mitigating affect,or it could have suggested placing this tower on a location of a water detention pond to the west and farther away from their site and the site of the property owners at Hemingson Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 3 Terrace. The Shurgard site is 330 feet in the east-west direction. Placing a 10 story high tower adjacent to the common property line compared to 330 feet away is a significant affect. Mr. Seeling stated that the City's action was arbitrary because they did not consider the alternate locations of the west property line of Shurgard or in the area of the water detention pond which is adjacent to the west of Shurgard. Jennifer Henning, on behalf of the City, stated that this was a combined environmental review and administrative land use-action-for-the conditional use permit. The applicant was required to provide photo simulations showing the proposal site from adjacent residential areas, from the highway area,from the waterfront on Lake Washington. The FCC now allows 6 or 7 purveyors.toso.into a geographic area: The City has been approached by a number of purveyors to locate in this area. They have different types of facilities ranging from mini-facilities,micro-facilities,macro-facilities,monopole facilities. The Shurgard site currently contains equipment that different purveyors have there in the form of panel antennas or smaller facilities. This is the first monopole facility proposed on this site. There is no other opportunity to collocate in the immediate area because there is no other facility of this height and type to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Staff reviewed this application with regard to City,policies and laws,examined the photo simulations-and conducted an aesthetic analysis. This facility at its proposed and approved location also meets the minimum residential separation criteria of 300 feet. At this time there are several purveyors looking at this site and three applications have been-approved. Building permits have-been-granted for all the panel antennas for smaller facilities in the-area,but this is the first facility of this type to go in here.- The City is requiring collocation and in this instance approved a taller antenna--with-the idea that one-or-possibly two other,purveyors could collocate on it in the future. The zone here allows heights up to 50 feet. Communications equipment may exceed that height by 35 feet,which the monopole does,and then it also allows an additional increase of 15 feet in height for panel antenna arrays: Greg Anderson,spoke on behalf of the applicant,Western Wireless. The pole being proposed allows for collocation opportunities which would serve to mitigate future aesthetic impacts. Applicant has no existing • facilities in the area. If the proposed structure was reduced in height it would reduce their coverage area as well as cause difficulties within the system of having the site that is proposed connecting with the other sites in the system. Lowering the proposed site would increase the number of required sites to cover the same area. Regarding the water detention area,there is a City-owned easement which forbids any other type of construction within the easement. The easement is for public utilities. Howard Seelig produced photographs of the yard in front of the Shurgard property in which a pole could be placed. Martin Seeling stated that there were two or three other locations that Western Wireless could locate a pole. As far as locating a pole in a public utility easement,he stated that this appears to be a public utility regulated by the FCC and seemed to have all the characteristics of a utility service, so it should be located in a utility easement. Neil Watts,on behalf of the City, stated that with regard to the new telecommunications ordinance which was adopted in June and recently revised separate conditional use permit criteria were incorporated which do not include over-concentration of a use. He further discussed the goals of the new ordinance,the location of these facilities,and collocation efforts and requirements. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 4 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:30 a.m. FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters.the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Howard L. and Martin A. Seelig,hereinafter appellants,filed an appeal of an administrative determination approving a conditional use permit for Western Wireless,hereinafter Western,for a monopole antenna assembly(File No.CU-A-097-92). 2. The administrative conditional use permit, if ultimately approved,would allow Western,the underlying applicant,to construct a freestanding,eighty-five(85)foot tall monopole that will be one hundred (100)feet tall when equipped with its array of antennae. The proposal will be located on the grounds of a ministorage complex located at 1755 NE 48th Street in the City of Renton. The site is at the extreme north end of the City just east,of Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405. 3. This case is very similar to another brought by the appellants(File No.LUA97-028,AAD)in which an antenna array was approved for the roof of a building located on the same site. Many facts are identical. 4. The appellants own property that is immediately east of where the antennae will be located. They allege that the number of antennae already on the roof of this adjacent structure coupled with this 100 foot tall monopole is impairing their property value. 5. The monopole is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the subject site. The proposed site is just west of the common property line between the appellants'property and the subject site. In addition to the monopole there will be an equipment cabinet on the ground. 6. The challenged Conditional Use Permit would permit the installation of a monopole on the ground adjacent to the appellants'property. 7. Apparently,there was a discussion of alternate sites for the proposed monopole. The only decision under review at this time is the one submitted by the applicant for the monopole at the southeast corner of the subject site. 8. The building on the subject site where the monopole would be erected already supports approximately 15 antennae masts from other cellular phone providers. 9. The appellants allege that the proliferation of antennae on the building is unsightly and will reduce their property value. They did not introduce any evidence of devaluation. This office finds that the vast array of antennae adorning the building is unquestionably unaesthetic. They are a collection of dissimilar poles and panels that definitely detract from the visual appearance of the subject site and surroundings. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 5 • 10. Staff approved the Administrative Conditional Use. In general,they found the proposed complex compatible with the surrounding area. Staff used the criteria from Section 4-31-36 to review the application. 11. Section 4-38-14(B)of the Wireless Communications Facilities Chapter specifically defines the criteria used in reviewing a::Conditional Use Permit for facilities such as the.one proposed'by the applicant. 12. . The appellants also argued that the collocation criteria should require the use of the same antenna structures rather than merely locating all of these antennas on or near the same building,thus creating a visual blight. CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the Administrative Conditional Use decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellants demonstrated that the:decision should be modified or reversed. The decision is reversed. 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 and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,69 Wn. 2d 472,478(1966). 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 appellants must prevail since it appears that the provisions of Section 4-38-14(B)were not reviewed. Staff appears to have used the criteria from Section 4-31-36. That section provides the criteria for general Conditional Use Permits. It appears that the City has adopted specific,although possibly less rigorous standards for the installation of cellular facilities. No matter the rigor of the standards,those specifically enumerated in Section 4-38-14 which are applicable,be they supplemental or exclusive,were not utilized for review. While many of the standards may be similar,the appellants were in the unfortunate position of attacking the underlying decision based on the wrong criteria. The appellants were arguing that there are already too many such facilities in the immediate vicinity,that is that there was an overconcentration of such uses on the parcel immediately adjacent to their site. Since the appellants were relying on the wrong ground rules for the underlying review,the appeal must be granted. 5. Having found that the wrong or at least, insufficient review of the applicable standards occurred and that the appellants based their appeal on the standards enunciated by the Administrator,the decision below must be reversed. The matter will be remanded to the Administrator to review the application based on the appropriate criteria. 6. As this office generally urges settlements of appeals where the parties can reach amicable agreement of the issues, and as the parties were in consultation just prior to the public hearing on a possible location that might meet each of their objectives,this office would urge the parties to continue their dialog. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 6 DECISION: The matter is remanded to the Zoning Administrator to review the subject proposal under the appropriate criteria. ORDERED THIS 18th day of December, 1997. FRED J.KAi:f1:A AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of December, 1997 to the parties of record: Howard Seelig Jennifer Henning Greg Anderson Martin Seelig 200 Mill Avenue S 3650 131st Avenue SE P.O.Box 1925 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98006 Bellevue,WA 98009 Neil Watts 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of December, 1997 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler 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..January 2.1998. 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 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. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal re Western Wireless at Shurgard File No.: LUA97-149,AAD December 18, 1997 Page 7 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. DEC-02-1997 16:57 - SEELIG +1 4257463980 P.01 • O ComYny Seelig ,Family Properties FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: 0 - To: cycE0 10 J f FAX NUMBER: FROM: f VJA c c L cr RE: Wta,f21/J _ OC 7 Z 7197 (511-kutizkikrto 1l.fv-rook)A- J PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE; 3 /ea 5h a Gr/' yeAtike974r ) /l 5{fie n C U S o n-7 P. h _41 4 eG. .e/ e D 0hfrese il _e4 tei o vt 4 4a. U - 14 . / O ) ale, -e /S / -e GUfr -e`IG ' '4 / d T- 4ed Gr / , dde /40 1 Rhar d fefr Ae14/tV001 r' ,D49r e of( f 45 19701- n. 1---1-prIA)Prie0 Phone: 206-454-0885 Mailing Address: • Street Address: FAX: 206-451-8203 P.O. Box 1925 1309- 114th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98009 : Bellevue, WA 98004 SEP-06-1996 09:43 - 97% P.01 DEC-02-1997 16:59 SEELIG +1 4257463980 P.02 ` C 2 , I � I ' %i4301A-4 . A-419z /r 4--.6")-.LJ ce Gt �r1 " I J`fir //,44 ,,tf ( 06614tz.k.st_4t4) _4e Ite014, 44.1t,a_i � .evneattax_22....t + � I.T � � ���� . e�v �c 1 L��"'''� I /i�i � O �'LQpll i �o,4-ram �m I/.e rS I - Ae I7a. i s`+ .. U;'" oi.31. - /J '�G► fro /t4 ( �J Iii:r.Lo_Di , ,eirplI04.1., ,,t, . .„..r .ot.A �. .e. ® ,,1 ,. iiiii„:4e4,.." , )14e ;1,61.4 , cfp.144 A.s.-e.;7 4.e.) . , I. I I 4-v v>-r 1--- -,iT. 0-1;1- -, - ,f: as4t;, ,-,. 9-a,.. oiolie _04 0.,r_e_oati , . L 7,76? aA, . tvzze:.4,044 .i .te. Ao-et 5-r4 J-2-e)4-r 1 5 4,17 a.",ger,,oz.-3 eiv,e#0611,t-0-2 "6/24., , 01°7- t'e:1- I I i i r 5 LAC 6A�I i fricit- L ci )` 47� I i.. . . i : : .a.-*LCH etZll 17,-, / , ..,,e 4 . 5 ,,„/_,. : • -Az-,-4.e./7.q` ) 711.4.A.-frai Itiv Avr,tv _,a(--,c.-e.et,t,e 4.- Vit-e • a � , , -- :.),/,j,,.,,v,_p„4 , 44ex p 4 ,creR. . , ' i 0.. . ect,ATZE-049L,4 l'-Q � Ste. ---_- v 5Ta, 0.1. 1 of-0.4/1,4a-R.,. )=7,e,a_c?` u)-7 0->ul_. - . . ,A.A427- . 5'14na-c( , /-2 (...eLe_A-a -z,jelaidill-ir>.-7 c/2 4,L d 7 a.,e, c r-)L 9 4 1 _ DEC-02-1997 16:58 SEELIG +1 4257463980 P.03 • , ; I . , a er,t ZI,J•LC Af;1-1 CArT;i Shoat) Vida" tAZ A Gret 4a a 54tht-o.f,s-lk;ej ezol.u-eAda-c joa.c . trAi-e4, 54.ti7itoe i7 ' irz)-t.-4 kr4,77 Pf.t.e li/42e-ex 05-7 *A44, fotir-t,Iti-e- ,z-deN7-rot . AM / 74--- -a-7 1:_.41-ep_ope 0,4 0...eive4,4-e 4.,4-717 at-ct or>7 br4 • 11".v e 4,-e,1._,1 1; Av& ug,„t.f14/z.kr.4._est Z,A = --z-v; 1 f-11/?2,t4e etAg . i.,(, ,H1 'e A4vire;42viAeifzi11-'17 ,Ltzeue -4;v11/24LzA 44.t.(e. , 1 54;6<flatA4 41--ezzT-e,-i off, 4 , 11 Hue 4e--5)44-w4;c 1/..-0t-i-dc-c r 1 104001 /6-L_ - 01 /e,11J--‘pP-4-1 . cti.,4(_42-17-7/2.Zitry--/Ptiz411__ 1 , i i gi 4 . •/-4.. . ..„..c./....2.7 . 1;a4A/•e/t,g.e e1-;11/2 I o>,t a)-t4..."0„A.0,42AZI ef,04., af ek. 5- I. -4 Zaie -7114 /1"--itituaLl "4 4,Aet.c..0- 7 1 ai Aleie_e_l_ Ltriti_ . -1 I ctin..a4-1,azcz.., on/ Xt 5-214 -e-er Zi-til- 4E-A4 ( 1-t.0176)•1i em.i.i-ro - c4.21. 1 . - 14'dx-5 at"*-14,- '61-°° '" "r/&. °I'c--'; cr '-7 ,S9A-i 7,1-t -e+T ;1(4t1- ZAIT.41.1,0-t ,tV "Me 61 4f4L i '1-e'-e-' . . i . cwiz-eve.v( 5-f ‘ - -,.e-4-xx 60-)7c4.4.- 02. .00,4, ,h6F—(4. 5tiot-He'r 5444-4764Ad • • lt4 Xt/r1147 6tr4C4ifer-a AidLett,r1 5 iLttil ' ‘0- 1/3 A4,t.i.4 : 4f aie9AA-fr 4/ tf4 0- R i t I AAlo,b6.-- -0-6 ,v 0 1 aitecitri ' ..1_P4--e-/.4 ./.›-17-?c-L,a__- • Zf7"711- , , . . i [ , . TOTAL P.03 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 December 2, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: APPEAL OF ADMIN. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WESTERN WIRELESS AAD-97-149 Appellant, Seelig Family Properties, appeals issuance of a conditional use permit by the City of Renton for Western Wireless telecommunications monopole project (File No. LUA-97-092,CU-A). Western Wireless proposes installation of a 85-foot high telecommunications monopole mounted with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted at the top of the monopole. Overall height would be 100 ft from the ground surface. Location: 1755 NE 48th St. APPEAL OF ADMIN. VARIANCE FOR WILLIAMS CARPORT AAD-97-166 Applicant is appealing the City of Renton's decision not to grant an administrative variance for this project (File No. LUA-97-144,V). The proposal is to allow a carport within the required 5 foot side yard setback. The carport, which has already been constructed, is setback one foot from the northwest property line. Location: 2308 SE 19th St. Legal descriptions of the properties noted above are on file in the Hearing Examiner's office, first floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: November 21, 1997 Account No. 51067 AADPUB.DOC 1�A iiiii:�:{i.i:5•iiii:{•iiiii::N:iv<pii:i^iii:i^ii:iiv^ii::•ii}i}ii:i.i::.i?i:v::<:::::::::::::::: :iiiiiii........iiiiii......i......:i::iiiiii::iiiiiiii}}?i}}}iiiTiii......................iiiiiii ,�# EIS �............................................................................................................ BS�<`SEC': ; D<�. _ >: :»< < ::..>:;:: . ,;: <... <> > : ;::: `> < �' ` > >»` `COUN:CIL CHAM...ER.... .SE....OND:FLOOR .RENTONMUNI.CIPALBUILD!ING....::::.:::::.::::::::::::: 1:<a::ti n s):`sted<are.irk... rder.>of'ap:t cat il0.`.be onl'.3i#0. of ne e a >Tliea:'::`lica sort It on..rk m r.. rt t..n .cessaril theerdee>fr>>`tift0 they will::be:.heard:>ltems will;.be;:called for.:hearin at::the.:discretion of<the::Heann PROJECT NAME: , APPEAL Western Wirelss at Shurgard PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-97-149 (LUA-97-092,CU-A) DESCRIPTION: Appellant;Seelig Family.Properties, appeals issuance of a conditional use • permit by the City of Renton for Western Wireless telecommunications monopole project(File No. LUA- , 97-092,CU-A). •Western Wireless proposes installation of a,85-foot high telecommunications monopole mounted with a total of 12 panel antennas mounted at the top of the monopole. Overall height would be 100 ft from the ground surface. Location: 1755 NE 48th St. • • PROJECT NAME: APPEAL Williams Carport Variance PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-97-166 (LUA-97-144,V) DESCRIPTION: Applicant is appealing the City of Renton's decision not to grant an • administrative variance for this project(File No. LUA-97-144,V). The proposal is to allow a carport within th.e required 5 foot side yard setback. The carport,which has already been constructed, is setback one foot from the northwest property line. Location: 2308 SE 19th Street. AGNDA.DOC �, n ,,: ,. CITY IF.RENTON ` . NAL tN. „ , t: Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman October 28, 1997 Mr. Howard Seelig Mr. Martin Seelig P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Appeal of Decision re: Western Wireless at Shurgard, File No. LUA97-092,CU-A Appeal File No.: LUA97-149,AAD Gentlemen: Your,letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,December 2, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton. Should you be unable to attend,would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, —:_-_-1.--,a KozA.,... . t Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner / . FJK:mm , cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager WesternWireless . 200.Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 CF)This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 621 Company Seelig Family Properties October 6, 1997 Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Via facsimile#277-4455 Re: LUA-97-092CU-A-ECF With regard to the above referenced matter,.we wish to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Respectfully, ♦ Martin A. Seelig w . Selig CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS: Phone: 425-454-0885 P.O. Box 1925 1309 114th SE, Suite 107 Fax: 425-451-8203 Bellevue, WA 98009 Bellevue, WA 98004 • Seelig Family uroperties September 5, 1995 Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Dev. Serv. Div. CITY OF RENTON City of Renton fax: 277-4455 0 C T 0 61997 Re: LUA 97-092CU-A RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Ms.Henning: We own the adjacent property to the east of the subject property,and we wish to file an objection to the above re feavnced application. Specific areas of objection are identified in the following letter. The record should show that our property is not intended to be permanently undeveloped and we request that this fact be recognized. Especially considering pending highly desirable development on the opposite side of 1-405, our property has considerable potential for us as well as the City of Renton. If the adjacent owners had been less hasty they probably would be thinking of development different from warehouses at< this time. We have expended substantial money for architectural and engineering studies in anticipation of development of our property and recently had preconstruction conferences with Renton Officials. There are 15 separate antennas now installed, and 3 more approved with installation pending. We wish to refer to Planning Policies of Renton which recognize the unsightly nature of utilities such as the subject antennas. These Policies contain intelligent measures to accomplish a reasonable and - . equitable resolution for the aesthetic detriments associated with achieving a functional utility and the adverse effects on adjacent properties. From the"City of Renton Utilities Element"(attached) "The Utilities Element defines how to minimize the detrimental impacts of utility improvements on surrounding development" The policies of the Utilities Element should apply to the subject situation,and to our property as surrounding development, since our development is pending. • "It(the Utilities Element)asks that the costs of improvement should be distributed in an equitable manner." Our property is already bearing at least its fair share of the cost burden because of eadsting antennas and their devaluing effect on our property. Adding still more unsightly antennas would go far beyond an equitable distribution of costs. The Phone Company can surely find alternative sites, although their costs may increase. But it is not equitable for us to bear the cost of devaluing our property again and again every time some phone company wants a cheap antenna site;in disregard of Renton policy. Objective U A Phone: 206-454-0885 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1925 Street Address: 1309 114th SE, Suite 107 Fax 206-451-8203 Bellevue,WA Bellevue, WA 98009 98009 OCT-06-1997 12:49 +1 1 8203 98%* P.01 "Provide an adequate level of utilities consistent with land use." There are already enough antennas on the roof to meet the standard of adequacy. More are not needed to meet the standard of adequacy. Policy U-5 "Encourage the appropriate siting of all utility systems in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land use." A few antennas here and there are"lost in the shuffle." Concentrations of antennas, such as on the subject roof; change the character of the appearance of the building. No other nearby building has a concentration of antennas like the subject warehouse at the present time, and the pending proposal would substantially add to the number of antennas. Approval for installation of more antennas as proposed would not reasonably minimize the impacts, consistent with Renton policy. Creating a building roofline profile that looks like an antenna utility station does not minimize the impact of antennas. "Discussion" (at the end of Utilities Element) "Policies are designed to insure that utility services are constructed in a manner which reasonably mitigates the impacts on adjacent land uses." This places additional emphasis on U-5 (please see preceding). Policy 101 "Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish impacts and collocated on existing towers and structures wherever possible and practical." The existing number of antennas has already changed the character of the warehouses. Conventional warehouses do not have the number of antennas that exist at this time,nor do conventional buildings nearby. More antennas would only make the warehouses look very much more strange. There is no way that making the warehouses look like antenna bases, as they do, could be consistent with the requirement for sensitive siting. Collocated antennas have not been proposed. We hereby request that the proposal to install more antennas(LUA-97-092CU-A)be denied. We will provide additional information if a hearing is scheduled. Respectfully Submitted, HOWARD L. SEELIG MARTIN A. SEELIG OCT-06-1997 12:49 +1 425 451 8203 P.02 CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-21143 C:10-06-1997 CASHIER ID : J 04:22 pm A:10-07-1997 5007 APPEALS & WAIVERS $75.00 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: MARTIN SEELIG CHECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 c.--cF,accli) • 6515-S AMH DOY ` 'tier„ 5', 'K) p.. (�Q [�S By Representative Hankins 1 SSB 6515 - H COMM AMD 2 By Committee on Transportation Policy & Budget 3 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert' the 4 following: . 5 "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. ' (1) The legislature finds that the federal 6 telecommunications act of 1996 'has provided the opportunity to expand Et•- 7 the uses of publicly-owned rights of wayto allow for the p y- g provision of 8 enhanced telecommunications services . Presently, providers of these 9 services are confronted with differing development regulations and 10 franchise requirements across this state ' s 277 cities and 39 counties.. 11 , The legislature finds the .array of varying regulations and requirements 12 to be:a- significant barrier to enhancing the telecommunication services 13 to the citizens of the state, and desires more uniformity and 14 reasonableness in the application of these regulations . 1However, -- 15 rstates that have recently enacted laws relating to the use of public 16 rights of way for telecommunication services have been challenged in 17 court . Court decisions and relevant Federal Communications Commission 18 rulings will be issued after the legislature adjourns . Therefore, the 19 most prudent course of action -requires further work and cooperation ' 20 between public policy makers, government administrators, and the 21 . telecommunications industry to effectuate the policy of this state . ' 22 (2) The legislature hereby declares it the policy of the state of .J 23 Washington to: encourage the development of telecommunications 24 infrastructure without violating the letter or spirit of Article VIII, 25 sections 5 and 7 of the state constitution; reduce regulatory obstacles 26 that inhibit investment in the state ' s telecommunication system; 27 maintain safe public roads, highways and streets; and provide . 28 responsible stewardship of the public ' s investment in its rights of ' 29 1 ways . • 30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 . Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, 31 the definitions in this section apply throughout chapter. . . , Laws of 32 1998 (this act) . • LTC -1- I � 6515-S AMH DOYL 39 1 (1) "Authorized facilities" means all of the plant, equipment, 2 fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to 3 furnish and deliver telecommunications services and cable television 4 services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles 5 without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and 6 signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, . vaults, and all 7 attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to 8 the distribution and use of telecommunications services and cable 9 television services. ALP: 10 "1 (2) "Authorized user" means every corporation, company, 11 association, joint stock associa. j.pn, partnership and person, their 12 lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever, and . 13 every city or town owning,! operating or managing any facilities used to 14 provide telecommunications for hire, sale, or resale to the general 15 public within this state. 16 (3) "Cable television service" means the one-way transmission to 17 subscribers of video programming or other programming service and 18 subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection of 19 use of such video programming or other programming service . 1�y ,Cos -t ki,q 20 (4 ) "Limited access highways" means those public rights of way 21 designated a's limited access under authority of the laws of the state 22 of Washington; 23 (5) "Public right of way" means roads, streets, and highways,- and 24 does not include : 25 (a) limited access highways as defined in this section; 26 (b) unopened, unimproved land dedicated for roads, streets and 27 highways; 28 (c) structures located within the right of way; 29 (d) federally granted trust lands and the forest board trust 30. lands; 31 (e) federally granted railroad rights , of way acquired under 43 32 U.S .C. 912 and related provisions of federal law;. 33 ( f) lands owned or managed by' the state parks and recreation 34 commission; 35 LTC -2- 6515-S AMH DOYL 39 • 1 (6) "Telecommunications service" means the transmission of 2 information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other 3 similar means for the general public. For the purpose of this act, 4 telecommunications services excludes the over the air transmission of 5 broadcast television orA�radio�si signals . For the g purpose of this 6 subsection, "information" means knowledge or intelligence represented 7 by any form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other 8 symbols . 9 Sec. 3. RCW 35.21. 860 are each amended as follows : � LNr 10 No city or town may impose a franchise fee or any other fee.,_ 11 ( (c-r) ) charge or compensation of whatever nature or description upon 12 the light and power, or gas distribution businesses, as defined in RCW 13 82 . 16 . 010, or. ( (telephone business,' as defined in RCW 02 . 04 . OG5) ) an 14 authorized user for the use of public right of way, except that (a) a 15 tax authorized by RCW 35.21 . 865 may be imposed and (b) ( (fee) ) fees arid >>` 16 ,,--other requirements may be ( (charged to) ) imposed on such businesses as r17 allowed in section 4 of this Act .18 Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit franchise fees 19 imposed on an electrical energy, natural gas, or telephone business, by 20 contract existing on April 20, 1982, with a, city or town, for the 21 duration of the contract, but the franchise fees shall be considered 22 taxes for the purposes of the limitations established in RCW 35 . 21 . 865 23 and 35 .21 . 870 to the extent the fees exceed the costs allowable under 24 subsection (1) of. this section. 25 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4 . (1) Cities and towns may impose fees to 26 recover: 27 (a) the direct administrative expenses actually incurred by the 28 state, county, city, or town in receiving and approving a 29 construction or development permit, inspecting plans and 30 construction, and development and maintenance of record systems and 31 excavation authorizations systems; 32 (b) costs of ongoing maintenance, repair or restoration of the 33 right of way reasonably related to the impact of the installation, 34 maintenance and use of the authorized facility or the facilities of 1 j . LTC -3- . / . 6515-S AMH DOYL 39 1 light and power, or gas distribution businesses, as defined in RCW 2 82 . 16. 010; 3 (c) ongoing monitoring activities and apportioned administrative QJ4 overhead, quantified and documented using standard accounting �iL,` 5 practices; and \ek6 (d) preparing a detailed statement pursuant to chapter 43 .21C RCW. Vt 7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of 8 this section, no county, city, or town shall place a moratorium on 9 the acceptance and processing of applications, permitting, 10 construction, maintenance, repair, replacement, extension, operation, 11 or use of any. personal wireless communication facility after the 12 effective date of this. subsection. An existing moratorium that 13 expires after the effective date of this subsection shall not be 14 extended in whole or in part . • 15 (2) (a) A city or town incorporated after the effective date of 16 this subsection shall be permitted to impose one moratorium that 17 shall not exceed one hu,. e eight_y`dys and shall not be extendable. 18 (b) Upon the expiration of the moratorium authorized by (a) of 19 this subsection, the authorizing city or town is subject to 20 subsection (1) of this section. 21 (3) Counties, cities, and towns are encouraged to work together 22 with industry, using the experience of the industry and those 23 counties, cities, and towns that have adopted wireless regulations, 24 to develop a model ordinance for the siting of wireless 25 telecommunication facilities as part of the process required under 26 section 7 of this act . 27 , (4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall take effect one hundred twenty 28 days after the adoption of a model ordinance under section 4 of this 29 section or on April 1, 1999 , whichever occurs first . 30 (5) This section shall expire on October 1, 2003 . 31 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6 . (1) No county, city or town shall 32 install, or cause to be installed, equipment, facilities or other 33 infrastructure, including but not limited to conduit, for the purpose LTC -4- • ' 6515-S .AMH DOYL 39 • 1 of allowing a county, city or town to provide telecommunication or 2 cable television services to the general public. 3 (2) This section shall expire on October 1, 2003 . 4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7 . (1) There is hereby created a 5 telecommunications right of way advisory co_ip,a tt_ee . The advisory 6 committee shall : 7 (a) develop a model ordinance for >>_ P by—counties, cities and 8 towns that would create uniform policies, land use and construction 9 codes, regulations, standards. lease and franchise requirements for. 10 the use of rights of way by telecommunication providers; 11 (b) review current laws and practices in the following areas and 12 make recommendations regarding: 13 (i) appropriate types of permit costs and fees allowable 14 for processing and granting applications for provision of 15 telecommunication facilities along state, county, city and town 16 rights of way; 17 (ii) limits on the amount of consideration due to the 18 state, cities and counties to rates that are fair, just, reasonable 19 and sufficient; 20 (iii) alternative forms of consideration other than the 21 imposition of franchise fees, including but not limited to : provision 22 of in-kind services, installation of additional conduit by 23 telecommunication providers for use by the owner of the public right 24 of way; single uniform surcharges or utility tax rates in lieu of 25 individual franchise fees, and open competitive bid processes for 26 granting franchises on limited access rights of way; 27 (iv) methods to restrict or eliminate moratoriums when used 28 as a means of excluding telecommunication facilities from publicly - ! I • 29 owned rights of way; and 30 (v) such other issues as may arise during the committee ' s 31 deliberations . 32 (2) The advisory committee shall be comprised of : ---`� -'�':;f��=�'-- ✓::{ } 33 (a) Two members of the house transportation policy and budget 34 committee, one from each political party, as appointed by the speaker 35 of the house of representatives . The speaker shall also designate V j. '" f , LTC -5- -, • ' 6 515-S AMH DOYL 3-9 • • f two alternate members 'to serve if the appointed member is 2 unavailable; ' 3 (b) Two members of the senate transportation committee, one from 4 each political party, , as appointed by the president of the senate. • 5 The president shall also designate two alternate members to serve if 6 the appointed member, is unavailable; ' 7 (c) One member of the house appropriations committee, as 8 appointed by. the speaker of .the house_ of representatives . .The 9 speaker shall also designate an, alternate member to serve if the 10 appointed member is unavailable; 11 (d) One member of the senate ways and 'means committee, as '12 appointed by the president of the senate. The president shall also 13 designate an alternate member to serve ' if the appointed member is' 14 unavailable; • , ' 15 (e) Two representatives of the governor; 16 , (f) The secretary of the department of transportation or a 17 designee; ' ' • 18 (g) The director of the department of information services or a 19 designee . • • • 20 ' . (3) The' advisory committee 'shall make its recommendations to the 21 legislative transportation committee by December_1, ' 1998 . 22 (4) This section shall expire on January 31, 19.99 . , • .23 . Sec. 8. Section 512, Chapter 457, laws of 1997 (uncodified)-. are 24 repealed. , ' 25 Sec. 9 . Sections 3 and 4 of this act shall expire on April 1, 26 1999 : . 27 Sec. 10 . - This act is. necessary for the immediate preservation 28 of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state 29 government and, its existing public institutions, and takes effect 30 immediately. . 31 EFFECT OF AMENDMENT: 32 Restricts the cities from charging. more than ,proscribed 33 administrative -costs for the issuance of permits. to telecommunication • • LTC • -6- 6515-S AMH DOYL 39 1 providers for use of .city-owned rights of way. The restriction 2 remains in place until a model ordinance is developed. 3 Directs the Telecommunication Right of Way Advisory Committee to 4 develop a model ordinance uniformly applicable to all counties, 5 cities and towns . Directs the Advisory Committee to review and make 6 recommendations on the appropriate types of costs, fees and 7 compensation that can be derived from use of public rights of way. 8 Directs the Advisory Committee to recommend methods for restricting 9 the use of moratoriums on the development of telecommunication 10 facilities . 11 The composition of the Advisory Committee remains the same as during 12 last interim (legislators from Transportation Committees, Ways and 13 Means/Appropriations Committees, WSDOT, Governor' s Office and DIS) . 14 The Advisory Committee ' s recommendations are due to the LTC no later 15 than December 1, 1999 . 16 One hundred and twenty days after adoption of a model ordinance or by 17 April 1, 1999 (whichever is sooner) , cities may not impose 18 moratoriums on development of telecommunication facilities within the 19 public rights of way. The ban on moratoriums expires on October 1, 20 2003 . 21 Counties, cities and towns are prohibited from entering the 22 telecommunications business until October 1, 2003 . • k.44 � r`� ( Alt ' �'���' t �j \i In LTC -7- . s • 23430 HAWTHORNE BLVD. SUITE 200,SKYPARK BUILDING 3 Aviation Systems TORRANCE,CALIFORNIA 90505 PHONE(310)378-3299 Associates, Inc. FAX(310)791-1546 Aviation Consultants okri • " 11„,, • \t>y2urii\M1ii i;;F Letter of Transmittal (Client) To: Pearl De Jesus Date: FEB 2 51998 Western PCS Corp. ASA#: 97-P-7516.24.34 3650 131st Avenue SE, Suite 400 Client ID: SE-3411A Bellevue, WA 98006 FAA #: We are sending you herewith the following Via: Mail Fedex n Fax 425-586-8811 • ASA FAR Part 77 Airspace Obstru3tion Report. [' Search Area Study Report. - ❑ Copies of ourfiling(s)with FAA and/or State. ❑ Responses from FAA and/or State. • [' Our comments to your communications regarding • Comments: Please call if you need assistance with regard to AM Station Protection or FCC Antenna Structure Registration. See attachments for Airport Runway and AM Radio/Radar Station Data. Sincerely, Aviatio Systems Associates, Inc. • By: Copy: ® File ❑ Other Client Cover Sheet.dot 1-96 )>XLi. I :AVIATIf '•N•'. `Y EM O SYSTEMS S•'• 'C.I AS ATE I C=Sin N 31 7 -32 FAX 1 9 '9 �5`46�'=`$ 1 ::.Yf:•..-;Y:•Y:?.•'-:Y:;.Y:•Y:•Y:.Y:;,•::.••::•.:,?:.Y:•Y??::•Y:; ':•:;:.'•-••Y'?•Y:::Y'.Y.:::.>.:::,.??;?.,:.:•:•:.::.:••::::::.•:•::.:•:::::?::..•::::::::::. �.:•:::::•::::.::::..:•:::.:.::::r:::•:.x.:....: :::::•:•.:•::?:.. .:::.�.:::::... :.ter.??•• k}�® ....- ... ....:::::::rv:?f:•�:?Y:ti•YY'vv•::::..n.... Y...:........... ........:......n....:........... ..n..........., ..... r...... :......... ::....n: .v.......w.w::�":Y:;:<:.:;?•x4vx???•Y:?YL•..�• ::::: rvn Win......:.�:::::. :.::.:.�:::.:::::::•:x:.v.... ....m.�.:•......r...lr............n.n:•......:........m.�:?:::::::n..........0::. ........... ........:.:......r•ii:•..+.?. :.�. ...` ate:'F.e� ii br. a 25��°`I�� 98�'� �D rV J. Pea ';D�e: esus= • - ,ri " W ter P n C 5=.: 0'1 65 3' : .Awe:S E.�`S ).uite�400:-.4 . =Bellevue, 8 0 - - •`: e:Location ' ='R n•on W` t From :-N``atasla: rmov o a�'E l CI a 't:C - i n ase°iv E 34 �1- S 1 A 1 24:34:= :SITE�D - - ATA o Pr 'osed .>{.; "tu e� e S. ruc r :PCS�Ant nna�~. _ i? _ -_ Coordinates: •47:° -32'' ``04.50"/122 ,11'.`=34 0"' N 2 47°: 32'..-,03:86• /122':.=,1:1 >- 38 94°. _;'` NAD 8.3 : ::Site:Elevation:' 49:2.1' AMSL • - Structure�.Hei ht Pro• osed '.1Q'0' - AGL , Total Hei ht :1'49:21' -MSL Y .- SEARCH EARCH. RESULT • ' •''The'Renton:'Munii Airport.Rwv'.-15 is.Iodated.2:24.NM/1'3,635 feet. Southwest. (204°T) of•the-'site: , , , • •Other Publicrs`or Private'Airports or:.Hel'iports within 3.NM:'.-` - ' •'.--':,,.,-,:,.:.:i‘.1:..•.L,•,.:.::.'t.'-:..:•;'-".•-:.,.I;-: ..'. : j-1 None: . I4•Printout attached. - • . , , AM StationiRadarsites:within3.NM. n None .: • N.Printoutattached. , ALERT: .FCC•`Rule;.73.1692 prescribes-notice .requirements forprotection:of,AM. : . i Broadcast Stations Page l • • ASA;Case No. 97 F-751.6:24:34 ,. STUDY RESULTS AT.PROPOSED HEIGHT:- 160 AGL •'.FAA:'Filing:. _ N Not required:- 171;Required if structure would exceed feet AGL.. -ALERT:'After July 1,:1996 all proposed,new'or:altered,antenna;structures`subject . • to FAA.fling;requirements`under::FARPart 77 must-be:registered;with the FCC ' antenna'structure':registry prior to erecting the antenna, unless specifically ` exempted. Obstruction Standards of FAR Part.77:. N Not.exceeded , Exceeded.f—I if.structure4ould exceed . - feet-AGL. IMPORTANT:;,(The FAA will require:Marking/Lighting if:Obstruction Standards•.are'exceeded°&i,or`structure exceeds 200'AGL,) • . -OperationalProcedures: ;. - - Not affected (FAA .tivill.issue a Determination of'No Hazard.) f Affected if structure would exceed feet AGL: IMPORTANT: (FAA will issue a Determination of Hazard unless-proposed structure.is.:reduced by feet:) • . Note:: . = 'Due to proximity to operational-procedures FAA MAY require a certified:survey ,f . Comments:. • r, • Actions: ASA will'file'with -FAA Region and State.. F l•Yes '• 6<1 No : ASA Operations Manager: L: Gene Garrett : • Sent via: : MAIL E FAX ►1 'FED EX Page 2 • AM Stations Search Latitude: 47-32-05 Search Radius: 3 Search Longitude: 122-11-35 Height(MSL): Freq Call State City Latitude Longitude Power Domestic Hours Antenna Complete Last Distance Bear Sign %W Status Of Oper Mode Schedule Update NM Feet 880 KIXI WA MERCER ISLAND 47-34-59N 122-10-52W 500 L D DA2 U 8!17/87 2.94 17,863 9.48 880 KIXI WA MERCER ISLAND-SEATTLE 47-34-59N 122-10-52W 100 L N DA2 U 8/17/87 2.94 17;863 9.48 1300 KMPS WA SEATTLE 47-34-59N 122-10-52W 350 C D DA2 U 4/25/97 2.94 17,863 9.48 1300 KMPS WA SEATTLE 47-34-59N 122-10-52W 160 C N DA2 U 4/25/97 2.94 17,863 9.48 • • FCC Rules(47 CFR Section 73.1692)require that notice be given to AM station(s)by licensees/permittees proposing antennas Monday,February 23,199 Page 1 of I within 0.8 km(0.43 NM)of an AM nondirectional tower or within 3.2 km(1.73 NM)of an AM directional tower Airports with Runways Search Latitude: 47-32-04 Search Radius: 3 •Search Longitude: 122-11-39 Height(MSL): ID Name City State ARP Lat ARP Long Type Rways Primary RwyLat RwyLong Elev. Dist/NM Dist/feet Bear 8WA2 BOEING RENTON RAMP SITE NR 2 RENTON WA 47-29-45.359N 122-12-02.435W PR H1 2.33 14,163 186.39 WA47 WILL ROGERS WILEY POST MEML RENTON WA 47-29-59.358N 122-13-09.440W PU 12/30 30 14.0 2.32 14,080 205.98 WA47 WILL ROGERS WILEY POST MEML RENTON WA 47-29-59.358N 122-13-09.440W PU 12/30 12 14.0 2.32 14,080 205.98 • • Monday,February 23,1998 Page I of 1 EXHIBIT 6 3 FOOT BY 8 FOOT MODEL OF PROPOSED MONOPOLE (LOCATED IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS STOREROOM). EXHIBITS 2 - 5 Incorporated by reference from Land Use File LUA97-092,CU-H • APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP / \ 4n 1980Central 112th Ave.Park N.E.,Building Suite 270 Bellevue,WA 98004-2940 ti« ,J (425)453 9292 (800)453-4408 FAX: (425)455-9740 March 9, 1998 Howard and Martin Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Consultation Lot 167 Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden No. 3, Renton, Washington Messrs. Selig: I have made an inspection and an analysis of the above-referenced property for the purpose of estimating the effect of a 100-foot-high monopole and antenna located on the Shurgard Storage property to the immediate west of the subject property. The subject site is a 4.8-acre parcel of land located on the south side of NE 48th Street in Renton, Washington. It is located one block east of Lake Washington Boulevard and has a commanding view of Lake Washington and the south end of Mercer Island. The property has all city utilities available and is zoned CA, or Commercial Arterial, by the City of Renton. This zone permits commercial uses as well as apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. Approximately 96 apartment units could be built on the property if it were to be developed to its highest and best use which, in my opinion, would be multi-family housing. To the north of the subject property is the Nautica apartment complex and to the south is the Cedar Rim apartment complex, both large complexes. To the west of the subject property, Shurgard Storage has a mini-warehouse.facility, and to the east is a high-quality residential development. As illustrated by the photographs attached to the Addenda of this letter, this property has an excellent view of the lake and the south end of Mercer Island which would be affected considerably by the installation of a monopole cellular tower. It is my understanding that the tower would be constructed on the east side of the Shurgard site near the center of west boundary of the subject property, thereby having the maximum adverse effect possible on the views from the subject property. I have not prepared an appraisal of the subject property, but am acting only as a consultant to evaluate the effect of the proposed monopole. The subject property would be primarily affected through the center of the site, although it would be affected to some extent within the north and south portions of the property. Since this is primarily a view property and the view would be affected significantly by a 3-foot-wide tower with, initially, at least one antenna, the effect on the C-1286 Page 1 ' 'Howard and Martin Seelig March 9, 1998 subject property would be substantial. The subject property is within approximately 55 to 145 feet above sea level while the pole will be located approximately 36 feet above sea level, to a height of 136 feet above sea level. I have estimated the effect of one set of antennas on the tower, but this property could be additionally affected if additional sets of antennae were added to the - pole. In my opinion, the property value would be approximately 5% lower as a result of the monopole project. Apartment sites in the area have sold on the basis of$20,000 to $25,000 per buildable unit. At a potential of 96 units, the land has a theoretical value of between $1,920,000 and $2,400,000. If the property were 5% affected, the effect may be within $96,000 and $120,000. If the monopole were moved to the western portion of the Shurgard property, it would be approximately 330 feet farther from the subject site and somewhat lower, which would reduce its effect on the subject property. This location would have an estimated 2% effect on the value, or a range of loss in value from about $38,000 to $48,000. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me. Sincerely yours, . d",!,7 fs B. Price,MAI, SR/WA JBP:kls • C-1286 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Page 2 Howard and Martin Seelig March 9, 1998 r . iff 11 ',,,,, '.:'!ler -. ,,,qc„, ..,,,, . • Looking West on NE 48th Street The subject property is on the left, and Shurgard Storage is farther down the road on the left. V )1 -_-__ I co, - li -" cam fs - -- .frP Looking Southwest from near the Northwest Corner of the Subject Property Toward Lake Washington and Mercer Island C-1286 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Page 3 ' I Howard and Martin Seelig March 9, 1998 , , bk ,. .,v ..., ..!•• 'F s.'. : ,,,. 1:41 • p \':-'', air::. •/ lr- 14 kki - - qii*e;1, if =1... -41! Ai • .. %tut .• , tPk7 Os 4 P‘ ' 1 h .# ', t t • 44t - t., ;. Ntrfailopi iff,t,„0., itil 1 ‘ .: :: : :,::1::*:''',4:::,,,I:tk:4...\'::1,.14.6':;:,;':‘:: c'''': .4s.',..41 1.11 k rr ~it 1" 4 • :' 10 41C' 41 '1,4 \ ifiot4) . , 1 • I , , -, ‘ ,,, ''' :'.,' • i 4,, -. , ' t • t I,t: ' , I 1 1 x _ . , , . ,1 1 ' ' t , ,•,,,,, 7,.. _etio, . / .ia. 1:. ,iiiVC-4-44111,,i ' -- -'-'\ \- . '••• ' .. '' v I Looking Northwest from the Center Portion of the Subject Property Toward the Vicinity of the Monopole -_, 4i girkaaM47. lif ...Mar •- Zik..1)9041, ,' gli e -.., ---- - ir -i- VriV1112:: ,,......_-•,.._.if." • I,/i ; i -.1,01, -4 f -4 ' .:',,:e. ' • ak_14rAil, 1 1 I ',A, , f W''t ,, , 1 . /IWO' , t s. •os Y, PLtIrlelle4 linP001111-4' Po."' I . . , 1 ,--,fr- 4 ' - A --4 Looking West from 111th Place SE to the Subject Property Down the Hill and the Potential Subject View C-1286 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Page 4 ".J QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER JAMES B.PRICE,MAI, SR/WA EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Finance, Real Estate Emphasis: Northern Illinois University, University of Illinois; 1966. Appraisal Institute courses include Capitalization Theory, Residential Valuation, Easement Valuation, and Standards of Professional Practice. Seminars and Classes include Real Estate Feasibility, Business Valuation, Valuation of Easements and Litigation Skills, Appraising for Pension Funds, and Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Appraisal Institute Designation: MAI (Member of the Appraisal Institute since 1979) Position: Regional Representative Formerly: President, Director, and Vice President; Appraisal Institute, Alaska Chapter International Right of Way Association Designation: SR/WA(Senior Right of Way Agent) Position: International Valuation Committee, Puget Sound Chapter Formerly: International Director, President, and Vice President; Seattle, Washington and Fairbanks, Alaska Chapters EXPERIENCE Currently: General Partner,APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Developer of subdivisions, office building, and residences Owner of apartments and office buildings Formerly: Proprietor, APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST Appraiser; Schueler,McKown&Keenan Partner; Price &Associates,Alaska Senior Appraiser: First State Bank of Oregon Appraiser; Pacific First Federal Savings Bank Appraiser; U.S. Small Business Administration Appraiser; Washington State Dept. of Transportation Qualified as an expert witness in Superior Court, Federal Court Master's Hearings, and Federal Bankruptcy Court. Served as an arbitrator in property valuation and lease renewals. Fee reviewer for major banks. Qualified as a Master; held Master's Hearings in Alaska. APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP -J ' • . Qualifications of JAMES B. PRICE,MAI, SR/WA Page 2 Currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Currently certified in Washington State as a General Appraiser (#270-11-PR-IC-EJ-B 561 LL). CLIENTS SERVED Alderwood Water District O. R. Colan Associates,Inc. Benson&McLaughlin, Accountants (Acquisition Specialists) Bogle and Gates O'Rourke, John, Attorney Bullivant,Houser,Bailey, Pendergrass Port of Friday Harbor &Hoffman; Donald Murphy and Port of Orcas Scott Stickney,Attorneys Port of Seattle Bureau of Indian Affairs Puget Sound Energy Bureau of Land Management Reed, McClure; David Call,Attorney, Fairbanks Michael Monroe, Attorney Chevron Products Company Reid Middleton, Engineers Church of God, Western Washington Seattle City Light City of SeaTac Seattle School District City of Seattle Snohomish County Coldwell Banker Relocation Craig Taylor Equipment Co. Columbia Bank Tacoma Utilities Enumclaw Public Schools; Ticor Title Insurance Will Samuelson Union Bank of California First Mutual Bank United Savings &Loan Bank Huling Brothers; Steve Huling U.S. Bank Interwest Bank, U.S. Fidelity& Guarantee Wenatchee, Washington U.S. Postal Service Key Bank of Washington U.S. West Communications Keating Bucklin&McCormack, Universal Field Services Attorneys; Joseph Kopta Washington Dept. of Transportation Lee Kraft,Attorney, Bellevue Washington State, Dept. of Natural Korea Exchange Bank Resources John Lynch, CPA, Bellevue Washington State Parks &Recreation Loyal Order of Moose Commission Ogden Murphy Wallace,Attorneys Waste Management APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP ! ., .► e r' = M" i L^ ttu • - i) , ,-1 ;. .� . ol ub :Ct - "5 - k ' ' i 14.17.t.. 1 , ':.1,,-.1-.r.:.f',.i.: . iti.. ;, F P ,/, I (i .3 i .. • - \ , •$*w •. 'r ` `, 4. : jam► li 1 ' ef .. :`K •- .` .\ t 0R P ' • is ,, .' ` . ,, \ .I \+� ` A • y .. ... .4. .4/111 r ....• V...4 ' -. AL 4:sit 'jalf: Ak.-. . , r .. 4 "'�i+ Subject y i r ., w,. f,_. . ..... . , ., , . ,#1rV! No, .. A, C. i:‘470, ,A. , 'h.,.. ,...). 0 %.4ii.! ••• /1 i ;pip. .... . _ : rill.. i , ,,,.:,,,1 AR ., - . . .::$ ' .4:: ..4..641i ::..4 , \ I!,*1. ,;;* 1::,;,,. ligC , _j r s �.— \ , • - •i . If • 3 : I .• - . . • - .o. ii, tl .41/4-;,,v, • .v.: - 4 .Allit • . I: 4).„ • . A .; • • ;:ri 'A;'•.Ar f-2. :- • Mir :ri;V . -r• .% . hie I*)114411:#. ' dill .11111r111. /. ji #... V' •' ,41IF 4 1*liar Ill&S- , ' -•-.' . ..........• •••• t . . .......s. ..• -..;,.._ .1111U11.11(r I 4,iitie I At,. • -vammr.ori- , g , ,--'!"A,":.•• ZIO7r.7.;.... ..1.:C , . *. 11, ,. .1..,_ '.. fattir vn"'v• • , 0 11111..• , lk) t t r,'*. e• .t • v ' 1' . "adrit 2iLir.. • . . ,..iirtatodr...arIliiifte. " ,'"' •74 almilaNt‘,;‘;;F..., `7111miiiiiii- , : • .. N-.. ... • 'b • II." C.) -4. i 4, , , 1,• a) 4; t. .711.1..-• :1:7 Ad • .J.: • 1. •liki.,e z am. - t...4(i) pillit * j ...-:-. - ( i••- • •d. ' . . ., ...,,x.,_ _ 4 41111111.4rit-. .0 7 ' _ 4 .• ..' .4A. k.4.Zr4IH..111 I... . IIIIIIk II '444f, .4 tof".p. •. Ai*-41r t., 1.46'0041t.11V+, ti,:aPt ...411all ;+ .1.4,....i. la.,iii.,:............,......-...,st..,... -.--'....- ..• .. •yi. . .. 117•,,if.'lltatfr•...' Yr. ., 11 i au.ar...-villw .1 * . ... % III 1 iik 7*• ,a • . gat% .4.,‘ • 4 iVtib-7-------- ,.. --- - -4111 4Q14.1iiik. , . .ar - .. ,,,......1.k._____IIIIIIL 21111111:1.4.111.11.,_ iW _ _ • .... . , . ,. in ... ...... . ;7J-I : 0 - , 4 . ;.IN S? "NI, .. 11111111I.I 1 ,...... . , . 111. • 5 t• - • . • 7^ --. : ... :. loefqns' .....,i - ..... ......; . .. _ .. •1C.. si, ... ....- ... . • • ..„ ..... • - ... I • ,irs .* ! r-. - - '''' -:050.1..... .• ..1 ...- _r I .. . , 1. • . . . _ ..„.., 41100.' • I .., „. • ,- • :• t 24 430b:111S • . . 4fiv ' -,. - -1 - -.. „„...„_-• ", 1* , - ..... e ., . -)-k?-dr) rff21110 e lid" r� " , ti iiii ff, E . ,._, ...:.:: , . i 1,1 p NI 1 ‘,=V--- __ . ilEC: , 0 ....' :. .y 1 ill\ a I, �` `� 1)11 i ,• w 1 O e, ,��/ ,i/ I—� 130 7 iltv14 "" ,Z 1 • i 1 ��I/ // I N —_—__ __oir . kJ L.A - 3131E iN G fi�/, �� N „ RDEI' 36 1• 1 :_: a { 60 270 ; o - , . ,o _ ? , .1 l 1 0 c_J 0 MW• I . •_ _ ._ p f• ST �� ` , ':1 .` '•.1:. ��T� � � � OPEN 0 • I Q A '21.83 196.96 120 ‘ 63 33C POOPp ❑ O -----________/_ 2 I ;� o fn S.P 1074002 7[-- \` 0 L/ -- 4 ' I is i k •fj ,, - 162 to re Acres_-÷2 ' ' Ir ` 18• Y l P AS.1?884100F�~r �6 ,-„o F 153 5 -------- 3.� It%9 s � 46iZ- r . .. 16. ,c --1 a----, of 1- - atu C ��sr` z'2'�� I�� �j► Opp�-- 4 3fl O C��p37 i•�,`I —Z-- l6ii�� % RENTON 0 111 I ; ......., cr., c.,. 0 � (2) 3 4?83 46. M W I Q J0 '41fifir 0 o pi f "+ 141.12 20 f 1 !I� 0 �\1/4 I_ NE 50TH 'ST 'bo ❑ ❑ o ❑ o ❑ I� c 1 f � � I50 CORPORATE � _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ — :'I rol W M : 0. ,, r:; . ` '? I 114 4 rl h l// '� ° �"r ,T, // �r 11 160_——1--Too I ®1 oc /// ;y It18o � i 01 h :f+ �. °g 4 m 1 I N ----__ '2,-1 i /�j� SP. 175007 - - ` - .:* :,7,.vi f 131•� �3-- �-r_-1% . toe _1__10_I_., =z= 01 po �1 �. loo I (2) (2) ❑� _ Q b�� SP-052.86 W ° D -, _Lf__ ____, ‘c'4/ 1 3P n 1 JI65_ , )3t, Il i. 0 t 1{}! _ I I � N 1 ti / 'tLT^Y I: NI ; i L_r� i 8 ' 1 d ' ®� � .... �3G 1 i•1 IIS I IIS too .. 33C �� ft ' 34.329 . 82 63.10 124.90 M 90 I -80 h65.1/,'y Wise a0o Q. y I d 60 • I45 5 "• ' r N ` " al 137 3 r I 2 t milli, i .:` ) • I It 2 rt W � 16 < Il - i8 19s �q �1.7� !�! 83 r- I4514 35 45�9 9156 95 160 75 w r 137 nr..n �/ w w ` 165 180 I w 12,41 OB 21) 1 6 n J 3 ri° r )3 in m 21 49. 031 - X •.6 185 N'ant/r FSNr. 0, , 1 a' 0 •1 p� HEM _" ��� 76TH PLR lo'arairy ESa/r: 22 6' 1 "� C t- r- ,.a IIV�r' 165 Q 55� �i jip; m +.c9 • M • '�2 5 J244L n I I I2 L& 6 mto f ' / "' =' '�i�' II •,�»�,� 4 Anal 151.92 555� _ ;two 44�p Op 35 85 65 J 4 ti m / �� 7 _ 1. �° �~ 27 S,E. 77TH i�. ti�PL.g le a `� 1' \ ti I50 ag d gg n . 65 4Z = 57.41 R , V 6o sue, op \ •�, f"' IM ti f /o; :, S.P. 485069 $ „ 9 N Q •' 29 E. • RENTON bo _ ci17 "_' 16 er •//// —ISO--✓' �o,t9 162.42 $ 14 . 90 GO a261 113.39 10 330 u l20 .......••- M n7. 79 2 i. I I . 13 - N .Q. ' ll l -- IwIhN' a 3/ I lit' ,N , - a I 1 II 9 I i �•1 0 I�' I I I n "' II ; t I ., n t ... �:. Wes. II 1 1,1 Z`- ,•uD" ; I l _ 4111111104r 0� 21Z-1,66 165 w ----- --- • w N 138.46 ,� 7 \I\ 14 1 1�, b Z (�i 1' o'i ~. n II ( --- ---- .pph� v I , 151.78 (2) u \ 1 1 LJ .. EO X I°. S.P. 011-87 = t S IWI° �holFp ��:"�:.pr. ,. \ ;/ < 1111W1 I�` i �%1 43/ t6 N405 w7a, '� _ -�50 _ — - — a o • 1` I� ,1 • ,�'.,, • -7 • — • NE• -43RD— • ST • — • • —• 43RD • .. . ._;• �."°= E :_. ' `' - RA1�190ADS -�- — :�ATLAS -OF �y'P.UILDINQS 11 . o aps are copyrighted in both form and content COUNTY TAX LOT NO. t�' HOUSE NIIMeERS - � pr cGoninwholeorpartortransfennglntodigital /� APPROX. STORIES form is prohibited by law All rights reserved KROL_L: MAP cOMPA ,--it . -,- St At'E! 1 4N.-20Q5T.. .*---CO ^ I i" max, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS SECURITY PACIFIC PLAZA 15TH FLOOR SEATTLE.WAS-,I?GTON OFFICE 777 108TH AVENUE N.E. PORTLAND.OREGON O==;CE (206).147.4400 BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98004 15031 221.0607 TELECOPIER (2061 447.9700 (2061 451.0500 TELECOP'ER:t5031 22!•'510 • • • TELECOPIER:(206)455.5487 TELEX:(206)32-8024 . ANSBK:FOSTER LAW SEA June 23 , 1995 712 ^ :.�! --;t`?.2 • - °Fp'coos 199S. L - WO us irf& ••/LISF HAND DELIVERED • • • Ms. Molly Rice • Department of Construction and Land Use . First Floor, Dexter Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 • Re: U S ,WEST NewVector Group, Inc. /Ravenna Facility Dear Ms. Rice: • Enclosed are copies of appraisal materials from Alfred Chai of Lamb Hanson Lamb regarding U S WEST NewVector's Ravenna facility. • Sincerely, • • • ,.`Jeanne D. O'Conor . • • Secretary for John L. Hendrickson • • Encs. • • • • • • 85025692.WP 0 • f 4 \ N. lc,. ^ ' �'2'♦ . :• . ~ N . v . • �• : Ste • . r • Views of Lake City Location 0 • -r;' 'A Ar}.• • .a;7 -• yi- ...• .: ram= - .• ... . al t r-1 1 .. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 3 ,, '11 1 I ••• • .... . ••••••''......... .. I • ..•••• . . • . • • • I . • . • ••. • • • .10 6.;: -...-..-.- ••••• . ••• .- .. - •i•• /• -' N ,... . . . , • • .1. _., .,. . - . • .- -• •- aro-,---- I ,, - • .--.i.: r." . • ....... • ., , • • . " ;"•'?". - u • • • - - • - - - • . . • _ .-• - Views of South Lake City Location • . . . ,.. •-•-,-......r• 1.:. • -T" , -. ';4-.. 4•?. ,;II" " • • • • _ , '.4;7 •.•-• .;r:. • • liiit.,'..*•- •or"....:• •': :.:. :- -1-‘ . e: Ty :`•...• _n. . . t ' --.....94-f..., . It''V • '•:'r F..• •.: ' . . . •-.a: .....:-•••••• •. . •••• • - • ,. t, -:,...:- -e:4•.!....-;,,--.....:-_-• .. . . _ 41( - .1....-'7-7 •4 'e •• - - • i . __ .,..,.....:r,... . ) '.-- -1.1,-E,.".:1----,--------4----;:--7-=-= - , II .•-r_-.4:i-z z z" •-.. "/.=-__.- ..._ • : , 1 i • . . 1 I 1 ,- •7,..- :•-•:-- I - • T.:• ---:.- e• .--__,-.= ..or .. • .- ' : I 4,1 . ...7 :. .:-: 11- • .... .. - — _:..• . , , j & I ---.._ - - • .1, ft . k ligill • , a .. . _ _ 6 . . • • . - -Q.-.... '1":" . .•• - 't Mffii , 4- i it ..... 6.•-- -•._ "--- -- • . ...., • ....to.- • -11111110.011b6.-.....-- .•., ______ -----` 01. • z,,-. ... .• . •• . . • --••• • -- • ....-‘" -;-'',. • ...•___. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 1., "I • % . . 1 1 . • . • • • P 1,111(C-;\ allIMMINC •N:::::.. . i . . . . • • • • . • • 11111.•-•••• . I - • • • . . .1. • . . . . • • _. • ••••••N :.. 11„. .i -,, ..„:•.. f .•;, . • . . .. • ,,,...di • -- -...%-"Ir4r X t•I - • • a. '- . • ;14-,,„,,..:'*INP....:. C . •-4,!,- : . N. • . --.,: -u....... 1.'4,- "z••• • •.:- ....„..,. .— :II ,,,-,,.. .4,a.;.tr..,, ..... " . *. . •••... ._ • . •, "4.146 g.;:.21t :,''' 1g4 Vr. ' . . . • ... ••• : Vii ' . . • *-- • — •: ..P." , a f 2 . -..... . • •• • .."":, • . -. • . . •- • • .*:*r •"47, _.. ......4. 1.. I:1 ;.....a_ilf_.-•. . -... . r v. , -.:.--: a .' ! o- . • • , . .''. .__=:-.i.,•,'.•;:;1;rt..i ..1" inik,_____14 • a • ,. „ ' . • ., •• - . . "."-"=*---=-•• '.-...f..‘. :.-„,"...•:.. : r.--7•7•'—'. •-7-7.es- -." 1-••.,-.1w7,S3- ...-r.-,•• Oil.- '...- ' • .... .,• ..:. ...., . . . . • • •••. — - ' •• - •• . - • . . . :z•• -•. ' • . • • • Views of Northgate Location . • . . . . . . . „..•-•,,u 7 —*sr' . low . . i- I . . . • , . ... . . . .• ...... . -• • •. • _ -- • , • '•..:-,.. .,... ; • 2. - . • ••-- • - : . . , • • i . 'I . •• .• "a..M.. ' . . ••.Z....„, ..•. , •••• ....:0,6!„.r.... • • .• : •;. • , . •'V•••:•-• • 1 . . 4:.•••••24:40 • .. . •••• -.•:•• .21C : . • ' • ...;........1•V;lir .. •• ,• It. ... 4t1 • •••. . , • llor t ...46:,,,;' ', ••• . . .• ..'g • :I.; ....4. • ".* ' ' : . ". ••*.7‘; .• ii. •11 •I m • • 1 - .. ' .!* •,...:‘ • Its -- ' • • . • , .. • ' St.'" I • . i • • , • -•!-• ...• i-!"1"...::. ... •••1 • .,... :...• ".. . • ....,..alw ..., • • •!....1.-- Ai ' . • 1 , • .. • f . 6 i lik qi, . •.•% • , ..•jr..•••• . r ,• .... . • .. 11'. .1 ' . ir il . iiii.tl II o?ii 4r • r •. L . . . 'IP.' "Vo• at ,., . -4..r.- a•b•• ,, •"' it t OR 1.1.--- 111111*Po. I II • , IP• 1 - . . . I_ •s -..-.,..0 1;7 - • .. • . _ .........-- . . .• • .e. ..- . . _. . . . • .• - - - • ',. .. ,• • ..:.-‘,-s...-:. ...--- . •••2,•••• . .., , • ..e. :.:-•--- -”"t• ie.. .. 1,..• .3.1P16:;• .. • . s....411."1"%•••••••••,,,...„... • .4••••%:•'%•..•••••• ._ .• -;,.. -"•*—••.• ''''• •:••••4:-;,.• .: • .• • .7.• . .... • • . - LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. . . . Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . . . • . . • . • • . . 1 • / • 41::-:".3-.;•. - . ......---:;-.:...... .?-- .74:- .--r—lif.,.._..7.,ki ‘ - ...... . _..,... _ . .,....s .k AI . . .. , ...,0!... • • _ .• ... ....; . . .. ..... . ../..wow- . . rei _ . . - . .. -, ice'ice:- ' ::.'•' �_..' -�+. --i.- Views of Woodland Park Location - • _\________ . __ _ _ _ �. . ' • .. . . . • , . , _ . .. . . . :... __ . . . . . . . ,. __ .. _. ... ..._ . .• . . _ • . . . . .,. . .•. . . -_- . •• . . . . _ . . . . . . . • .34 . ,: ,,,.. . . . . . . •4:A• .... i i=,,,. .-;.0 -___ ___ , • -d _.. 7 �'��!!�•. -• _ _ • • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • • • • it. - .mix• / : ._ I " -""' --- --' • Views of Greenlake Location . • _ • - '� AC.ss , V .. • f .•. • .�• .>riC. ,. -•i - - . _ v•,,..�. �=r:--�w.. ._' . ` C am! Yy -e — 1 may. .. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . . i • ..,.7.—‘ .31P.,••••••'...n••• •N.,, . r.,,••I•alt•• .• \.. . 1 .., . .. .'r •.....-•Ir • •r-f,•-• • •,-- „.... -..-,. , . .. ....i.. . • • . • s. . -.‘ • ..,. ....0,''11111111111!1111!IIIIII'''... • '5'7:-.,......„, • allifaii- -0'r-41166---a -7 ,_ • .. V • .ni• . - i *.taziliti.• Itizri. . ,„ • -' Misil- • -- . .es-1'••• , vows,: <,':.::•c..' .4.4.- • Lb' • • .11 t. ......•• .'• • 1 4.! .• f • • . ••; • • . ,.. • .le, • aw,•".• . .. • WO - • - '"...i.:11431 •1 '.:I.. - -1--;rer'1;1P -:".1-Cor '•• '• ' 0. :. • •• • - ; .. '-'-: • : . '-,, ". .. , ... L. . . . . . . . - ., L. . • 0 . " ... ' . , - • . • .. L. . . .. ' . ... . . .. : .• . • '.. . .. . •. • - ••—. • . Views of Fremont Location \ . I - s • . - . . k. r i . • • t . i 110 " \ ' I-I 1---r • . _ _ ._ - ff _t_ii :;. ,.. • : ..... . _ t - - • • 2,- . „v.v., gimr! • Akt,....- • .....jt .. . . . ..._ . . I . —,,.--- . —_ -.7....• all —i—pr'- • , - — -7-::..`••:::.7-. -i •• •• .:..:,-.7-•-:••. — . -,... - . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . - --r•— . . ..; • •.. ,. . . . . . . , . . •.., • . . - . , . . . . • • . . _ ' ..er • . t. • , .. . . . • '• . • . . . . .. . , .. • ,.. • . . ' . ' " .. • . , • • . LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants r. LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITY(NORTHGATE) Roosevelt&NE 94 St Seattle SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: • SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE. PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF1 BSti • BUILT 1. 1231 NE 92nd St. 10-94 $167,500 1.5/B 1,120/780 4/1 1922 2. 9108 8th Av NE • 2-95 $163,490 1.5B 1,580/740 3/1 1930 3. 840 NE 94th St. 1-95 $181,500 1.0/B 1,380/1,380 • 3/1 1940 4. 837 NE 95th St. • 10-94 $195,000 1.5/B 1,635/.735 4/1.75 1928 Average Sale Price .S 176.872 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE • PRICE STYLE SIZE (SR BTH BUILT • 1. 714 N 100th St 2-95 S165,500 1.5/B 1,958/1,294 4/1 1923 2. 1011 NE 102nd St. 3-95 5162,000 1.5/B 1,238/771 3/1 1926 3. 10016 Interlake Av N 12-94 5160,000 1.5/B 1,373/1,054 3/1 1929 4. 3808 NE 85th St. 10-94 5190,000 1.0/B 1,290/860 3/2 1946 5. 4026 NE 86th St. 2-95 $189,000 1.0/B 1,587/1,103 5/1.5 1950 6. 849 NE 104th St. 1-95 5.180,000 1.0/B 1,459-I 411 3/2 1949 7. 8519 17th PI NE 9-94 S198,000 1.5/B 1,46_6,1.824 3/1 1930 8. 3047 NE 98th St. .11-94 5194,950 1.5/B 1,562/878 3/1 1928 Average Sale Price S 179.931 • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate.Appraisers and Consultants .. - • .... •+1 : I , 1 '• A• ti ' laot■. 1 AY.s 1 t,1.� i' Iraq" [ r• 51 , `.1 •- �- �� �I a '0RA•��p.. '1 A • 1~1 =-.1 IHi-•_1�1 .0 iv=AURORA•RI�; r. AV!�•:4I •'N 1 '▪ I=••• . �AUROI • T 1► `• ; G '" '.._•-.I 0.- !(StIL p'F.•..:,. nal.tmat #. •lolw . 'p - •▪ ,•w Wm • STI)**----C-7°• • • •Sti, t1(;r,C'1 t �STON( ar•`^'' j8 NIMALE_ ar •Neil •~ I' ... • I� II ,t ••r JS 1 r 9 • /� '.• l/cn t- Z K 't: ` I. _1t11N1 iv N -.ONI :If -� ��•• , I • „ 0>0 L 4fr I' ~o.1 •11.- ;Janitor A+1-�- In!gA.11.f ■ [Ie(_• A+' ■ e• 1l. uw D Ee0'.�-` �1'I ALW■IN ff. = A-I •Aswo1IN �1 --:Il.r i5.. -. i•� ■ J: ••y=.` �i • ;'e••�_ i, t? • ' Z , kilt ItA70.0 ; AV I w[ti.ere '" ••• =3 f` 1- m�O �. •• I...aI. •/ nor ■ 1 :w•*� "� _ I ' -E • Lt COILED(lR N 1 4 g ".I 1R•!R C -II- - mZT ` �. • •ilt 'j _'".'r. i91'manAV i t!.I:... im.1 • nE Aliu g :NE .`AYli �-•■ I1 x r •f�A / /• , %•r--���: +_- •>I I�ID 1...I." 1 ..M' .t 1.1 I-t- r pfltl•r.A t I -.•• ('. u,c . IN AI+Ai . ' A c,l'"will MI i 1.a•I•:•tba ,T' .+m ' •v�[:5; 1 = M “.r �+yl_ !111"L! cn f Z n t �=�^. • `Q �. L_-i�r•sw '� t. .l A •wm. ■ e` �Y 't i Irl tof-1 m I. ,=AC7.a . wl.nsi Ar _ ,, �� t' wen �_Isr M •.v i ]G 0 Zco 1 ,C, Ip 1 r.r....A 1�. .• =v / In ar vl • ! t .r • ■I • • it' ..."4''.- Co i. r 11/00 I 1 1'y . (C�7)D 0 ai j�.i�Tr.N ••11:1 - •.•-• ♦IA tr/ r.rr'� w-710-A• "C' ._• 1 . . k F r-- 3 f�: 1 N.r'' ca�'A_D� .. >�rol�.ri.��• rli A ^ Y• J. Z•1 y. •l„, •!•ARb.wx.11t A ,z•IM IM•IIrrA ,x -i I ..QI• 1111 or2+.��2�.MI a AV ■1 • :InW D • I. .� - .��, `�• • ♦. 1 sn P Pm A IN(I I I I ■�-'yl„ ^4 S 73 ' ■ IIIIIAr 1M K y dtl �^ D ....( Imo' ,r',. r z I_ A n 1 • a'6-1l I I ' !3�-■ .I..i :1 JA•M•M Eh.'i 4 m �M 1 N3/1_m'.2-• 1 ' r ■- 1• mg,.••rr,tA ..I IA.A 1 A I 'A ■Q .w I 1 13 .. Is ! IZiS�t (p a3 -C ay.i N i_4n 191� AV I IN11 '�� I ■nri l . �' Al -I I uldt el D �1Y,,IAp 18 7aI11N•IAr• -,lily eft l� `.•. I� mI'1'� "I I M •M iM I Rl -q�, R �� I A+I ■( I� I-I5 m co (p ' • li'_I''A I=13 • ROOSFVELT, I W1 I IM . I NE' I� I I I I f I I '2: r't " BOOS E!T WY 1 NE: r !IOni- 12 t ^' :.. .! • •.filth: I.. Imo I- -- • 'COa, ,-- _ ' ' ,. . ' t i'E ' I I $tam I I I l °I i 6 '�I�q yK ;■Tg� Im ■ ap�I(b D D eilr IrrK;ig %40,,,,uuI= a11_L i> iI-i 1 ..•. EI .'I 17M Ar NI d I Ar ■1, dt _I y ■ -7I • n z -W I= :s b LF..I/ tl{. �-Il°•� IA1N Ar i�:i3i (- Iitx1� 18I' I I I.. ~ �1 � t.a r I b (n w, I= "�iSTTIrI ■ AY NE II� I �� I I I21i� ;� .I • ISiH y A� I JOOI i �r I ,... f10■ Itt00■ ty 111• i nu 1usn fc13 n N ;4- ■tt' EK A 3 lX UM Ar I N[�R I• Iy I IIII 1 : Wit• d�119 Im I I a yZ Af At , Ir' K °. Ilan I '�'2 ! 1rt11 Ar IK "i7n('1 gi IArI I• ill (_■C �w >i" , nx8 r��7 �'' JAI ,;.I�1 ' �Ir:NI. Ar K lM Ir I �(• 1 i1,1 I-�o.lt..�.,:�� Ir ��•>rt.plint tw�i '4�M AY I= 1 1 ;* 1 I�'4 m � "S.J� _ J R t, - Ar 1 =�s� fi1N ArI~ I IIE: 1 {�- i-. 1lAIi'.� 'A '■ I -at u ,f, .- j . W aJ!'� ; ' -�1_Ar -Ar -•_.* ;-rr_.11 :1__N4•_■- =b1- .'MY-'HE-1 I..AV any ••� 7 �11 lal it I I •_---2 _ :Q 'Ai i s 77N0 Ar .1•1 ! &vtNM Ar I =.�,Y y... •I U.■ wl •1. ill n'■ 1 •AT I K . J" I t110 A+ t• / I= 7.• Ar IR =1 •J•• ~sty•1111_ '4 I:'1 0-4'' -: • ,HE' t: II.. r '^ .i I� �1 7.M=Ar N[ 1 :.n.�.•• fur.* w r�1 I :�?Am•".1 =Ar;~ N( • blhrt. I • s��� .. nn +!4�..�� "L. ." %s' �* : ■[ -.a■:tsnl' b : K Y • sm - AY • a ry� In r • -. Iibl I!• 11 4. IA I IA A A 11 M I .91 7 A A I N NI .r.1 rim., A+ 1 ►il C • WU Ar 4,Zrarnt• AV r ■t Al Iy 1g 11 y�\) -'f , 1 I i Ix 4Y jw� I) !Ewa.. If 1• y A �I., 7111 i IA Ar ' ''. N( ' i .ni Av.t*-r .7 X A ryi� .0i r.cm, AV.K l ..I + 'T t I ,�� '1 TIKl-. /�: al K_8' q 1 lee :T7N r.■1 7QIN 717N :.,.✓ I l AV 1 111W Mit AV •= • 11 1: ie� Ar'"°"-aM1M M 7l M i M!'• I 1 I 14 IM A :IM a 7 1111. M4 ::a .A, •ti"- ■IX in i 4_lour I AV �m.M It . .14 M AT. K I Ix ia. •Ar'N(i b1N 1 Ar. 'I .'k .. ]0TH 1 AY NE_�_� ,►.. �..--�.--.- Ar K • I A.Oo -. �1- -11T--Li _ girl;. ; B...N--2-_.x = •_ •'.Sat M7� A 1 SISI,=ram •S i x • i �'llsl • um AV K ,�210 T710 n Ar 1 K_ - •M 1 •C 1 :s ■( • )7r1: !Ar• NE 8 I6 :,, i•� I•;.f )1TN IAr 1.'■d - �Nn. - 1y.nl M Ar: d »_i- ill .T I 14' I al T , i '� AA = •'NE : - ]SEFI r Mit):' AY .1�__AV : :q NI MI1[� I r ]snt. s-i =I AY1 I I 1 I N�eia 7sTN I� moil I -( 1 IboO •A II MN Art ■( M ^'y A e!:_i'"" I HIIOAI I/r•�ri K 1- t11Tid ]6THIIIt AY I rH 1 AY �N l� �y ■•• •� T71N 12 Ar II r -1 81i7 I I I I I I 1 I,. -I - 1D.W 1 ... 11100■ ��..AAss-��'- Ar .fir- n ArI ■ 1E66 .: AY ,O N( •.y;Ir z�.., : NM •./M ; ,' 1 117 :: : I Lc .< IN '11TM •__ Ar. I3011�I� 1y , ' 1 X IR A i S�n1 x• I As to•mi; :4I i 1 11•• n�• . t - S•Aan I i •^ AV l Il11 ■ Et QM i AV• t ■(1 I°' . /On1t'. , VI --T. J.T• - '~ Ili. +pf1 M �,, M, row i It ..■- .r:lt ' /IS1 AY F ,�,. - :1 .L '•A"'1'.A a '0 1-. um' 4 in f' Its a�lsl'b I. 1 ,rc .N■+.•_"t: •�M 'p AV 1.. 7A 1:)~j-I 121 r-': '� Irtr A4 ___ZA _I �f{�A I~9A .11 11 S •� t� r : ii61- . .1 .I.-n1• +.r•.�� _ t� �,:�.! `.1'1 m:r,d { 3 �X ••�1 I NIM �_1�•a,,�l !�.�+ ,,..pi „.. •`2�IY f� MIN AV�IR I� •�I.t I Iii'� :.; '' I I I1»uoir ,i ✓.� .,I,QS'`�,ILy■+-..1" l Iq,_T..--IN, 7 K T� -) W_i_-..r..•-._ , ,t C ( n.�■! N__�== -I �1]�_y'�p ` ] � .. •\rT� .A j o 'ISIN I_' Ar TT A _ .:N • A•-.G3f .e'■ •.•••C:, Wig . 1. Ar :11( 17 t Sh 4 C7Qa .�.:, rcTlS'I / , • LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITY(SOUTH LAKE CITY) . Lake City Way& NE 107th St. Seattle . 1 SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS PATE PRICE STYLE SIZE(SF) ILIE BUILT 1. 2807 B 105th NE St. 7-94 $165,000 1.0B 1,330/1,330 3/2 1994 2. 2526 NE 105th PI. 2-95 $164,500 1.0/B 1,840/420 4/1.75 1954 3. 10304 23rd Av NE 5-94 S151,000 1.0/B 860/620 3/1 1941 4. 10517 23rd Av NE 5-94 $229,950 1.0/B 1,430/330 • .3/2 1992. . Average Sale Price $ 177.612 • • SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SR BTH BUILT 1. 10722 20th Av NE 10-94 S155,000 1.0/B 1,150/1,150 3/1.75 1982 2. 11347 25th Av. NE 1-95 $157,018 1.0/B 1,165/915 2/2.5 1987 3. 11728 24th Av NE 2-95 S164,950 1.0/B 1,430/1,430 3/2 1962 4. 8818 1st Av NE 3-95 S161,500 1.0/B . 1,420/ 1,420 3/2 1942 5. 12329 22nd Av NE 4-94_ S152,500 . 1.0/B 1,232/788 3/1 1944 6. 1519 NE 94th St. 1-95 .5152,000 1.0/B 1,285/1,095 3/1 1941 7. 11308 19th Av NE 8-94 S209,000 1.0/B 1,284/1,186 4/2 1994 . 8. 11312 19th Av NE 9-94 S204,000 1.0/B 1,284/1,186 . 4/2 1994 9. 11326 Goodwin Wy NE .. 4-94 S210,000 •1.0/B 1,360/1,360 4/2 ' 1994 . . Average Sale Price $ 173.997 • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • mA a ';/t-cart JKE 5' • f— L:.� t a. t.,sl I - 'c;064-1,!-.:NJ 11. 1 3 A+ %. AA --r14 1-^t.4•�L5• I` .I•'lov . 'I :-1:•YtL--tan?'-y e1= 91,1E �9... `►1i 3N. AV eUI I r •' I rti... 04 1 .It._._ 'Y '♦-- M A)j-J1�`s Arvi _ • rc°.^ ir r / i YiiLll 9 J -'"tea„,,V�clo• �d�* 1a,� �L:ll_.� rr •F• t v�' I —ota5 •w - hi -s F-" • sr"/'��� ' SA31U y 1 I �`1J,1 l _'� r IC}. :rl„ '"►1 7ii r !�4__II ( /;V : j ' Y'. • 1 fj i 0.gW rI311- •IIT �I'^ �'` I IFI M C. r = out -ry. IFTi -Mt... F .(W .•. N �. �'�i+ Y 1 k.2Slr F' �� _8 u : !:— F i'"•:-. • ale y K r. w .1 r 'mt2 3Y . •IY iI �}II )it In s.,1 t. Ia .0 3. !:u en I ,_ 1 thc F •3rUK E / 1 4 -^ ---ri n a. n[• z 1- _� i 3N 1 — tiM IAYw!C _ -- ----• M —__T• I �, • I , I--I�I I,I , I N = �► RI I ■aa 3N t •AY Nl9C .--I x I Y'■ c Ar Hair r r 1. ,w _Y!■ I r! wit - -1 o n rIK 1-`H I 1..1 f4W WO ' iZ��" w INltt ' 3N g �--� ' oacHl 4nG91 IN3 C CI �7pA. IAY = 1 f Mg ! I tip: 3y /•� G AY •j% RISC :I. DI = 81 Y I , f• �.1 � i al I I lari B 11il WII __F . y lltt•AM ;Ally ` Ar orct-t.{+ • wt wK 1, :• EI e_I 6j141 r j f .1yt. iAr; 1 !aril' 1G L IAY t;. 1-IN—i O z 'ii jr rTAr.ak .:� _) g wtt I! {11/.Y 1 �}g2 )! ' E I I�` �p., - 1 Y r ay r r: 7r I w Y oIKF •A I C� U ^il_ i)i-7r ISIc I h�, I tit L._-ISIt_N sq F Y � ^ 9:_:. 1•Y..r- _ �. ` Z _ -�a=:�tj._jr_ _ @_ .1� ..-.dt'--.s_ _� Z_» �1.. _ 9.. gI�Sr_�Ar=.ii'i� N—■• ! � ti -PAN. ,--..-. ,I•'�jj` 3iI Nliit--•Al.w MI I r u, A_�1"-• W Ar F ail C.iI 1 Id • t•-•4 7N Y AV Y ll109 .. 1. 1 I I �. - - ,I,.. .. y-g , - CO yl AV MIAr�•u-- - - jr Sir a ' r•Y� :11.1 1Av•N1.h�'E 1'�'t— ►ult.7 ' Q �9_ I ;IN N 11• ' ,•" NI/2 j'1.. 1 YII rI I I •� 1 1 YI ltil �- ��W' �_ / : a QAl r ,au i� cc 3I + ; • u i I EI I.""; 1y 'lib, I ..• i31.jr Niit tr�'"Ira.I.. c 1 _L rc�(Ilw Pa it Q ,. � �A A pl r' 1 Nlf � L:�i+• a' ■ t t 1•fr WIJJ I 1 I �__. �$I F ii� I -:�»Y r ArW12 , J3, =,� I Y- ->w rar• •I .p 1' p I 1 —�:d i i y r 7N r Ar z'H15 Z S2 IN i M '*l it w . -AE- .J' w�' '1A�• ir. ..:1 ,`•1 v. aar ?' F•w-• F:wrt _ 0• u I• ' F ,ut 1\I ',--•1 V J.• �it/ �'• ' , I F; 1!yK 3 —� i— _ I. 1 -_yt,� I r%••� It .r`I .0-1.,.._..,, ii Fr: \ �fl jr ,act - (D L )N AY att >f . •, AV DWI F 1 tp—IAfi ��n �7 •'gin Q . . I ._: ul =1a w r■In4W © ^ tl.I 11 •3n rj t 1 tar— �i� A .,.Out I , .,..�fl_ 3: �.• f'a1..�.ue 1T�' ' -3141 AI-�pL. �_ yf_4.- _�,+i • ;i a Q Y / ,1—r Arlan i ._. a tip Mumx -'lH —�-� r� 1 _' It NI02 / F ��w- --W--- ^:� dti .. I Sr i :.� .3M i 1•i_t -/ ode p • ' J Rt 1 'd.ai Hint i�ll�wt § ,1..w.LA0 - _ . . 111- ii,.'S .i'L. F . 11 :•:� �_�"II FIB T/ _Y w Iufii m �3IY wAt Flu y 5�� = f •` 1- . . 1__ -MAY wii - LLJ = Y �9413 Y a AV xu /:•. ]M N Ar1 iAN121'I ■AY i 1 -S I. r iuT AV W t a• l,•: K. - • II• f yi 5N�''• Ar xul Q ro I`- .li r 4. C§ •_, r. 40# �e - ifs/. - v.F• ti , 1 lv 1! � '•�.I .1i1 Ar —Eli ee >'• g a 0 mKI 00N1 n 1- r A0111- ..• m,Al • i 100A I .1.1 r II Q JJ 3N I AV a gust !•p Cc ' 4 _ I • -• 1 I 3N _ AY ■ • AOKr (11 _X ('rI :II f— jip F .NI Z 4. . 'F ^t�� f, I..411I. .SI -J• I -I _ I '. I $Irl-�'1y1 W {xlrldarr71`` 94I3td r. • lr ii 11111 I:Ahli �•.6 t/3 C . , jrf -w— r y s; t et tit_I- 1 ii r -- I.. iii I '' "" "vA s�lo+.r-mcn !-:•. III�i1 p�.f,v;,:rai.o[r�l R—WL! -Ib1•- 0. . �,_. t_ :a:000iT~• 8 to '. 37. ar Wpl; I ��F Q r F 3H IAA .1.4 A3stni Fti1■rIy a l9I I I Ir :I3N YN'-IAM I1p A] p.. 0 to LL XI� tt @ I - a�I FI }I ..� —1 1�1jt_ IY Y Y I _ IvtZ (9 Cl• 4,ri 11..0 )? • ° i o• ;i.. AYE a Tom' .. .`I I. IIAr hit)1•g x r1 EI Q7t (9 Z to rn QC. AV " 1S r� �ui_��r K 1� �t r1 a►K�. y ., Y nY rl:.r It I t ..1 I I -.II .rl r pI WI■ :r W -• I 1 it S� AYll'---5 L' ,NIA l i-Y''(I— 3N �. �iY E' •• 'iytP I i > I I>r . 1 AY a l itli I,!l_2 4� •0 IIv al 6 I I i 3r AY uiY-'3�j�� / il. Zy• II -: uPY YII Y 0 Q "to Ar • • r9 M11'r 10: .,tt - , Ir AV at 0 '.0 "•r iv 4 11N1AY 140M !- _ s �• " °V r O —LOT .-...AOStI 1� 1 Dam/ q ',t1a w•1 at • -ram rill; • r_ mil-:4,-A,'•OIL, ••,i, ,M1111.12a O e- n!,... M ' F r pis 'fir, uT6+ /_• IIN�. ' (N fII r G ' I , IN �. ` .,^ iiiil .. • tr. •cnlr I�' ur ArtliiA33a�I:J �IIs Iyi�l' ' 7"s '�..fr. _I Iui.11.I:l Mr I M• IiY. „;.... tiii4- U J.•4F�'t7l l�� `f = I ?el 1 3 ....Ilan s 1 U 1,1t.1 F Ii y SI Sr r. ii3�-- iii�rl�4.•(- JNV' Y- �'-.;v WI__ �;4_ .- ,'t I r _1 ml.l� •.��_I 7.t•..•'�i- ••I_ .~�.! ,1�'� gran I ig .Car' tsk.• 1 C' F_7 _ Al •.. 3 s , r., E. rcat313N AlitOM a .11 I -•i, it .w ,! . ..Cars, I. +k • 'Y"A ' . �( :. ( _ l),•Y I( ! t cs I, M 3901103 (1IL"T-07: 1 tir r l.� �. �- j �'f .t ;3 E5,, !b is y� • I+ : ruaY _ _r:1;'• "�..• ; J� _ •' •,_ 1Ia w. li . , .n Maa•■AI' , i ini.i.,t'.,---i w• s t .1 . . 'I v`�._:A"d`` .i.'. ! —,•-�- _-',ter-.1 A-''►'a►r1`- . •�-...il6n aliorJWSl+ni •---_. �.. • LOCATION OF.EXISTING FACILITY(LAKE CITY) NE 125th St. &28th Av NE Seattle SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BR/ YR • ADDRESS • DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE(S9 fEi: BUILT • 1. 13027 28th Av NE 8-94 S165,000 1.0/B 1,130/590 4/2.25 1972 2. 12727 27th Av NE 8-94 $152,500 1.0/B 1,120/1,120 4/1.75 1953 3. 2616 NE 130th St. 6-94 $195,000 1.0/B 1,340/1,340 3/3 1994 Average Sale Price $ 170.833 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE .STYLE SIZE (SF) BTH BUILT 1. 3007 NE 88th St 12-94 $168,000 1.0/B 1,270/1,270 3/2 1968 2. 13311 19th Av NE 6-94 $153,000 1.0/B 1,370/1,370 3/ 1.5 1976 3. 13520 27th Av NE 5-94 S159,950 1.0B 1,248/1,152 3/1.75 1973 4. 14352 Roslyn PIN 2-95 5150,000 1.0/B 1,200/1,200 3/2 1951 5. 9210 23rd Av NE 5-94 S189,950 1.0/B 1,370/1,370 5/3 1994 6. 11731 26th Av NE 4-94 S•190,000 1.0/B 1,309 f 1,161 4/3 1994 7. 13512 27th Av NE 6-94 $160,000 1.0B 1,248/1,152 3/ 1.75 1973 . 8. 13723 28th Av NE 4-94 S169,900 1.0B 1,505/1,505 3/1.75 1978 9. 13740 28th Av NE 12-94 $175,000 1.0/B 1,470/1,470 3/2 1979 10. 13051 23rd PI NE 9-94 $185,000 1.0/B 970/970 3/2 1976. 11. 2001 NE 127th St. •11-94 $209,950 1.0/B 1,850/650 4/2 1992 Average Sale Price S 173.664 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants �'iV� Ly`v- '- Irat�0 tFrI 1 I t . I„ Ar elii' l! �: rI't`�4, r _I /t: �• ' lYFij 'Sb1' M i-1 -I�r- -illbi �-:• .fI ) i 4,,r1,al J■'t Int.: to •u( �o�,y, 'N �11 .;Tr v yl ii :1t ,Y---yi—� �T lf._.,.. :72t<<--r-----1---.. ltu�---c g�' �y4•4,,.. _.='_m?* 460. 04 w Ar Ek S •`I r m: II IIi tnwitfarrlr a I _ 1'•'-411D RI• . V • J I r • •.K X t4 soh�jit,. .6 N ---: X.,J lf_r—__ _•,LARUP.Z-,A .�1* irI Pitl► Cr/9a L�I " CIi-. s+�MII" ia- ft I MAI w Yli :w.at — w Ar Il r" luoi $rr- 4. 1 ill I�1 9vl` ` . wolf(— Av -• crawly Ar --•T•'''1 >I _1M:-=� Ir: a �t... Ir ,Y XIXg. DX1f wall j f • a era'�E,1^ �j Arm a1 lute at A �Q � ( Ti—Al •;guy- ._• ��' i 11 .- 1-41 1i° . "� i yy tf $r Ar 11urC l Ira I !i' 3N ,AY 1119C^ -a• _• ,;.- N•WA mot,1-4 I I �' • ,i t E. IAyso i f >r. 1 • -1 iir a I. - : -.- 1 rAV 3N ;AM 1 A110, aY lME 1 (� p•�1 IAr� 1 ;oltc 8 Ya .... I I 1 :.1.4 a 11i• -sad 1�^ems _W' 4` I R1,2,14',Z>■r.1 Ar g -v. W lout -re�h 1._ ,;__ I S�16 -,,,,- o!_r.- s r' 1_. .!_ ... 7.: , ! ' .. il . .'21 - jf' ?-11',•IA�r.-nTt- _I' _ �\ .1i1 Ar ^I_.1 1. t •1-- _ - - •r�_-r...,,.� SI p0 �;_ _..�_ ln.._���--y e:C� A■ T-NI i j MTY j 1 YEn '1 Giy y1 N r{r`1 '" I wr Nl r- �I ;w• = 3N Iii" y;ll'Yt I. V I i- Y.III!V. �1� 1"I I C ' Tr a I . tit -- ill i 'Rill �ii--al j r 11 W..Li I I' I l WI ,,. �11 O w"I,UI' 34 , 1 Ar Wit 1d� -ll J_v/1_�nfrl r Iwt, . b �r "All ,_ a.. j f .21,1 • _ ••II-4 rI� I IIYI A�gtiOr �I IN !i 1tI ' YI `� - , "t ? 13 R 1 r n �II� �� + 1 y1 Ipiiii � x��.tf f Arift ,,.. a 1 ■ ■ Y r ;tt_ww I !!! _ 111 I r� .__I._ r ._ c z � ,1 .1 r.rw a Wit,..., Iwii�:,_. {Y— "I N ; ■ N -TY AV■ iII•ir fV Ar M !• 1 al"1".- . ti.. il:. rid'^1 6 I,l, , GI c 1 .. u) • r I R !I Nu! ,■ w IY A.Ni►f- N w t►r I 1: I.. N t 1 ,. IIr r 1+1Y Ci ,--112- •Il- 0 -i ir'I 17ii A L 1� �•. 1'-.l y.l ,a _YII� G�i�i , �i\ JF —� � W cb 1 r1 �v! AY lol[I— f `I p I' •v C• l g ~ N ~ I I.00—� �_.4 3r Av t o1(�Y� Ir i_-. a}t' �Ii x� ��t: 3' juu it at-- Q fr3 U • , ��� —L'I.�,71y ..� .•,t Ir +,•i ura�r �i!_ �1_�� _ x-�(ai" IIiL!"':k. _ _ .il-}- j� 3NI -''I— Z U Ar =t NI 1"` ' �j "� AY AY ` ;luii�l n ti -LNI 1 t M •ro .I ids" r o o O. J - . ! !1 Nl rA-'—+� /41'4 i FIliT r, -rr ( -1-1 1 WI . _ 1 ` ..1P 1l :Ai - l■ ,f 1 iielf I. 11_Fr— xul /�►' _r1 A 11 1 i Z Q QI• 1.., _IxI ar 1.IT S' �jA l'�, trla I� �►-ir-r1-1§ CI 5 a �I filo��}�� 1^• 11 t ( II ,.r 1 7" As = rooittl• X' 1Y �' yot11 �11 c9,11 cowl= ne„ _ o- I •..a Wei y�l AV mut gins!' owl 1 Q `I n7 3N AY �p, I G iit1.Sl yr . r ME I 8 I iI c I! H Y . r I _a,{ , 4, OI !I IY t a _. 11.dtLtL r., b) i4 p G s.GnL-. ,¢ }--, W p4 ' �� ►Y111-g IiIT—� r.��rr, •rr--wlf t � a �I • Rf J L ..,wn A' >r aAc-�� +1 [_..zlu: .marl �I-.a-'wNf •aor-- S Q a . jpu_ � L f1i,I w y' illill � ���I: EJ 3N 1 r r ! III I a 11 C "1- ' I �� _ I 1 —fir a ■ } N a O NIA. o :, • { try - It. 10 I N t x _ 1�3 •'o �� To.7111" F F .0 N r r M� W:.►K l _.1 U hG-lewuj § 3NAV c 1.-• lin 1Y ► � r y >�'" Ar=''�" _i& Ai r • I• �"i • f•l V fq O 'rI ' 1 r�I •• •ti /� 1 ]Y�Ar a Nl► i •„I I.1 r z0 U.V 0 .-. s I _ —I- �'F' ( ! 1 M Ar tA1f O 0 I r Y U O In ufy. tol �l�1 '� AY/ 1..... >r� yd' 1`+I 111-1 (9 Z m fn 0. _o _I'� I a Il x I § «aA .t a:} ii 3 .- -I Wr - -- ._- l.Ar1ai • - -1-ir 1 1 1 W I- w �tiS�-it1 1' — . , ....--..woul g—4I1 men! % f!r.! • A. 1! -r w in-1 ` �� G CRY T'-r • B .1 ►�19 nt3 "1 1- -Yti i.7-. Ir In Q. X Q _ pp if! 1 i Eli r Ar�:1111 4"Ipf,nn.a y§ ,,c3 al m_ -7s a r .. Q W to MQ IN Ay tl lIW ..` , 1 : �'_ G CTr Sti�roS� +.fcJ • C 1_ a I y' • �.�rr r O= J Y 18 "I8Q hT111r7t/ IS 1�1• y■.;t 1�11� ( 1 /.. • r = I •-=I k mlal • I•yr , , Lill '.. •Z—a • ' CC = . I •'Ming I 1 •1 _ ..:_ •r M Mr101Y31 \+4 T-� •t I 11 N Y a AY: ' 3'T ; ^f .1 M 1 1H •r 0 -. ii. ,n r uri- Afsr'ane . es• - l.�i- --• It r".• fIcx I;1 L. ._•4 • I. 1_.� .. q N..! TJ3111 Q Ul Q. _ - '—V -oarniilm �I.. •,.. Y S 2 t i cl,,+ : '^- . �I U J • I1tn1 G•-• _ _ ---i— . r . ('.'' �•• \—_.•w en V�..•1 idi.11 -J 2 _ _ } i,.31rt �bk a�rr I 'r" sa w_.. *.. +'�''M. --�tc (n U rr0 �I Y .1 2 '" AAIR.IO� •1 • •'_T_- �. -- -1 • ' I ii GiOYfir M.:. .��i r_ iyt �--j w1+v.M1. T_ M N —.��RiI i--�� r•WIN , 2,;1�•15r ri M.,.+i jaiiriir a K I If "� a I` Div • 11• •f III_.1:•Ar `lijfi1N11 owe i"III . -:•oir, III. • . Al i {�f ■ �•1-•=1AY— _--_.. ..)141ty i ' ' I.._of 6�ririi1 M. A.• I I . 8 I 1'r :i1 .va.ltr�I•IIrA01N 0,A 114 V, I8 I 031 8 ``•1 1' ^I i $"...gill I 1w`T1...:1 ' . . .... _ . •^0m.1 "•pi W 1Y •-.- " t a00:I •-I •K11-.—_MI 00111 t•'1.i =' •,•A enrol w i LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITY(WOODLAND PARK) 4905 Aurora Avenue West Seattle SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: • SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DI1/41_:.E PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) BTH, QUILT 1. 4702 Linden Av N 9-94 $188,000 1.5/B 2,570 sf 5/1 1920 2. 917 N.49th Street 3-95 $184,000 2.0B 2,310 sf 3/1 1916 3. 604 N 45th Street 1-95 $172,900 1.5/B 2,730 sf • 5/1 1900 4. 1011 N 48th Street 3-95 $170,000 1.0/B 2,020 sf 2/1 1918 5. 712 N 47th Street 5-94 $169,950 1.5/B • 2,400 sf 3/1 1906 . - 6. 1022 N 47th Street 9-94 $152,000 1.0/B 1,520 sf 3/1 1918 •7. 723 N 48th Street 4-94 S151,000 • 1.0/B 1,920 sf 2/1 1921 Average Sale Price $169,693 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR • ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SR BTH BUILT 1. 701 N 64th Street 2-95 $185,000 1.0/B 2.080 sf 3/1 1909 2. 5519 Kenwood PI N 7-94 $181,000 1.5B 2,310 sf 4/1 1923 • 3. 4717 Burke Av N 7-94 5173,500 1.5/B 1,490 sf 2/1 1915 4. 5416 E Greenlake Wy 12-94 $170,000 1.0/B 2,080 sf 2/1 1920 .5. 415 N 49th Street 7-94 . $165,000 1.5/B 2,600 sf 3/1 1913 6. 6107 Woodland PI N 6-94 $164,900 1.5/B 2,150 sf 3/1 1912 7. 1406 N 46th Street 7-94 $155,000 1.0/B 2,140 sf 2/1 1924 8. 1916 N 48th Street 2-95 $152,500 1.5/B 1,940 sf 3/1 1911 Average Sale Price 6168.363 • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. • Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants P' --!' - %0 .Z.•4-•s 'far : : I_ I _.1lrM__fi n�_E- --», _ pl.:�:•::..:,.I!lir••,. '' • __1 �. ..•r 2t .• ---• ---1 __ ---:1._.7 _..10 ["IG"7 ;_ ' E I I4 r I . �'% �Zt-�-.. . _,.,_._fir ._ ,• j! �! E E E E r a:EIS ! ! E EE E 71w.._tlui 1I—_ I. ' l5TR • ai Av )3 ' -1 / ma IAp n En t- - , ., _. At0!I10.-• 1l,----• _Ar i pit i MO tl • _ t w I. D N - ' I i—E--� :r-=!Itx g; I_ ¢ AV:i r 'u e a .11111 -_�—,Ar' w •ribdo 'lino 011 :E --iN �I---I� _• - — p - s� j �E E .. z I T.1I w !• i H- ~r w�C mug �f -I Z ` : y ( /- —L-- -ilia -1,_. _Mt-�T.- �_ —;G—i_li!N _1 �r-.i w _ q r- 2 Q xa / J _M.L lu*. i ' a5.. I '•.I Ig:a__- -•.. -_1_—_•=_ IOIN -_-•-_.,-- -at-I- �:-1-ii rt. Z m r / .� ,--MA----4.'' '• i=_:'9fH _Id_. _.iv, I�__I'r:_e ._r'-0a:_,ix i 'Iv w t Z E v I! rn D \ ,1<I 1 1 ! r I I I .S 2 i •t meet(• •=AV I w • '-1 • In to . . ITl f!_,_i it , ' 8111'EI'., 1 I . g = AYI7I :i• IN 9 .11'lltlA:_.!_ 8IH .Z'o 1 AV -p IIL-•lip' .o1ee. r 1 ,.., _ Im '90 AY w,two ._x•cse../..._.._ BTH 1A ]4'' t &' ¢r tr.r Z nT ilfr3 c _i fnt ;Ar 1.;'_rA.� h 1 ;�6mI��_ir-; w _ 1 ^ u1__IE ! l,Ei II ! E'!1*el ie g! 5 S,${, nN$ __ Qt ! 1„ G_/.tl L1 I yr• +(SIN_I__j_ �_ StN�yh 1Y T-"1- I I r•- �ji • PH to"•r1 O ,•.�` "� 1__Ar=w.«�" �'. i i 'elk I - lux i At w ? _ti Iw :,v 1 1a a Elm;n: Ir 1 ! l ' r-x D V+tM 11—• r ti.; •l�Iw g 'jy ••al slm —1 AV_'_w1 1+�:_._ .: : a IAA :x I�lb I: Ip14. ax y _E 1_R!�' ,"" _ ilk, _i_.15. -z-I:,S , u f- �__ .. -T_I__;-i---=-1-,_, -T-I-L- •g,_._,!t-•• -8�t y. 7C E lE _ c.tj AY. ,I ^' ' � •I' ' �S1SNR!Il�■ Ay' !'�_ g-1- I�iii1 p 1 '1L1 A�1=Fill I Ell 1r 111!0_ _.i i .,.,. 1 r.-•fr : 1 �..-,Ifl-dun M I t t ' ._ D. R Il(f-! �_ •.11l' •ar!! •c_ ^IS.., Ar w _pull_ _ I �,--"•1 i�'-' . ill C i Ar f,. _' '::1. I. ►AIAIINI. 8 fir _• -8• l `� I I B ►A(T:fltl AV NI • :map -D D ■'-F r.u11M Ar ' inl.. _ir.T"P �I � 5 I_I . ..�_ '1ldo _.: GRUMI001L 1 :AY tom �9._L O •� -<11) 7��tI•_kg ..'ZGd1. x.11. i r • , •i • MIIHNEY • AY N - I I.'r ■ ■ ■ .. . 17�tlao g,tmu E iI�At 1 •AV II' 'A'-I Pm __ ` .v rI'w r»I.Ar w ..�. ' �ana • { l�__'( ! !Nig = ana: b.Wr�w 10 i '.♦ co , 1 I I 1 N I ,'i .w�i >:. i' 1: = I�It .x. _x,.�•717 -1. .o:� A�e�t I I D v, W • '�YyANrtON_ . Ay 1■ 15— •----1-A st c T'r :evil : : : :LS.i 2 _,s.i•t I-,6 tl ' m.s1 ... A I I AV . , i ..__.t II r ,rli I11I it_r_-_, IAr. gl I iN 1= nt.cwr�s W.i . Z Zit D 7.,• 'r. nI■ S 'fs... :K • ti ! ,L'WU ItiI'JI'�i 1 .u.:.,, i iv 1-' = ig _t■i „ILL.- Cl D r i A�„> '�;■s■ I. . '-. w �lt — i� :N—+- c " •A.: j yam,•® i 1 -v )2. En Z • Mtn .� '7NRORA'7 I - I"'1� ih I I-I•�1 I l I — T�d I 1- �,11 "I D O O �'"' ,1,[s ♦•I mot* tIN17=i- b ._ t'• ''4 1 •g "J 1 1 �, ! ■ Y! ^ram„[ / ■_ - ,it:rtik' q 1,:,'' ' ;:qi. :. ,p f l'ryl A •i• .� '�I A! Ipl4ll 4 �INH!! sj8A 2i X - D ! ; =-510HE�� f -T Ilt' .I�I N ■'IR1 cG gs oR ►t / I j�1� I .0; .1t''Ty, a1- Ar.-tom - N�InAt 2 AI Nr I 14 ii (' m ' ! .�ruIRUINM« 17^ .��q�lI INM �l`1N•I IS MACE 1 K( s▪ ~: I e :4. ~4.( �� I gl4 .1 IntRAc Ar 1 N Inuuall CU : i_ —r\: .I-t�N-Ih!• `tEl. 1 �L�.IIiiI► i9..177.;� ♦i"•" ' Ati.� �'.�t .�y'!dn!"H °f�C.]_.!_� IA� 0.t�;1 -i Q Z v fi$iir?e_ it •-I - - - ' 1 I !. _• 1.k, ` a,),,,4 AV l■ ' — - _ ■Ixjll A�■ • . i c„. Wl Airorot ,!•\ • f� W1l DC1D10. : ±'Af I z r , z(firx. L, •'', .•. w.. 'na (r► /-� —. s; ■" .. ' �_CIAA', 1I-J!p`1 I�I�IDS�,r 1. r ' Ey , fib' -I•aO " . Ns-Y I' ri k Cs I _ cat lG C 3 1 KA IM At•_ L ■1 'e i ,�3 •hrtiw�. ♦ ye 4 i .4�� .., KN.,_ •j- Ar N = }_. �1;' W 1n A 'al" Ml ��N ;;L:15 ▪ . . l ! i• }, i 1 _ �iI If K �'� Arl �>^+-� N _ I N r `� c,* tss N M I1V1 I1 li-i •N ,_.....,is. .�. -! li 1.. a WWI ,m ,�/� E w C'~t .Iltw in �"t4 - �4 - Ar -• 3..�i Sri . li --� (♦ 1_La '� i 1st AV I[ 1 • !Sl R. I It _ Ar '^_ A lot • IA Isl.AL IR IR IR b.!_ r It zl. `ww�' 11.210.......s_adi 1�.�.1-J- ,r r�` r - ' r F�i�_ Ark I_,f 1r r .f `` �i -RI'J �� K1 jI / 1 M y��; ` laa �r i ,.., �.e .• .ig !EF t l�im' : A ta 'A } ttti rwic:n ate'ff�� ._ ♦ , „ NE A Al I.�• 't �'' rTM . At It •� JIt fr;WY riR''tr-'a 4 . .a=• 1•r 't $ 1 }IH Nt T. • Eer Ilrf --- -s. �, trr n • _ A ix IR IR 1 v g- I rr:: et 1 I0 ,• IR I— �1 RR 1 1.- 1.i - f ......,1 �.i'i t 2 in O IS I5IA. A� _i �Y . = 1145-. - Ar A ..-. itR ai ^ l� --- , tn' - . 1�. f_ mt K do �t ' .+I `A .4/4 ; - EVETT x Ar i _ C I .7. A r HE IA I i .! 4 IV�r i=I', --EYE T I , I �A HEM , - .r, ,,i,+r r, r 11 'mar' I r. AV' i}!FI _ - ° �'•12TII ir -�51�,�V is!-MII�LIi"� \;..1�__ ."°�;is' 1�"j'_A�.I. I,,. Y-Ix 4 A 44 7_,1'111N !.'t e.“• j AY ,n liI - - n, le 'I i lr'1 n _y li •1" i• 5 f_ EI tN 1 '; INT- . ArJg-1F Rsoco. t'm .4 Arl it F 12'rl 1 iml,i"1- t f 11■rS9 ..II III"A- -1I171.'1I1I_i ._ +1. --. .. _ .y-•�`'-ir i • tt_ •a I• ,.. %• yI __ .. .., _, 1--1 I' 'I:,—I i 4 LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITY(GREENLAKE) Oswega Place and 68th Seattle , SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: • SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE(SF) BTH BUILT 1. 510 NE 73rd Street 8-94 $176,950 2.0/B 1,850 sf 3/1 1993 2. 512 NE 73rd Street 5-94 $172,500 1.5/B 1,850 sf 3/1 1993 3. 511 NE 74th Street 11-94 $164,000 2.0B 1,850 sf 3/1 1993 4. 816 NE 66th Street 2-95 S150,380 1.5/B 2,090 sf 3/1 1912 Average Sale Price $165.958 • SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) BTH BUILT 1. 8237 Corliss Av N 8-94 $177,000 1.0/B 2,180 sf 2/1 1926 2. 839 NE 85th Street 7-94 $175,500 1.5/B 3,050 sf 3/1 1928 3 1014 NE 80th Street 9-94 $174,950 1.5/B 2,240 sf . 3/1 1929 4. 1019 NE 70th Street 2-95 $169,000 1.5/B 2,360 sf 4/ 1 1928 5. 7832 Roosevelt Wy NE 7-94 $168,000 ' 1.5B 2,520 sf 4/1 1924 6. 7543 Roosevelt Wy NE 9-94 $163,000 1.5/B 2,890 sf 5/1 1924 7. 406 NE 82nd Street 11-94 $162,000 1.0/B 2,010 sf 2/1 1937 8. 1322 NE 70th Street 6-94 $152,000 1.5/B 2,490 sf 4/ 1 1900 Average Sale Price 167.681 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants �=I.,Iw li =�. .� ! = �'r--'t'� : = I-1q.0. =i• 8 :_roK�al_I �A I i� lEiid-'Ina Imo. tl. .. ' e S 1: $_•6 . t::.tts Irr—}. 4- ;Fri lr/n ra .. rr nir�• ,r=:_;" !Mont• :_J. Lu r �r7, —.,f I Val;` i[rt w.ir I" •- M• • •• , -.»' 1 :.,, 5I 1 •1 I' I_: Imo' -I I I_* ► :�I I1a �; l: Nln•_ ..� _ — =ja -- �-= �— _._ [_Ly-_y ti. �-f;- 1=,_ . . . — �_•:! _a.. "1 i q Ar 1 1_ r1 :1!1 •1_$ I e II :j la .= vG,en..±_ ., :![•-rr' I~ •[Tt1(>!N' I"U( '� I ;."1 q t � S -_�_ 1, _....•__ _ I -- J._N I Al"'Ar I . Y.` -4 Iw tl -:.11 'is •r :R O D r- 1 r'- 4 i•t':..-._.1 ply l..I,,.1 D m 1 m z• I-?=-I.I X 1(.11•. �i:-76.c =- :1'.r,�• 0.e Z �{ . m D • , ;. �;� �`.- A tORA:-.. I A• 1�ItI =, ; 1 HIo•; "I is Div I�AURO!AI9III41LI AV M i' :r N: R r+ .a. '' ,- ISra (n j , • 's �.1{.,,, I._. y �. •e !1(SBIr,$,Ar_":..IyI 'ywilt!LT !A!!: �i— lur•~• •� p • ' rC^ �%''1 I 1-T"' II ntDratEo Ar .'.1••I .� � .t• 1�£� `.r . �.. y e'.''O 2 I . g: �% 1 1Iat� "r L4J.. slat15r -1,r[i!u"_!__I..J fAv k tt. �..� _� - .'. _ 0 " ,,; :`} .,`•1l•:'O+ liI i U.�11aAq ..i ._;4 Inr.1l•11._!. ' II!h111h a !! M A' - • -11 m 2 "1 X !Cr. a- .•*' ' _,figad IIH B A. •n " 1 mtY911H _ �r 'a 14 ■ L �' - _ • . �. b ° '• •� �y_i1!_i_ ca l Ec[w M "c �4' o •fi t�d.(9 Z ! ,.yr. ., '� i '1�` 1�= KRtkl_�, mT r " 1.. .., .s.. :AV -- P (n D �! i i mu, �i! ."—l" ff1rJ5i; ,�a+Jj .84d_Lt;: '� 5 1 c-•°_AAA I li I 3 1 -I • __r-i.r. w .. ir.!•-_.I- c�� ! ! '�y+• Isl ,r In . sr .r . - n : pill;-• �. _ m • y (n I It R i ..I al• - �V- no r.. /►- • 1 -L _ r1 fs.v m.- Rl • •1 I i At ..& w 11 t I. 1 • *I '•._ i .< p Ar Z A i� . ��I. rM.A. •�4y I1.� `n .10 y/IZ I IAIO4 it K --I 4 I11 R a a R- Op.• 0. O yor A/R NE ' - • D • • „iii���/r 7 �..rf' V. r 1 pRAll.Ar K ( rR �. IR „ • 0. ATA� IMl 1 AV K W 7 •� I I 4jo,a `• .4. /.� . J ) I TM 1" ~ I • A• R le I : /l b O O Y —, • 1 M ..a R Ig• A 11 =I ' I1In4I I r1r]'I w 1 A:R R• � R R Ili t � RT 3 n i11 1 R r/1 a1+11"I !! 11115 •+r !._ ItI1H I I I� b R ar 11 •I A fif l r''� a ly * ff = I Q D Z • `, RIB 1��-IAi ^1 Il1;, l=! U.- R ?�a - IR IHEI� Ia R RLII � �SE4T - R I iIIir..•aa• rTl 1 a• V' IN6 a :• t u.r. •• _T.T. glb TH•1 - _II•A ".1 um. \-! _ _::Sl 1: 1 ii.I._IIn,II1.07 —.165 11 1� w" ;er -� • - Ca Ar !M1rk ! Al ;Vitii' I !!" 1 =•1 It{I 1c� � IQ.1 11' �� _iil :7I !T 'JI1211 'r •3-, J s _ a:II '._t I = 'I !sTN F _ [sn E t .i.so O o n e R • �- f« I muY • .! __4 A 1 It!!m j...Ar_ " �.+. I 1 1 /.• ? -:l,•,`�•'a I v; IIib6 7 .ti• �1_gw_ y I 1°11Ar K A 1•�_ __- �r 19_ , u�H $��. 1[ ,`�� l I �: i fi 8F > 1[t" At ;fir At K _�!M 2A11 R --=, - H -"! :IR Ar' NC. ►IrP 1/t" k nseo m AV K Irma Ar 1 �o. �1 Ar . /y7 • �f+ Ar IR1 = 'i'—• tolH A . IC I '.'4' .1• 'TM -TEllf— ^Ni VI I —R_ k I 'kV -••-•SIT*-4•"" -1§—xr—Itkl■ -i�:' :-• •-{N`'-WY •r n �'�'-`_R"°` '�I'�'S- ;aol% ' All _ 21' I.D'Ar K., 4 I Mr[-ilu p ..Ie r . r tv� ,y 11S..• 'A _ �ro l l i� [ _ Iwt_Ar v' ¢ E. ' a _.=LO• Ar_ _ I. -q�- i``! • 1n 1 T 44", . Q *ei. 11M .Wil A ry li �': 1 d __ Iim' =•Ar _1 biting.' t I (.1.., • I • "�'_F a►v tAn1� • c _ t. b 1 i2e1�• .•w.r 1 1__.._ ^i.. ._�I.�'. .Y.w M At(/.l •• � K �7 'air 1' .� , --�Yf-- "__ A /''251111' AV-I NE x : •; w! �1' AV 1 ME ;RA I ^� .,1)!•. R I A1i R R A■ aI�• um. • r ' •. mi. lloi Ar •i1'Rat n1• Ar 14:: K A'! lig 1 l�!!.-_J ._= I 1 - [r1H I AIR Av c zt HI I 1 pn�ri,t`44 1I _e x ga. w�� y; 27m 34 RII I 7 'hf • r ..■ 4u . 6 ., 1_gym _ R -- !"—d�l_` 1.t 1 i7.2E11 Ar -•1�R'R IR tog 1 "7: i1 1 R lIR .a w je:' i ;12 1• 1.7 .` -i(4 111 Ar 1: _M'.=r1-"-' •=-'�-- n1 ••••'Al AT' HI I' R I r!`imi 1'Ar!M 1 m I 0 K '•''-�• _ ]on1. AV 1 ME ==w -r- -.-�_ 15• 51.^�V _ -pil •... •-aa •tla1f_---_Ar-i_-1--,^1— ••�.yyi_I:2•'w-•-'--• •.d' 1�1K ---$. ;:l —� I 11 tti 113 ( a_ if1 1 AV _III i •4.00 - . L 9 ArI NIE IR'R II: A 1,1 I :a' 'sue •-• 1::9911'. =I 1: wxL�-I. R '�' Zi M.: t _ ►AZt. ., F.I P9 Ar. Pr __.- T' .-i L..-I- lvdo . '•Arl •iH. i E . 1 I • LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITY(FREMONT) Bridgeway and 39th Seattle i SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: • . SALE SALE BR/ YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) BTH BUILT 1. 3916 Interlake Av N 2-95 S220,000 1.5/B 2,260 sf 4/1 1924 2. 3938 Ashworth Av N 1-95 • $218,000 1.5/B 3,160 sf 3/1 1921 3. 4034 Woodland Park 7-94 $197,000 1.5/B 2,500 sf 4/2 1915 4. 4012 Ashworth Av N 6-94 $196,000 1.0/B 2,500 sf 2/1 1911 5. 4261 Whitman Av N 9-94 $193,000 1.0/B 2,240 sf 2/1 1946 6. 4114 Ashworth Av N 1-95 $179,900 . 1.0/B 1,500 sf 2/1 1911 7. 4119 Woodlawn Av N 11-94 S160,400 1.0/B 1,990 sf 2/1 1941 8. 3658 Whitman Av N 4-94 $152,000 1.5/B 3,020 sf 4/2 1904 9. 3644 Ashworth Av N 3-95 S152,000 1.5/B 2,110 sf 4/1 1928 • 10. 3648 Whitman Av N 4-94 $150,000 2.0/B 1,970 sf 2/1 1900 Average Sale Price $181.830 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BRi YR ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SR BTH BUILT 1. 4302 Woodlawn Av N 4-94 $220,000 1.5/B 2,260 Sf ' 4/1 1924 2. 4010 Greenwood Av N 7-94 S200,000 1.0/B 2,080 sf 3/1 1953 3. 4425 Fremont Av N 1-95 . $199,000 1.5/B 1,920 sf 2/ 1 1900 4. 1609 N 36th Street 6-94. S195,000 1.0/B 2,340`sf 2/1 1906 5. 4011 Densmore Av N 1-95 S192,500 1.5/B 2,980 sf 5/1 1922 • 6. 4222 Greenwood Av N 9-94 $179,950 1.0/B 1,380 sf 1 /1 .1900 7. 4325 Phinney Av N 12-94 $177,000 1.5/B 2,030 sf 3/1 1902 8. 4418 Woodlawn'Av N 3-95 $170,000 1.5/B 2,020 sf 6/1 1914 9. 3966 Evanston Av N ' 4-94 $160,000 • 1.0/B 2,020 sf 3/1 1984 10. 807 N 36th Street 9-94 $152,500 1.5/B 1,890 sf 3/1 1906 11. 152 Florentia Street 10-94 $150,000 1.0 750 2/1 1947 12. 4018 Greenwood Av N 7-94 $150,000 1.5/B 2,220 sf 3/1 1946 Average Sale Price $178.829 • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . • Ili ' y1 wit.yl ��_i 1Ar Yinlr �,i .0• i• i _ ;l`Vk H•�` ,.ti L••_ _�.:ft;:EI+�'� �1 -+ uY1 IM.1 ar�l �Nn iirl _ -a1�J— I•�� `;�\�. I 1_ 1� .i/ .-1' � _ ,f0i jl i • ;_ i J•I�.M.k3 1..S_]Y •-.t ' afErviirm 1 1 `\Jft....,.u: irlr--ott'-T Il tr s , -�._ •i,__._ ,9,_I ir. y.�__ —u,t- `yTt —T- -T .. Yel °° \'y -n t..r� Irl frl YI. rl vI rI tiry yy LI ad +r I 1� !al-A- c_ �f is! • I l,1 AV ISt . f J l "M -_ —�( I - �l •71 G Ii"11 v1.. 3• ~ Hi": !q y I Gtu �-. iv 1 .i` •• ` , _•Ar 7dltA.tic ,V•,. t�� _I �I .I . M G1---¢ 1 a wusri: ,) •�, " i �tt, c a�, Ant tt1 rl—o] '!II .n M, '—��—� AVM wwed.7� \ : � � IAVI aS,'Y `- j "•/ •11h►` � .�aY f iiii � : ��,�iy- Y� �jll.•1 �, � • I/ I •i ..X in', LAY{ "a rxyl4 .r. •' b f �1 ., u r. ' -L C Y • } r •r V b.,*,i�� *\�S• , \ y �t a ai a ��y 3 +Y , L . wl'I�II+1 44 :I I AY• . pq/ T1I • .i•• AT ON17i11171n =7 ! -.Zs. .1 =i-91-."11 G'NIYOAKY I G N :i AY G 3 NpOr/SY 1■•f t r • .L.wn'...V •3.2 v r;'MI ,� �d • .!N ,n .1 3 ;� in AY 1 ' 3 I Av limits' ..1111 i y , A•:S% z W ... . S . ;{ , �.. �„ ..,� • ... ISr/n,,. Z,� Y AY,L4lt L�. , a .1�1 h :,, 4 •+.,- 1. .:.1 s• • 'yl le;ILA Il+Y I • ,• • .It A w: Gi GI_I "I • natty 8III!,�4 +r etc .4s.31,g, • ' Jy , „ I. 12 `......, M ,�;�1 •JA • •• _ ., 31131yi- s W , RI �y. > Z. ` �•r ._�• ,..V • , RAYlwtjuYPu� ,� I•` isR:p1•. "IiI•N I 1.-1=cGI.j Rg V aa i Y 1 ~ ��_ 4 _ ',I'' • :�I' try =t _' 'rG�,f 3 r�. . •J(j f', • O Z'�x '.• ' R•al IG,:� I 1f1 M1 G'NI ^- 1 ` __r W M'. + 'L.t,., WLL•i'M �1r • • I 1 [ •is••1 'i' J'1 I I u' "Mi �17�t`y11_.—F '',_,�•—y. S� N� -AV-_v`,/. 1�-�L .1.QY� •, u+�I t/1• •— Z VU 1 rl gll '.i. I.1' , �. I I I_ I ;!. ,••^I . 1 3....••G •Y7 11 Y -� q 1 IY' �r" ■�1 irui A ' 1 fi ��.•I"7r CO C - !NJ, ■� ; _r�, •Arl .« lndllll, L'_►� YY � '" TAY •i 1 1 1110M! l:/i i'•r^ r 11 tar L W ni • WAWA) I 7, ri::i Y, ;,' •.- 1 yo• _ s• �' s, �I-� — Z Q .••• • WSW& •• M1i •�r�� Q .,j.t :�, .� �' �. w:�. �'• •i. ,r1A.Y :%'•.• 7 1 1 .•. 4, f' • .Aw7I11.E J , Q) �- Idu.d_' IOIA.p -.r. w "'- ,IS .r i ii I.. a = :.• e ) .; AV • , : I I j its .�` / Q In Q .T,T:lrlw r•FT.TPar yr--"_-• !i I i^ .. iOLi.•. 1 i.w• -.M•Av I,OiI►u 1 ..mil 1 ., i .� Y, Y ", --I. .TIC ... N e. :�T Z U •CU CU lNJ ,:r .. J' I Nr Ar A31wIHd .: r.. .. • w : _ • . • + • __ N .fl OM33 G.4 ., .�1i} • AY: ,O Vfl3MJ . AV! •-+, lnOriiii16 ... i � pl�Ipr ib , J �1!{rtrt r Ar 31u.f v4 !I I • it. 1 I H�t1 ` �j°.nuT' I.WD •�"" I I ., • r •t.l ,L ••:♦ mill AY N�3ro1 (n 0. 7,:! lit 1 1., I ! -� „' i ' -1 • ,AT,!i uG: • y. t1-� QTY_-,- a ♦"•'�_., ,_•: UI •..., "1=i�'Y•?I--•N' aI:1 jl .. 3.. .. ..Y,�..1 r—;�'� Ziff (/1' Q Z • >� minx AY• ' VI' I1A. : h.:I :r,,»I I !111 dt I •• G ....103 r �,. .NIIi1.1- 1 iY i1 i' ... i _ .J CO dre .. , rnt / 1►r, ILL.�! L��•—^; �'m:Y1��= �''<1"Y1 a� 'w"I,V,•�u..1_l__ M • AT �:J.orc • '1V IF•I GI..', '/ l AY II - ."I ,}// w 111 i ��VJJ it Ea!. $1t: it I,. 4' c�-��r!f q Miir • Iu►1 1' . I I e,•^�„ Air Nlr� • t`�JI%/ 1.Nii�. • !r i.t'—Y .., 1 . .Ar: Ntf-.—' � t. A v I 1 HIS. �'�,' Ia. - 'at •,:r�i/ 4• Q LL SU _ Q LL Nlt s.,;' i31 i it ;i .i• 3 ^'! Ar Nu�., ~ 9. NI, ,u,' F !/ - + J Q) oSA " ,A. i Q i• of 6 AT ,- I 1 e, .;';..G.:'G• a. • t1 .t •'1,r •�' Q Q. iv 1{Lg -S-::.•l— OAtf 1N AY vets' RH ' .•• , er ry- ')7Y110. xr� aNI , Nt AY 1 rVtl_ NlB -�iIGII-1� fw :fi.AY•• ! , i.HLH. �� i 'A ,• r a, to `t N{ ?.--al----. _' 2,,.1 -I_"AY iifiPa'•--- •- i ' I I. , I• : .I �h �f�• c a ��~ D U •• C _ r .•�I ..ni- r' N' wli .491C-._t—_. .._ • __. : ,. -. g• _ , ..._•.._ ]IA / 0 0 0 ti) ��� �j Tr =iiloi^.=--_ _--ii17—, i,.31(_ _iia- C _.7 3:- r a Y J y . i qy utt 'T-1 --*—;,__zil�--�-- •_ _—r—',.� _..._4____. 1 Kt s • ; =r ri= Z 0(�6„ + Q2i • N{I.' _..L �� NItI� IY1 i I �. .'� >f �. Y A w Z J Ul ••._ L_+4{! A?4! —7Y[—^—" .A:_ luii= -�: t:a3_ F.m Sn 0_ N ttt 1 Ntrl. _S!-= r �- ~, +r vim--__.,,n r _-"mY_I Iii I Iii'1 • • 1 >3/ 1 l (�ttt --• 3 D I J I llrN a ! ti AT •nt 'Ifni _ii,oir��. T .• > i' I- ; i • -_1� •3: •_i • - r d R._ Q I L • _21H _. Av art _ll -- . PM / Mfl .W ,p HIS I••` . -,'; •'e��„ LL Z N I 'II •l` _�• - )� jX,,-� Niii •00n i i l i i l c a C i i ;t i i i' 1/ C I ,p1` m ��5cc, , + , Ma i it:Ar 3 mil- ':%.?'t, ? I a_,~ •'L Z lT�_ `�7. E. -r1•— I_ -/Cf:-_.IUiI_-c--T --•_ •---•-- -�� .;.,i,E• _Y ..LI_• , �.+-- -- 0> • . 1 r w�p7 ii a --N AI _ +r•i -t,,is_NSii- _ I I• '�{ t•'ib� „'i�- 1 F ®" 0.:s Q ill n. ••1 aY,8••"I_` u.at: „ (/ —� �1 Nat-ley, -'_I._._—_. M �vr F '+ ,?-X•f !'�•J'- • J ;?`: U J �- I , . .'•� O, S. N �ArtSll .J::• N► JNU • i�arli�- r�.-� i „ --+r act -m---�.1-_d7I- '' a �� N w a!i �:'. N - , a AY gig . -tri Aof1 „' ax AY --"S„t„•- it .t• // ' • _.._o,i) O.Si '� * • .j N _ _ 1 _' a,: �N: N.� . �,c.:, t- S-vet:! • _ . t`1it 413 3 ..::,IN E NI _j AY • HI?Z Lw A.V. -H1PZ " • I R.it a. kw. .,. A y I.o Y� lumt� 11 ^•Jr•Lt.n.: ��. ._ Ar WI .r. Qr 1 L .Y 3w�e • • • RENT SURVEY OF "SUBJECT" LOCATIONS • • • • • • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. • • Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants SOUTH LAKE CITY • . Meadow Park Apartments 10550 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington. Antenna located on roof of building. Units: 28+ commercial space Built: 1990 Construction: 4 story elevator serviced mixed use building. Representative Interviewed: Elizabeth Podszwil, manager Date Interviewed: 03-28-95 Phone No.: 362-5614 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet _Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 14 1 1 575-650 $525-$600 $0.91-$0.92 0 8 2 1 800-900 $625-$750 $0.78-$0.83 0 6 2 1 1000 $795 • $0.80 0 Total Vacant 0 • AMENITIES . • Individual Heat. Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation Decks Secured entrance . Elevator Open parking • Dishwasher& Washer/Dryer in unit Limited to good Garage parking @ disposal • Mt.views $25 & $35/month COMMENTS: No rent concessions currently offered. The manager indicated that rent increase notices were scheduled to go out in the next week. She did not think tenants were aware of the antenna and felt it had no affect on rent or occupancy levels in the • building. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. • Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • • • • SOUTH LAKE CITY Mountain View Estates 10522 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington Antenna located on adjacent building to the southwest. Units: 32+ commercial space Built: 1983 Construction: 4 story elevator serviced mixed use building. Representative Interviewed: Cookie Higman, manager Date Interviewed: 03-27-95 Phone No.: 364-9190 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy. 11 1 1 700 $430-$500 $0.61-$0.71 1 21 2 1 863 avg. $550 $0.64 1 included 2 2 863 avg. _ $575 $0.67 0 Total Vacant 2 AMENITIES • Individual Heat Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation Decks Fireplace Secured entrance Elevator • Open parking Dishwasher& Common laundry Limited to good 1 Garage parking disposal rooms Mt. views space @ SO COMMENTS: The manager is offering one month free with a 9 month agreement depending on the situation. She has managed the building for 7 years and was not aware of the antenna on the building next door. She didn't think the tenants were aware of it either and that it made no difference in rent and occupancy levels. She felt that the overall condition of the neighborhood was why rental concessions were necessary. The rents for • this building are lower than many other buildings that are newer and are in superior. condition with superior amenities. • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • • LAKE CITY Willows Court Apartments 12316 28th Ave NE Seattle, Washington Pole located across the alley just north of this building. Units: 104 Built: 1988-89 approx. • . Construction: Two, 4 story elevator serviced buildings. Representative Interviewed: Tammy Schierbri, manager Date Interviewed: 03-27-95. • Phone No.: 361-0051 • RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 8 1 1 650 S480 $0.74 0 • 56 1 1 680 $500 $0.74 2 8 1 1 700 S550 $0.79 32 2 2 980 $665 $0.68 1 Total Vacant 3 • • AMENITIES Individual Heat .Water, Sewer, Garb. Sport court,Jacuzzi, Decks • weights, tanning • Fireplace in 96 units Secured entrance Elevator Open parking Dishwasher& .Common laundry Limited territorial Garage parking @ disposal rooms views $25 COMMENTS: The manager is offering $200 off with a 6, 9 or 11 month agreement. She indicated that typically 2-3 units were vacant per month. She recently increased rents on 2 bedroom units. She was not aware of the pole and did not feel that it had any affect on rent levels or occupancy levels for the property. • LAMB HANSON LAMB. • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants GREENLAKE 448 NE Ravenna Seattle, Washington Antenna located on office building next door. Units: 18 Built: 1929 Construction: Three story brick walkup building. Representative Interviewed: Michael Johnson, owner • Date Interviewed: 03-28-95 Phone No.: .542-5360 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 18 studio 450 S475 S1.06 0 Total Vacant 0 AMENITIES . Central gas fired Water, Sewer, Garb. No recreation No decks hot water Secured entrance Walkup Open parking @ $15 • No dishwasher or Common laundry . Limited territorial Garage parking @. disposal room views $25 • COMMENTS: No rental concessions typically offered. Low to no vacancy. Owner • was aware of antenna and does not feel that it affects rent or occupancy levels. • • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants GREENLAKE 6823 Oswego Place NE • Seattle, Washington Antenna located on office building next door. Units: 8 Built: August 1993 Construction: Three story wood frame walkup building. Representative Interviewed: Reed Hargiss, owner • Date Interviewed: 03-28-95 Phone No.: 367-7343 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current 'Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 1 studio 550 $550 S1.00 0 7 2 2 975 $925-$950 $0.95-$0.97 0 Total Vacant 0 • • AMENITIES Individual electric Water, Sewer, Garb. • No recreation Decks. • heat . Gas.fireplaces Secured entrance Walkup Open parking& cov'd parking @ $0. Dishwasher & Gas Washer/Dryer Limited water& Garage parking @ • disposal territorial views S25 Gas range • COMMENTS: The owner stated he has had no vacancy since the building was completed. He felt his rents were somewhat low. He was aware of the antenna and felt that it, along with the long standing "For Rent" sign on top of the office building negatively impacted his building, especially when new potential tenants were viewing his apartment. • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • • • RENT SURVEY OF COMPARABLE APARTMENTS • • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 1 , • • GREEN LAKE LOCATION • COMPARABLE 1 Acton Apartments • 6301 Roosevelt Way NE • Seattle, Washington Units: 20+ commercial Built: 1993 Construction: 4 story mixed use elevator serviced building. Representative Interviewed:. Damian, Manager • Date Interviewed: 03-31-95 Phone No.: 522-1290 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 4 1 1 625 $5004600 $0.80-$0.96 • 16 2 1 787-823 $7004795 $0.89-$0.97 Total Vacant 0 AMENITIES • • Individual Heat Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation Some Decks Secured entrance Elevator Dishwasher& Common laundry Limited to good Garage parking @ disposal facilities Mt. views S35/month COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. • • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL'ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants GREENLAKE LOCATION COMPARABLE 2 Roosevelt Manor 917 NE 63rd Street Seattle, Washington Units: 20+1 small commercial space Built: 1962 Construction: 3 story elevator serviced building. Representative Interviewed: Alex Koerger, Manager Date Interviewed: 03-31-95 Phone No.: 526-0894 RENTS & VACANCY • # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 9 0 .75 275 $390 $1.42 3 0 .75 290 $410 $1.41 18 1 .75 650 $490-$510 $0.75-$0.78 1 Total Vacant 1 • AMENITIES Includes all utilities Water, Sewer, Garb. . No Recreation Secured entrance Elevator No Dishwasher& Common laundry Limited views on Open & covered disposal -facilities top floor parking @ S10 & . S 15/month COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants GREENLAKE LOCATION COMPARABLE 3 Aladdin Apartments 6805-6811 Woodlawn Avenue NE Seattle, Washington Units: 46 Built: 1958 Construction: 3 & 4 story brick veneer walkup buildings. Representative Interviewed: Grant Roberts, Manager Date Interviewed: 04-03-95 Phone No.: 525-0273 RENTS & VACANCY • # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 9 0 1 480 $410 $0.85 21 1 1 600 $500 $0.83 16 2 1 900 $610 $0.68 Total Vacant 0 AMENITIES Individual heat Water, Sewer, Garb. Swimming Pool Decks on 1 br& studio units. No Dishwasher& Common laundry Water views in 5 9 carports @ $25. disposal facilities units, territorial bal. COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants GREENLAKE LOCATION COMPARABLE 4 • Weedlin Place Apartments 6909 Weedin Place Seattle, Washington Units: 40 Built: 1991 Construction: 4 story elevator serviced buildings. Representative Interviewed: Christine Hawkins, Manager Date Interviewed: 04-06-95 Phone No.: 526-1109 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 24 2 2 698-716 $750-$810 S1.07-$1.13 1 16 2 2 805-818 $760-$815 $0.93-$1.00 0 • Total Vacant 1 AMENITIES • • Individual heat Water, Sewer, Garb. Roof Top Deck Decks with Hot Tub Gas Fireplaces . Dishwasher, Washer/Dryer in unit. Limited to good Garage parking disposal territorial views included. Microwave COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. • LAMB HANSON LAMB • • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants SOUTH LAKE CITY LOCATION COMPARABLE I Northbrook • 10215 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington . Units: 68+ Built: 1992 Construction: 5 story elevator serviced mixed use building. Representative Interviewed: Yanna, Manager Date Interviewed: 03-31-95 Phone No.: • 528-1800 RENTS & VACANCY • # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square. Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 38 1 1 690-800 $525-$600 $0.76-$0.75 1 30 2 1 775-1000 $635-$850 $0.82-$0.85 • Total Vacant 1 • • AMENITIES Individual Heat Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation Decks Secured entrance Elevator Open parking Dishwasher& Washer/Dryer in unit Limited to good Garage parking @ disposal Mt. views S25 & $35/month COMMENTS: Currently offering rental concessions of S 150-S250 off the first month's rent with 9 or 12 month agreement. • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Ertate Appraisers and Consultants • SOUTH LAKE CUT LOCATION • . COMPARABLE 2 Vista Point • 8320 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington • Units: 30 Built: 1989/90 • Construction: 3 story wood frame elevator serviced building. • Representative Interviewed: Mike, Manager Date Interviewed: 03-31-95. Phone No.: 523-5515 RENTS & VACANCY• # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 10 1 1 681-777 $590-$640 $0.87-$0.82 ' 1 20 2 2 850-1000 $760-$820 $0.89-$0.82 1 Total Vacant 2 AMENITIES Individual Heat Water, Sewer, Garb. Roof Top Deck Decks Secured entrance Elevator . Dishwasher& . Washer/Dryer in unit 'Limited to good Garage parking @ disposal territorial views S25/month for extra • Fireplace • COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered.. • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ' SOUTH LAKE CITY LOCATION COMPARABLE 3 Lake View Court 1901-1903 NE 85th Street Seattle, Washington Units: 50 Built: 1989 Construction: Two, 4 story elevator serviced buildings. Representative Interviewed: Ms. Heitman, Manager Date Interviewed: 03-31-95 Phone No.: 526-1731 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 10 1 1 _ 742-808 $550-$600 $0.74 1 40 2 1 918-956 $665-$750 $0.72-$0.78 Total Vacant 1 AMENITIES Individual Heat Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation Decks Secured entrance Elevator Open parking . Dishwasher& Washer/Dryer in unit Limited territorial Garage parking @ disposal $0 COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • • LAKE CITY LOCATION COMPARABLE 1 The Willows 12048 32nd Ave NE Seattle, Washington Units: 20 Built: 1965 Construction: 3 story wood frame walkup building. Representative Interviewed: Nola Maynard, Manager Date Interviewed: 03-31-95 . Phone No.: 783-3434 RENTS & VACANCY # of Units Unit Type . Living Area Current Rent/Square Current BR/BA Square Feet Rent/Month Foot Vacancy 14 1 1 680 $4854495 S0.71-$0.73 2 6 2 1 860 $600 $0.70 Total Vacant • 2 • AMENITIES . Individual heat Water, Sewer, Garb. No Recreation • Fireplace in 2 BR Dishwasher& Common laundry Limited views on Open parking @ $0 disposal facilities top floor COMMENTS: No rental concessions currently offered. • • • LAMB HANSON LAMB • APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • , •••.': ...._•,.-riPr- t" • k% ..‘,,,.; . . . . ...... • :ea 1...., - �. - �- - �1 4. i I y_ y- ..ram _._ • GREEN'LAKE - COMPARABLE 1 IIII ` % LI : : : - ILI : Zilr....11.-.1. .1..r. --_-"lii. Iii 111'.:-. : _�,' .�:— • ' 111111_ Di/u . r ,:.r.*•-221.•:... tri•--... I Ilia.IP . :="- .�- �!,• 41 - } ,,. i .,.. .Ilia. • C 1 t �v a, GREENLA E- COMPARABLE 2 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants • . . • M•• -may ,� . • ;�r�. : K • 11a IIIlu3 +III • s. • „mil .., .. . .; , • ''. �.• _ :L:+ `fy' ' • -.`'%.T •,- 1, -t_«ir•J' . _ 1 ' J 9: fir. • •� `'-" • ' iii. .. GREENLAKE - COMPARABLE 3 . u \ -_ - ... \\ '\YM1\.�\ S • . • • .i. , arty .61 1► • • i .• O�,N_ 1_ __ z — SOUTH LAKE CITY- COMPARABLE 1 I LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, NC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ... -, . . • , s. .. , . . . t• I, . .- . .. _ :7W.--FA-7.:-1. .t-:-. •,:*- .. ... i . . 3,-.V.. s'":4,4*•!•: :4..•• ..•• , ,t. . • •:;-;4•:':--N0,--7;:r''..:'. "7...-.-: ' . A ... • --....." ....-;%.:-... 1....:5••••.7,••:• 7:.::.?••• .•`.: - • ':'.'-'t7:7k7lt:.1.. ...vi:-... •!...: .: • . .. . '•,...*:•11-z•tc.e.t,•:•"•*:4;..-.i.r.. . . -,'.....€!•417:•c:rft.•.!,.:„.., .6• • x.. . , . • .4fs. . ... . • . j -1,-;.--.....---,..... ,,. , :.--. . • ii:i ..........!-?4,---_ _ : - . .. . - .-• - -.. - • . .. ..ei . . ..:. :;,.1 . .011,..1 : ... 4t: ". 7--•::- -'4------ -.- :---= .'. .. ', IA::,. ..'t.''':vlis.--: B./..91. _:--e7---=-7..— , ' 11,1 --- 41% -. - _.,..............;.-.:••• • li• :..1 '• ... .S41462'14. —.----'---7---Si67.7eli. •Ti.,,71'•-.'4...... ". . _____...-". --:-- ------- .ZOr ' -....----4.- .-!"..- •- _ __ , __ - - . ....- -:,.., . . -"4414......„.....:,.... •" '. __,...._-',.• •-r.... tr:r,"::::1-7.•‘.:."%.,..7..,:... ...:'• • • - ' • -- - `;':'ik . .... ••-•--77 .,-:•!- -• „:,,„..,-4.:,IF-;...,.......,... ,: . ...- '•- •..., ..7 .„.... ..- • ,--,-.-:,-...-.,------.:.:;1 .1q:;,-,....4* .."7 .7••;.-',, • •' 7 . ,., -:-, --71.->:7', .7..... • ... .. •s. , 7.•-. _. 7.'S•• .,:::"!.'"...'5.-c:-:-:.••:4;•-'s.,- :-:4r4.1'.e::':....!?:. , '.'..St•.--•...- . ,',..;.1....4-a...;.:::s.:-.14-7.--......,11...--te , "aditg-1.*4. - P.,'• • , SOUTH LAKE CITY -, COMPARABLE 2 • . . . „•. .r. . —.. . . - • ' . ... . . , . . . .. • • . . , . . , ,,.. . . . . • •. r . . • . . , . • - • . .. • •'. •- s' -. . . . • 1....-15-•7' -. - 1 .• • ... . •. . . ... ..,..., . : ..,.. .. • • .-.• • - fir .. . ., ,,,.. • .. ---.::' • :-- I ' . ,. . . . —. • . . - . . ..„ . . . - . --- •.- ,I. .•••2, . . • , . • ...."1.11111..a...." ...r,•4 ..4 .. •:Z:*1, . ...............MMI:..." ,: '•. y* • * * . • e , .•: . . • • ....... •• • • . • •4. 4%,C4i. . . '..,... . • • . :I 1 ...•••• .... .). - • -----` .4- ...;.-..- . ... . •• • - — .,-. ..... ..... .. • • . . . . SOUTH LAICE"CTTY — COrril'ARABLE 3 . - • . . • . . . . • . LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . , . • • r - ; III • I! e_r„ • • • LAKE CITY- COMPARABLE 1 • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC: Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants l -C .. • T • • ; �•%• -y.t ce^•. Zi..'�-- ..I.'•'J•4.;.•. •'4 ....--,. 4 .a yam,jC,; •,'r :- f• - . i% , •:'TtyC�..-• •.. ••al• • Y--'- . • Z.- •• ....••• T ` ^W. •1- ri 1. • w le c. .. .k , .-. , ` ._ _ .. . �, !re :). 1C ••• ::L�r, �di L T + � GREEN LAKE - COMPARABLE 4 • • • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants CERTIFICATION We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. We have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this study. • 2. That we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the .subject matter of this assignment nor to the parties involved. 3. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this letter, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are partially based, are true • and correct. 4. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this report. 5. In arriving at the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate contained in this report, we consulted with other appraisers, and we hereby acknowledge their professional contribution to the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real.estate set forth in the report. • 6. Possession of this report, a .copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser. Nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. • 8. This assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or conclusion. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. • • Alfred T. Chai Senior Appraiser and Consultant Lic#270-11-CH-AI-`AT4080Z • • James G. Gibson Research Assistant LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES.INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants i 1 4• } QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ALFRED T. CHAI P.O. BOX 8202 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 • Mr. Chai is an independent fee appraiser and consultant for all types of real estate in Washington state. Formerly, he was a senior associate in charge of the south Puget Sound officeof Lamb Hanson Lamb. He received his Masters degree in urban and regional planning with honors from Texas A & M University where he was also the president of the Transportation club and a member of the graduate school student advisory committee. Prior to joining Lamb Hanson Lamb in 1986 as a senior associate, Mr. Chai was associated with the international Engineering & Consulting firm Wilbur Smith & Associates where he • participated in and managed several large scale airport, highway and transit.projects. At Lamb Hanson Lamb, Mr. Chaff has appraised numerous complex commercial and special.use properties in the Puget Sound region. Furthermore, Mr. Chai's experience and effectiveness as a_team manager has served the firm well through his successful leadership and expansion of the south end office. Mr. Chai taught • appraisal principles at Renton Technical College, is approved to prepare residential appraisals and reviews by most mainstream lenders in the country is bi-lingual, and has traveled extensively in Asia, Australia, and Europe. EDUCATION: Texas A& M University- M.U.P in Transportation Planning/Engineering, 1985 • Eastern Washington University- B.A. in Urban & Regional Planning, 1983 • Appraisal Institute Courses - Basic Valuation; Principles;Standards; Capitalization A and B; Case Studies; Report Writing; numerous seminars and short courses. Various Real Estate and Real Estate Appraisal Courses, 19867Present • MEMBERSHIPS/COMMUNITY: . Puget Power Citizen's Advisory Panel (1992) Advanced MAI Candidate-Appraisal Institute . Phi Kappa Phi . Tau Sigma Delta Letter of Commendation, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, Texas A& M University. Member of the Student Advisory Committee, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Texas.A&M University (1983-1984) • President of the Transportation Club,Texas A& M University (1983- 1984) • Volunteer instructor of English as a second language- Renton Technical College Columnist- R.E. Perspectives, a local real estate/mortgage trade journal Guest Speaker at numerous professional association meetings and mortgage company training • sessions LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES.INC. Professional Real Enau Appraiser:and Consultants EXPERIENCE: Currently a Washington State Certified General Appraiser, a Washington State Licensed Real Estate Sales Person and an Instructor of Appraisal Principles at Renton Technical College. Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., 1990-1994: Senior Associate in charge of the South King County Regional Office - Review/Supervision and preparation of both Commercial and Residential appraisals, as well as full administrative responsibilities and customer service. Directed the branch office to triple the volume between 1990 - 1993, established reputation as one of the larger firms in the region that maintained excellent quality,. with clients including banks, mortgage companies, all levels of government, attorneys, and private individuals. Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., 1986 - Present: Senior Associate. Appraisal, of various types of commercial and residential properties for financing, refinancing, litigation acquisition, disposal, leasing,just compensation, partial interests, and fair market value purposes, through the use of full narrative reports, short narratives, apartment forms 71 A/71 B, URAR,Consultation Letters. Feasibility studies for subdivisions and other proposed developments. Type of properties appraised include: single family residences, apartments, office buildings, retail buildings, warehouses, post offices, medical clinics, land, subdivisions, port properties, automobile service garages, nursing homes and other commercial/industrial properties: Areas served include the greater Seattle-Tacoma metroplex and Western Washington. Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc: Houston, Texas - 1985 - 1986. Wilbur Smith & Associates is an international engineering and planning firm specializing in transportation planning and economic • feasibility studies. Participated in and managed various planning projects (see on following list). Public Policy Resources Laboratory, Texas A & M University, 1984 - 1985. Research Associate. A research organization supported by state government, communications media, and business organizations for the purpose of conducting public policy research on a variety of economic , social and civic issues. Department 'of Urban and Regional Planning, Texas A & M University, 1983 - 1984. Research Assistant. Directed and managed various funded planning projects. . MAJOR APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS: Port of Tacoma, Puyallup Tribal land claims settlement Seattle's Sorrento Hotel, Partnership dissolution settlement ' Woodinville Highway Widening, row acquisitions- DOT Downtown Tacoma's Masonic Temple, Financing . Pioneer Square Historic Building, Financing Brazoria County Transportation Plan,Texas; Lichliter-Jameson and Associates Mexia Comprehensive Plan, Mexia,Texas; Houston Lighting and Power/Northwestem Resources pock Island Corridor Study, Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; North Central Texas Council. of Governments • Belden Texas Poll Continuity Guide 1954-1972,Texas; Public Policy Resources Laboratory Regional Airport-Airspace System Plan; Houston -Galveston area, Houston-Galveston,Texas Laredo Transit Improvement Program, City of Laredo,Texas Clear Lake City Traffic Impact Study, Houston,Texas; Friendswood Development Company • Brownsville CBD Parking Study, Brownsville,Texas Festival Marketplace Parking Garage Feasibility Study, City of Dallas 'The Manor"- A Special Use Facility, Estate and Tax Planning • • • • LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES,INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants F -c • rr F,z. I ti March 9, 1998 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Seelig Appeal of Western Wireless AAD-97-149 (LUA-97-092, CU-A) Dear Sir/Madam: Please be advised that I am one of the homeowners who will be directly impacted if the City of Renton issues a conditional use permit for the Western Wireless project. Based on my review of the project documents, the proposed 100 foot tower will be directly in line with my home and will significantly impact my view. While the materials attached to the land use action decision indicate that proper notice was given of this proposed action, I question the accuracy of that finding. To the best of my knowledge, no postings were placed anywhere on 111th Place S.E.; this residential neighborhood will be the most clearly impacted if the proposal is allowed. Basic fairness requires that due notice be given to those parties most likely to be affected by proposed land use actions. Further, I never observed any public posting on either S.E. 76th or Lake Washington Boulevard. These are two of the three major thoroughfares most closely located to the area where the tower would be located, and those most often traversed by the property owners on 111th Avenue S.E. Again, if adequate notice had existed at either of these locations,my neighbors and myself would have had the opportunity to appear at the initial land use hearings and voice our opposition to this project. Prior to purchasing my home in August 1996, I researched the city code and ascertained that any development which might occur in front of my home (which includes the subject site)would be limited to 50 feet in height. Recognizing that structures of such a height would not significantly affect the view from my property, I proceeded with the purchase. Had I known that a 100 foot tower with twelve panel antennas mounted at the top could be placed directly in front of my property, I may well have reconsidered my decision, or at least negotiated a different price for the purchase. Clearly, a tower such as is proposed will significantly devalue my property. Initially, I would ask that you reverse the decision granting a conditional use permit to the Western Wireless project. Absent that, I would request, and believe that due process demands, that the decision be set aside pending new hearings with adequate notice to allow affected parties to be heard. 1• ,• r • Letter to Hearing Examiner page 2 I apologize for not being able to personally attend the March 10, 1998 hearing to express my concerns,but having only learned of it this past weekend, I was unable to clear my work calendar of previously set appointments. Thank you for considering my written comments instead. Very truly yours, • Susan R. Irwin 7701 111th Place S.E. Newcastle, Washington 98056 • • . • •• . . .-. . . . . • 1 • . .. . • •• . . •:..• . • •• • '• • — .. . . . .. ' . ... . . . . . •• . . . . . . . . ' • . : . . .. . . . . . • • • • • • • . . . .' • ....•. . Oh . . .. • . 7' ' ..... •" • .••-• ' • . . . . . • . • ....! • • . .. :t . • • , . . • - . . . . . ... • . . .. - . _ ... • • • . . . _ . • • . • . . . • . • . ' . . . '..........•' 1' ' - ... .......,,y7. >:, . — . • . . . • • . . . • . . .. . • • - • WICKER. APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES INC . REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS • .. 4..•. .:,-'.i. ••• - . . . • • . • •• .. - - • . .... . . • . . ---•,;.:,41;!..1t:~,.* . . . • - • . . . - . - ....4....,L...F.., . • • . ' - - f.t A* •:t . . s . . • - 1;i:'...$ :-...! • . . . .. .. ' • ...t,..A,V.4.....4 .. ' . . t•-•ir.'.:-.!*.' i • • . s •..S'It k. . • '..:..,i':,''••••,li • -C.:;.,'m1:1-- '•-...,,=1.1.i., . . . .;,...:'••i . . - . - ... ....".'.:!•••4,. • - .• :...1.4, ... ii . • . A.... -- • . • . . • ,' r.••:k:,.:S,', •s 1...;3::;,51 • • •._41 :••44 IF • . -, :J.' •....' • • 1 :...V,;At: . . . . •...:.9-.F- • ' .. . . • • . •':•%. . 7 - • • • 1.:4':•:4 t.'.‘ .:•.i-kot • ,•,.1.,••••i•.. . . . .l'....::•••;...•:•:.'..t::1;..14',1i;'!"4.1:: . . . . . • . • '•••f:rq • ' • •...-.%.4•F". . . • . - •. . - . - • -.kv 2; • :- ....i., . • • - .., ', ....., ,-... _ " •'...-:,,,_4• 1 , •t f •k - '•il i M.. • : !:.(41. ;.`•ifit;• . • --.F.0,0 ;•( • • • ;•4. iil!: . . . .•• -•• 'A4:: ft:•• .....II , i. • • • • •.1 . t' I • • ..• ...:. •J - .t• , • • . •Ty- ,,.; . . • •-• -'1,1t1 ..',.. •• ''' • •'.1 • z•,' . 1 • . :..".:.•, ' 4,. • . • • •4 !':•..••• i...:r . 4...?yli. • ' ' ••• .-''. :4'. .: ...., e„). • COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECT OF COMMUNICATION TOWER SITES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES #/t V.Wider.Jr-MAL SAA UMW P.Maar.MM WICKER APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS June 19, 1996 Mrs. Kathy Pomponio • Property Specialist Sprint Spectrum, L.P. 2165 Brighton-Henrietta Townline Road Rochester, New York 14623 Dear Mrs. Pomponio: At your request, we have performed. a detailed analysis to determine the effect that radio communication towers have upon surrounding property. values. A general overview of the analysis along with detailed case studies is contained within the following report. • It is the conclusion of this analysis that properly devel- oped tower installations do not negatively impact the values of surrounding properties. In addition, the historical appre- ciation rates between properties with tower influences are consistent with those of properties without` tower influences. Based on the foregoing, the existence 'of a tower facility will not affect the development of surrounding properties to their highest and best uses. • Very *fly yours, WICKER APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. • ,/.72:-46/ • ?- Michael P. Wicker, MAI N.Y.S. Cert. General Appraiser No. 46000003753 • MPW/alw Enclosure • • 472 8. SAUNA ST.SUITE 400 SYRACUSE. NY 13202(31 57 471-8888 FAX 471-8807 pURPOSE Or ANALYSIS: , The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the effect of radio communication tower installations upon the market values of surrounding properties. 7UNCTION. OF ANALYSIS: The function of this analysis is to provide detailed data which illustrates that tower installations have no measurable impact on the present values, long-term appreciation of values', or development of surrounding properties. SCOPE OP ANALYSIS: In performing our analysis, we have surveyed numerous tower installations throughout Central New York. Included within the installations studied are a combination of rurally located sites, sites located within newer suburban developments, and sites located within older, established residential communities. After significant compilation of sales data, numerous matched pair analyses were developed. In performing a matched pair analysis, we compared sales of . properties substantially similar in all respects except one; in this case, whether the sale has a view of or is in the vicinity of a tower installation. After making minor adjustments to the sales for small dissimilarities, any remaining value difference should be attributable .to the influence of the tower site. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS: (Cont'd.) Secondly, research was performed to determine if the visual impact of a tower site has any impact upon the future appreciation of property values. Our research included tracing current sales in the vicinity of a tower installation back to their original dates of purchase. Total appreciation between each property's original purchase price and its most recent sale price was •calculated and then converted to an indication of an annual appreciation rate. We then located and researched past and present sales of similar style and vintage homes within the same area, however, completely removed from tower influences, both by distance and by view. The indicated annual rate of appreciation in property values were compared to determine any differences. • SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Overwhelmingly, the case samples show no measurable impact upon the surrounding property values as a result of a nearby tower installation. This is attributable to basic supply and demand factors. Although some purchasers certainly may not want to purchase a property which views .a tower or. which is in the immediate vicinity of a tower site, the data conclusively shows that there are an ample number of buyers who do not give con- sideration to the existence of a nearby tower site when imple- menting a purchase. In each analysis, the buyers of properties viewing a tower site had an adequate supply of alternative properties to choose from which were comparable in terms .of • pUMMARY OP RESULTS: (Cont'd.) price, location, physical characteristics, and desirability. It is, therefore, concluded that the existence of a nearby tower installation has no measurable impact on current selling prices . of surrounding real estate. We also researched the effect of tower influences upon property appreciation levels. Again, the data indicates that properties located in the vicinity of and with views of a tower site historically appreciate in value at rates which are con- sistent with the appreciation in value of similar properties which are removed from any tower influences. Therefore, properties in the vicinity of a tower installa- tion can be expected to maintain their values, experience normal levels of appreciation, and be developed. to their highest and best use. • • • 3 POWER SITE ANALYSIS It is the purpose of this analysis to determine if the . view of a radio communication tower and related facilities has an impact upon surrounding property values. More specifically, the location, nature, and height of buildings, walls and fences, and the tower 'of the facility cannot discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair their value. • To determine if the existence of a tower facility detracts from surrounding property values, a detailed analysis was per- formed on five similar tower facilities. Comparable Tower Site . No. 1 is a WTKO. Radio tower site in the Town of Danby, Tompkins County; comparable Tower Site No. 2 is a Smith Television site located in the Town of Fairfield, Herkimer County; comparable Tower Site No. 3 is an Upstate Cellular Network site located in the Town of Florence, Oneida County; comparable Tower Site No. 4 is a WEZG Radio tower site in the Town of Clay, Onondaga County; comparable Tower Site No. 5 is a multi-tower site located in the Town of Lysander, Onondaga County, and Tower Site No. 6 is a WNTQ and WNDR tower site located in the Town of Dewitt, ..Onondaga County. By analyzing the sales .of similar properties within close proximity to these tower sites, it is clearly evident that the existence of each tower has had no effect on surrounding prop- . erty values or uses. A brief description of each tower site and an analysis of sales in the area of each site is contained on the following pages: 4 Li ! .V cc CI ' .7 • ) 1g y IT ilAcil eilL . .immEmED• NNE% ' qv o x � I PER p�' LN. e " 1 `' 5 yU t�. • U174I I i ` mo �� � �iS Y® Mi .... % *., ( i 0. i-, 1. koRm Vltr'R •+' 'L - 0 rC c w S' 7 9 ii kj • 1i2. mac, Betheli . [.. . . IBETHEL Gro! 123 GROVE • l79 i, !OCA 4/10 fe lit 1 ; `-1 : 1°° crn. �CKE �03 you . %.,j CN ' i NIL • WWI% ' of r"- Itoca cc < l of pnby . 1/9 v NELSON '' w *•'`' ' Ck . . y . -. 1 mft MAKARA1NEN 4 EY d�o4' �,1, RD. RD. b. - • • 123 2 D • >_. r V• C c. :• . 0. cc : -z • 968 1 • - 124 . E. MILLS • . - tK "D. !IV 27 I WTKO RADIO BITE - TOWN OF DANBY This site is located in the Town of Danby off the north side of Nelson Road between Ridgecrest and Troy Road. It is improved with four 300-foot towers and several small shelter buildings. . The surrounding area is characterized primarily by non-productive agricultural land with scattered residential dwellings of varying age and price. Located north of the tower site on both sides of East King Road are newly developing mid and upper level-income residential subdivisions. . Because many of the homes have unique custom designs, it was difficult to make comparisons between . houses with a view of the tower versus those without. However, two similar townhouses within the Deer Run subdivision provided • data- for analysis. Comparison will show:that the visual, impact of the tower site had no effect on the one. townhouse's selling price. Furthermore, the magnitude of new residential development within the vicinity of this tower site indicates that its exis- tence has had no effect on the use of surrounding property. • • • • • r • . x„". !!. .I • • r - 1 . i1.' �.. % " •`` • VIEW OF TOWER SITE • f •�•v - L, r - I W " o {r W I T iIIW,I • • NNE 42 IX = w Olt 0 '‘P v I vi is ♦. '� ;;.y : R�K" ,`l �° �S- ? ppJ I 4 e lit ' 5 4�` a. 174 sl _ s ! kORThtVI�� •�� It 4+. c •� 'b' 79• '� � •� Bethel ETHEL Grs /23 GROVE ■ 0 x •♦ ICOMM.cTR. 61 RDA . i�H��KR� 73s _.lsou- Q of —.. — M • of nby 119 -44 NELSON &I . ._3. R . . iv. . 1:::....i: -86 t MAKARAINEN fI • 1,EY RD. . ;' RD. bdo 123. 2 • D C 966 o o • cc : 2 • °TOWER SITE SALES WITH VIEW SALES WITHOUT VIEW Bale No. _j__ Property Address: ;27 Whitetail Drive Subdivision: Deer Run Sales Date: 7/1/94 • Improvement Style: End Townhouse Unit Improvement Size: 1.258 Sq. -Ft, Bite Size: NJA • Features: 6 years old. 2 bedrooms. 1.5 baths. partially finished basement, large rear deck Distance Prom Tower Site: 1.5 miles • • View. of- Tower.: ,, No • Sales Price: $106.100 - �/ - \ � err...%%% • 10011 t •- . • -►' - •*°6 i— --;� .----• -- r�� -. .rM.rc• -'— \ - +., 5....�,,, . -•�,•.--k•:H.t�!!'f��'`j':, " "_ ttiv 4il.i.A't/lkti.. M:- L « r _ ..••"I- +'•- `em u f�7 i^.' '2C-zt ac N' • • Sale No. • Property Address: 1.03 Whitetail Drive Subdivision: Deer Run • Sales Date: 6/16194 Improvement Style: Interior Townhouse Unit Improvement Size: 1.495 Sa, Ft, • - Site,Sise: .- N/A Features: . 6 years old, 2 bedrooms, 1,5 •baths,' partially finished basement, large rear deck Distance From Tower Site: 1.5 mile View of Tower: . . Yes - Front of house . . . Sales Price: . $106.000 • • �- •fit --�..'-••- •y�, 4— A _� o • .. . .:• • 7 PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 1 7/1/94 $106,100 No Average 2 6/16/94 $106,000 Yes Average Remarks: In making comparison, Sale No. l's • smaller size is considered to be . offset by the fact that it is an end unit which is superior. Each townhouse unit is considered to be of comparable value after adjustment. Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property value due to the visual encumbrance of the tower site. • • • • • 8 BOY Although data to analyze was limited within the surrounding area of this tower site, this matched pair analysis indicates that the view of the tower site had no influence on property values. . Additionally, as noted, the magnitude of residential development in the area surrounding the site indicates that its existence has not affected the use and development of surrounding properties. • I - • • ,I I C L3J .MI IV111 • 1OLl R RR.. .• y�` 1` $l v j• i`Y ,. r 1 .� _.y. J•e - 4bfi ,*.r•� n•pitta •.. .S v„�.,,�-r1TG.,•S=" y t: �d. r- c,� fi3. %LiR01�0 ---.‘....„ ..... , . ..-11•••4 ,k, . ,. .i .-= ; ••": Wt i - i• T_�il\l .- F e. on Barn • v, lR' �;4'•"°•=o -J } I �. t g a l" SI r 01,1(..‘ 4.t We6eh Corners • ^rr. 1 N>uRFNr r 101• 71411"4 note f i LRRaL , . .a. • 7 Pap**Mill 7. •••• �, r '� i' !y TsNI SG'1 Corners r f 11 I„.ttYM MJ 1' ' +i ,C • • '' �:. Middleville / Inser 8 ":� `, ;. 3 'a; ; Fairfiet• . 5: •`< Town Sun : '= Corners Y Ir ±••• OI- • ypEL `M • R ED •at"14,r RIIAR r ,'rr i . r ShonaCreekHerk/merCoun rome rer the Aired F A I R F I E L �_Y .,:M (.0'ow �l •In i' .c�0 !o„ • NOIe • // - ---.--..- e, ;.: . _., . i---1>'' = . \:Ini.1..1 (T t cite •Rr Eato?• '1 lixyn1 gyp` '�I ��- IAA.. *a • - li.. • ;. Aditill, sr," ....".•7 NUM! Inset 10 \\ 1111 •1'!Kist Buda kit-- �' Kahl Corners • w• '••• m , .M11l%r.N%* v• WH is -- ( 1 . -. r.d0 oh) �!-fir•• _ R.. Simeon Comers a4 SR���• q}.. o �r•+F'�. t '"'. .r.... ..... . .. .„....,„, .. 1410ERAR .„,,, ,v.,,r I *o �•Inset 16 s' ` ,. UNMAN -r 0. "Iwo 7tMR . {ROfRE •• �•,,,_ �,,�,-.•441.3:a•• . .. I �. s7ri . yt ••• wail Je• ����I .N £ •'- • . i4 f` 00VILM re / i..- We -r w...c- ��r , ` .}Rr "y` 1 15 ♦ .M CIA ;ISM `1- RANgsCO ' .of :::,.;,' 'i �``\C. i �Liit v �I m2•'''''. ..t.L..,....4.,3t•-i'%Vct,-,1......,tr,'••••• ..,...4....„_,-- -•"`•r-Xtk..1 ?,). ....3‘..• \.:4;k4 jeviimulyerioLs E O...ar:r. - 0fl�- `'>Y i''•. t j 1 ' 0 I..w.w. i' µ' i OIYn QMn 6 pMITa TELEVISION SITE - TOWN OF FAIRFIELD This site is located in the Town of Fairfield off Davis Road. It is improved with a 1,000-foot Smith Television Tower and a concrete block shelter building constructed in 1959. The surrounding area is characterized primarily by vacant productive and non-productive agricultural land with a scattering of resi- dential dwellings. Recently, a large parcel of land located along Davis Road just east of the tower...site:.was purchased by Christmas & Associates, Inc. The parcel was subsequently sub- divided and several lots having direct views of the tower were sold. Simultaneously, a large parcel of land was purchased by - Michaels & Associates, Inc. , and also subdivided with several lots sold. These lots are located in a similar area, but do not have views of the tower site. - Comparison will show that the visual impact of the tower site has had no effect on surrounding. property values. • • a VIEW OF TOWER SITE 10 71 J.' • • 1.-• .•.".I_"�,. ••~yr �,ci:•.:w.i' ii:':1 `t`ii••a..0, ��5; • '��.:.• M .9•r -,'. -C).` 41)“ `• •-•---, .,1,. C..,i -: ;.J^.,�eft. ? + --;` '- :;.• . t t,•'w i �.��i mot: *• , t-'l;cam-.„�a .. ? t_ +.}, ••• 't'r•i': ;•�i :i-• •:-: 44114iZ •ti tom"•.,,�:a.c:-•.,r. •r;:.l.:ky•_:. %. "`0J tilt. an_ ..• ; ••—•n _ '• ��. :.i:. 1 i".'L::f1''4"'' '•'d' N 4 • 1 ,t` f .0 •r KOY LA I .-, , , tY ...t t. , r,. rQ/ • O•; jf���• .. a�.11 t e I A • t Welch CornersmuRpny � 14.• I 1t`t.tMa ROAD • '.• SlliiCRlCI •'t• ., ° I Pep re r t l •c 1 Corn ( j1 A I 1' ''• r!:l RwN rnl 'C.,' Cle ; '-'? Middleville Inset my, or• ` ,, , s.,- L_-- ,;.c�Kc © Fairfield o f• 8 10 j E o• ,.�_, Town Barn • ►��� � ' ' ° o1-11 •'�l limn to.,,, c,,,,,..A.L.o...t, • . ,......„! CD St •... . 1 • - • �.. Stony Creek c� „N I • Herkimer County« i 'Home for the Aged it' F A I R b L D_ t --- •• .. ' 0„, I:9 \ • SG• V I 46�r1-t 1 if ear t, 5 •«,i 4.•*i-4 b p .�o*A .r Ro• • iy (' fib, \`�—� ;', ammo R' 1 !: \ I �.\ 7G6 ELCY R0� • tS 1� I Col trymen — � . S n .4 RO \ out R 1ll C 7 17 o• Eatonvllle. •h11 . Inset 10 • 1 1 T.'� ,; Kist Brlda w �'^ :, •.Kelht Corners i .nt I t.ru,w • Ught Corners I .,( e41 Mrl. pti• �rrtir /�.+.� • .. FARaER . - tttt t l4. 4i 1\ • CD/ S 1 �, LANE ism) 1 e„ Vater - • f• 1Q)CERAK 1 , . . •:. '.. • r •Inset 16 RD. . GERMAN A; i• PI a i 14•4" St.EXT. '!t w XMII I T-}ltift:'' •g.. RIGNLA�] �.dif1ICL[�.t!rllti t— 00N.1 ..�a / 0• ' • 0 • TOWER SITE. ()SALES WITH VIEW Q SALES WITHOUT VIEW Bale No. 1 Property Address: Lot 1 - Hard Scrabble Road - T10 Fairfield Grantors Christmas & Associates, Inc. Grantee: Daniel Roy Date of Sale: June 6. 1994 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 107.1-3-1 Distance From Tower Bite: .75 Mile View of Tower: Yes - Direct View Bice: 7.6 Acres Bale Price: $6,000 Price Per Acre: $789 • • • • • • 1, J3 .,• . f.rl 9 It - • ••• n.1- ice•: :.: I • • 11 Sale No. , 2 Property Address: Lot 2 - Hard Scrabble Road - T/0 Fairfield Grantor: Christmas & Assoct.ates, Inc. Grantee: Esteban & Maria Cruz Date of Sale: April 16. 1994 . utilities:. Electric and Telephone . . Tax Map Nov 107.1-3-2 Distance Prom Tower_ Site: . .75 Mile View of Tower: Yes -. Direct View • Size: 8.21 Acres Sale .Price: $8,900 ,Price Per._Aare:_.. $1,084 • • • •+t.1OS•i�7 •.' a• . • .. - .. - I. • '' r•' • • 1 • Sale No. 3 Property Address: Lot 11 - Davis Road - T/O Fairfield Grantor: Christmas & Associates. Inc, Grantee: Susan Wittig Date of Sale: June 9. 1994 Utilities: Electric and Telephone • Tax Map. No: 107.1-3-11 Distance Prom Tower Site: . .5 Mile • View of Tower: Yes - Direct View • Size: 15.97 Acres • Bale Price: S12.900 • Price Per Acre: S808 • • • .'•!y� l�'i.•'' 'i .v ;'• ••. �} -.- • `c A.I L <fir,?-,' i ."� �i- r-• . 7 • • 1 •a i �': '� ' • • �- =,,." -. ,' - /' • Bale No., 4 Property Address: Lot. 12 - Davis Road - T/O Fairfield Grantor: Christmas & Associates. Inc. Grantee: John & Virainia Pendergast Date of Sale: December 18. 1993 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 107.1-3-12 Distance Prom Tower Bite: .4 Mile View of Tower: Yes - Direct View Size: 15.97 Acres Bale Price: $13.000 Price Per Acre: $814 • • • F • .r •fi: . • 'ate- •. . `• 41. .. �3.9y '•.}, J' Z't', .,'�},�:74,if• •• +•x'•.T ' s'fi • `�4+i•Y 1 r +r.s' r... ,_ - ; e ;• • • • 14 Sale No. , 5 Property Address: Lot 13 - Davis Road - T/O Fairfield Grantor: Christmas & Associates. Inc. Grantee: Sharon Hall Date of Bale: April 15. 1994 Utilities: Electric -and Telephone Tax Map No: 107.1-3-13 Distance Prom Tower Site: . .4 Mile View of Tower: Yes - Direct View Bite: 10.16 Acres Bale Price: $7,900 • Price Per..Acre: $778 • • • • • . Ly. 15 Sale No. 6 - Property Address: Lot 10 - Davin Road - T/O Fairfield Grantor: Christmas & Associates. Inc. Grantee: Barbabus R. Kalina Date of Sale: November 7, 1993 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Hap No: 107.1-3-10 Distance Prom Tower, Site: .75 Mile View of Tower: Yes - Direct View Size: 20.53 Acres . Sale Price:. $14.900 Price Per Acre: $726 • 1.1s: q • • s;9t, a`w?3li f ?ice . v _ t� 1.F st ,,-.„..N.,,..., ., - :✓_!• f..J.- �r y iw•u ��-4--.%". i't •••0- 1.'4..;tom` t.. I S •/' •:• •? 2 4 ' •• , • 1,:; �•1} '.l•,Y'rt.,4.:if••�ir�`Vr �1h•,, .-•.,. s i . . ..1-• .f • • 1F Sale No., 7 Property Address: Box 92 - Cole Road - TJO Fairfield Grantor: Kevin C. Davis Grantee: Timothy A. Gbrinshek Date of Sale: December 21. 1993 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 107.2-1-19.5 Distance Prom Tower Site: 1.5 Miles • . View of Tower: No • Size: 18 4cres . Sale Price: $7.650 Price Per Acre: 5425 • • • ..;;• tR • ..` • • •• • .•ti- • .•77 •J.,. •it f •Y • =• 1-1- f ti j r • /q i • 6 w;,•.+�y. � r - �/ ��'.r.•s�'•�-.Z�L•. ,.��''h•�'ri7i '�a 'e'a'�•�` • 4, 'ix .r yvgacl,F u •f+1 • � • b• +i'. /•,,,�/ ►- ,r i/"• •..1 r .r.-idµ.r �r.�u ♦ �. ♦ "�`y ��' •_.• • ..�.i y.::.(+ c ` fir•,%•'`i•c.'f 94• ri,`r�, :.r ;� � -3- if • ••••P Tom♦ } ^•• �• . '/ �Zt `` �• � •� ,� r.�� ,• F � • ° ;� , tit \,. • •. • . ,'•.� ,• i% • .�. sue,.• ;.r� .'. '.-./ GLtr• �t1, t.... • 17 • Sale No. • Property Address: Lot 3 - Castle Road - T/0 Fairfield Grantor: Michaels & Associates. Inc. Grantee: Brian Moraan Date of Bale: May 14. 1994 • • Utilities: . Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 101.4-4-3 Distance From Tower Bite: 2.75 Miles • View of .Tower: No • • Sizes_ 27.3. Acres • • Sale Price: $19.000 • Price Per Acre: . $696 • • • • • • • • `• . ••J` L.'.`. . ' , �,••• ` • - ~�>J• { �V•�.r T'.•irk, •\. `,, • 18 Sale No. 9 , _ Property Address: Lot 16 - Castle Road - T/0 Fairfield Grantor: Michaels & Associates. Inc. Grantee: Albert & Margaret Solana Date of Bale: February 6. 1993 • Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 101.4-3-18 Distance Prom Tower Site: 2.75 Miles View of Tower: No • Size: 17.113 Acres Bale Price: $9.500 Price Per Aare: $555 vF • 4." . -4?.-=•-.71mr • : wt.. • ." • ••,......,••••••4 -.JrnY'sr'ilif.,, • •• 1-1171. 4"."•*..."'"‘•• ••••••••• • •••••• ••• .•• • +I•r. •.7 • "C: t ; 1 • alL. 14)(L1* • ,iDeL _t, ',J.. • 1..••••s'•1. .7; .r.t. A A..4.; , ;•f, At.. A ••Z •• . 't••.7 -'k,!--"* ="r,- ! - -.• • . " • !, 'I" .1 ...01.1 ' • \ '• •t; - :; r" t. 1," •. . ''el' • ;•11 :-'‘ " •• \ • - rr• . ';\•. .1 - 1,7, — 1' . ;, . • 1%1. 't -"N 1.•-•-•:'Sr`t.Z4C.4 1.. ' • .4^ 3t 0,`,0•-•••••• , t • • ‘Z•1 • • # •S' S" ••• • • • • .11 • • • • • Bale No., 10 • Property Address: Lot 8 - Route 29 - T/0 Fairfield Grantor: Michaels & Associates. Inc. Grantee: Hector Rivera Date of Bale: June 1. 1994 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Taz Map No: 101.4-1-8 Distance Prom Tower Bite: 3 Miles • View of Tower: No 21.29 Acres Bale Price: $9.800 Price Per Acre: $460 • • • • • ••••--t•-_-::: ..- !-• - ••• •.• t.• •1- • ••••••: •-•••7•:-.'" • .• . .•.. • • •••• :.i••••• ' • * .• • ' • ' • • • -"s' •-••• • .•• •.• • • . -• 7.: • • ''•; ••• ft• •• 4. -•, ••. • • •••• • #• t . • ,11, 1;0: 10,7 . •7 • • .!••7 ,-..!;;-71_ „.4 . - •*. • . ,• • %IA` L.y ' • • • • y. • • • .),'".:0/-1• ' • -••••• •'1..1. •: • ..** • ) 3••••:("/'—.. • • ••••.".•.•••• 3". t$''). 44' f...• • 1 • . • • en•S` • L " -••is t • . • • •e- • 2( Sale No., it • Property Address: Lot 9 - Snyder Road - T/O Fairfield Grantor: Michaels & Associates. Inc. Grantee: James & Pat Holland Date of Bale: June 4. 1994 utilities: .'Electric and Telephone Tax Map .No: 101.4-1-9 • • Distance Prom Tower•Site: 3.9 Miles View of Tower: No. Rises 20.88 Acres • Sale Price: S9.800 • Price P,er Acre: S469 • • • • • • ter ' • +( . .. .. YL �..1 '_v-.Six x•` •�� •`yw• , .t.�:.cr .S,,M,++,• r ►. 3,.a '-• • -.,'. tl�` .0 ! ' 7\,J1•. 4a?j t1 • aka x• 1 ' .. � . .��:i, 2l ) `. 4� -�♦ ..5•.r.,a� mot.i, x '. • •r n�- x x•t� lei 4 J•1 h 1 �•r � w �� � t•. • ' '� ) /� alas x• • • Sale No. 12 • • Property Address: Lot 5 - Route 29 - 770 Fairfield Grantor: . Michaels & Associates, Inc. • Grantee: Victor & Lydia Diaz Date of Sale: May 28. 1994 Utilities: Electric and Telephone Tax Map No: 1Q1.4-1-6 Distance From Tower Site: 3 Miles View of Tower: No Size: 28.5 Acres Sale Price: , $14.900 Price Per Acre: $523 • • •^844: • •a' • • • • •• • • • • •W' 0'7;"4".77 _,„it . . V . • .. . zar- —• "7;r‘1.1 0 • '• • .*-•• • • • •;r .4,100,••••,f. • • ;,(•• • •;;-.44.;.Y: t. 'Y• e• .1 •:4c •; •;:?' . ' • •••• - ,.r 1•••• • • •,•• .t":• •.1 .• . ),•••••.: I h • • , • . • ;1, /,`, v7.• t• •• ;';'• t ' •:.r. • .•: • t•: • • ;.• 1.%:.?/•",t, • t • • , st-, • 14, t• r. ••; •• t..4-1 4"• -4f n1• (.1,1-1.4,17• •-•••'71- j•k-st-Is.s • ".'v . • „ ' I if. •'t 'I' - '• ''.* .1' •-• • • 1.•• ••• .-• e:'t.1-•"; •.% ••'' • ..•• •• • • • •• • • ,V•z- •••-• ".' •• . • • •' 0:I.' • • rt.f• .i'LV4.13•••1 •`' •'`.• Y 1•1 • .• • .7.•• ••.,•• 1 • • "- • • • • 22 PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Tower Sale Sale Size Price No. View Date Price (Acres) Per Acre 1 - Yes 6/6/94 $ 6,000 7.6 $ 789 2 Yes 4/16/94 8,900 8.21 1,084 3 . Yes 6/9/94 12,900 15.97 808 4 Yes 12/18/93 13,000 15.97 814 5 Yes 4/15/94 7,900 10.16 778 6 Yes 11/7/93 14,900 20.53 726 Averages 13.07 $ 833 • • - Sale Tower Sale ' Sale Size Price No. View Date - . Price (Acres) Per Acre 7 No 12/21/93 $ 7,650 18 $ 425 8 No . 5/14/94 19,000 27.3 696 9 No 2/6/93 9,500 17.113 555 10 No 6/1/94 9,800 21.29 • 460' 11 No 6/4/94 9,800 20.88 469 12 No 5/28/94 14,900 .28.5 523 Averages - 22.18 $ 521 • • • • • 1 • BDI ARY: The facing tables display each of the 12 sales. Sale Nos. 1 through 6 each have a view of the tower. Their average size is 13.07 acres and their average selling price is $833 per acre. Sale Nos. 7 through 12 do not have a view of the tower. Their average size is 22.18 .acres and their average selling price is $521 per acre. All sales are considered to be physically com- parable to one 'another. Additionally, all sales are similarly located in agri- cultural areas which have average quality road patterns. The foregoing analysis provides no, indication that_the'...view .of a ' _ tower site affects the development of or values of surrounding properties. • • • • • • • 21 . •••••• • C _ .. T.o...r. I C;. ,, . fit d * . %try. / 1!; 4.'1, ti'r;: ( t LEWIS t," r S` ceL • ' \ —. ,. _.nrs.a cassia _rY kt. • .r.. .,'- • /r . A ,4 ' r ` + " . R�fa.. •Ors ? y • F � 4 , J t * ••'~ r; t� • . tip f �� 4 0�i �A i j � t �. :.� t •• .ate, :: .,:ei?!..44.1 ./.1*:,;.....At:-:.1-4.;;;:t,kmli..,"t-it; . f. AM, Viol r.,; L23.&_. _ j '7-5,,q1'..t%V.IY1'14•.'%;"•1. 4-40—i-4 -I'':':11. ke.irr... 4..... ,pt . :Wit ,..11 .H. •'' Aii, . "..0-,• .e..6,...•'I'L r.,) - ' 4[1. .1.,..--,_.44:1,44 R ,A S „t„ Wt, ,,,,„.,„,t.., ler ,_....w.r4,...,. . \. •ti . .. tz, •11,cv . ik, ...._,,,,. ful - • 1 :111111V.41“.• .• .. • • G. 1 `-, .. ,,•G �� `, weft 711. . Y I . ...„ 1 1 sigilsc . 1:7;7 .-`•••..N j v 1 / ,-.) k,i. iv) J 4N CAM BEN . 1 • NNS •► I. ir,,te „riff ,„\ • .. 1 . ‘,.., \ • ,......,,• ai. , •,, • ,,,,v4. ...,iwxylli Iv ,..,..„, 41 f" • S.•' •l Ote e�?"'1^4 iiipi•rzi 'e --•-• a. ..• .. ....:t.....„... :11-*X:%11( I f4 ...- . • .% ••••• )1111rilirr ..",r . "/ fir ':"1irF`��► �' i, W6.1 A ft I *...,, •"".0,,% i.,.. ..0,,v'';*1•51.11-16r#.F't'51A-_iNlb e �' rf, nV:A t..Il 0.. i•f:t0.i;• A ;.• # P:Il y4_- 4114!I 4• -i. oeI .fir f i u0 l 11111111111WIRIM16,„... /ki'*,S.. .iis--: ;: ..;-'7r:1;.--- ' •,, --.•---"7"6!";111 -*-41/ 111 • , . . lir , #47",*,,paii. . #0,. .... .. . •. • �l�f atoll . .✓ ..-:nYA.c,ii UPSTATE CELLULAR NETWORK SITE - TOWN OF FLORENCE This tower site is located in the Town of Florence on the east side of County Route 70 between Thomson Corners and Florence: The site is improved with a 300-foot guyed tower owned by Upstate Cellular Network and constructed in February 1991. Land uses in the area consist primarily of active and inactive agricultural lands,. woodlands, and scattered resi- dential dwellings. Houses range in age, size , . and .value, but all are generally well kept. As will be shown, the tower site has had no impact on the development of the area and/or sur- rounding property values. • • J. VIEW OF TOWER SITE 2 SALES MAP tify . 41'0',,,,.-A 4::•,..• ".t,-,...f..-b.c.i.:,:.• • .-..4,-,f)„,i. -d).=, 44:tet_,... i., . :it.; likitip,-:,:-.? ..f., ,. .,.-ft. 01-‘.t •'• /3.111q ' Florence HII `: •::,.,.;'•r• iN•kr �c t• - .i r ttkIt- .:,:• gyp:... a �1..• � Sj• • • 0' j�- �i 4' 1;7.1411::1.......1::•, ,fi . Fit•• «•, :y r= Rl.4 : : i • . ••X t * ,7 • :::::.;7' • -tti, _ —-w .. — `)ri.t') PeY� i •tav • CEO ,:i , .4.. u,v�r � •. �' MIA. �'� )i • ,1s4 � {$ homso . of* 11 1` ! � [ . Corners , ••} • ,t O f �11 �✓ O `• �T !yM 9• • �J/1I L3A �11 �� ��� r,• A� ,p, 1 i • / �`'�C O w► • Mali E N �, jam. WAKfMKID • 4° ``ar I `] 4 R0, %....4,5 u� IGHT to. �f\jh�� O ;:C ,''C'� }Vw'.'I V \• *eII yam .. ed ;t.it.cry. �,, J 7 as Camden'z�: y"'��i=1:gc A: l • / . o ':fi:••r : x3,. rR . � ifiii _r . hs..,aiJa..... \,_ / fait %POND / y• 4,,.„' it•• 17 PS• , � r'`�� 68 171 14(1 ,4111140.:. : . fo` Thomp / ?I.I A I 't "4' Corners • • • 0 TOWER SITE. 0 SALES WITH VIEW • 0 SALES WITHOUT VIEW • Sale No. , 1 Property Address:County Route 70 - Town of Florence Grantor: Gary Albrecht • Grantee: Dana Sharon & Jeffrey Gaffey • Date of Sale: May 5, 1989 Utilities: Electric and telephone Tax Map No: 91-1-17.2 Distance Prom Tower Site: .2 Mile View of Tower: No* Bise: 2.64 Acres • Sale Price: S5.500 • Price Per Acre: 82.083 • *This sale is located .2 mile .from the tower site and currently has .a direct view of the site. However, at the time of con- ; summation of the sale, there was no tower or knowledge of its • possible construction by either the seller or buyer. • • • • • • r� • • • • • •����, •�'�. .• ;•+� ,.�r..�'~4« •$.�. ,r..el►!�:=" �tw -•.•.pry .r r.•�yti • ems ..'i,•. : ", y:' •. 'T��•' • :v� I..-. •r {� •�!. ..•!eit r•.�'; _:ram v.i.� ;�r, �+. • la',+ • • • • Sale No. 2 Property Address: County Route 70 - Town of Florence Grantor: Joseph & Virginia Albrecht Grantee: David & Lori Mitchell Date of Sale: February 20. 1992 utilities: Electric and telephone Tax Map No: 91-1-17.4 Distance Prom Tower Bite: .1 Mile view of Tower: Yes - Direct View - Size: 3.85 Acres Sale Price: $15.000 Price Per Acre: $3.896 This sale is located adjacent to and has a direct view of the tower site. The grantor indicated that the sale was initiated by the buyer who liked this particular site despite the existing. tower. He further indicated that the tower in no way influenced the sale price. • .:'t:at y • • . �� • N is yr;;;: • 2E PROPERTY COMPARISON • Sale Tower Sale Sale Size Price No. View Date Price (Acres) Per Acre 1 No 5/5/89 $ 5,500 2.64 $2,083 2 Yes 2/20/92 15,000 3.85 3,896 • Remarks: This represents a matched pair analysis between two adjacent and comparable_.:sites •purchased for development with single-family houses. Despite being purchased after the construction of the tower and despite being located closer to the tower site, Sale No. 2 sold for substantially more than Sale No. 1 which was purchased before development of the tower site was proposed. • Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property values due to the visual encumbrance of the tower site. 2 Sale No. 3 Property Address: Loveland Road South - Town of Florence Grantor: Robert I. & Lean •R. Davis Grantee: George L. & Susan M. Plumley Date of Sale: September 15. 1993 utilities: Electric and telephone Tax Map No: 92-1-36.2 Distance From Tower Site: 2.25 Miles View of Tower: No Size: 2.13 Acres Sale Price: $6,000 - Price Per Acre: . $2.817 • • • • •• Y :•Ir:n. pt': Sipis_'�i2' i. • •'+" - • • -- �, - •"lam' • �T,•b. `'ir •�• ••Msi.,{•�•' 'f- .• -•`. tea' • 1. - .^� �1 ~, ••,• i��� J • "J) Yr• ~ lam , ar.;• ., ti• .'• ,�:�, .•r• -- •'�A.,s• is '.. • • • • —. r' 1• •, f,r, -1 �•': •,' 'J:' - �� -ti" - _.c3'-" . � 1 28 Sale No. , 4 , • Property Address: Empeville Road - Town of Florence • Grantor: Land Unlimited Grantee: Bert & Andy Sharon • Date of 'Sale: June 8. 1992 • Utilities: Electric and telephone Tax Map No: 92-1-3.5 Distance From Tower Site: 2 Niles • - View of Tower: No Size: 5.078 Acres Sale Price: $19.900 • • Price Per Acre: $3.919 •a • ••• • . � ., •', r+. t 4 • • •.41 • ?".I •if1/4 j•r42., El:.•4:••••,•••••"• . = •..•`• • •:_•-•••"i•ra ••:_riai‘t • ••f-h 7*• fa:4 ; • •'•• • •••t• • •S(--- • •• • rr '.•=i_y;f'� • - ti / r « - a +..:�•fir.QrY- • ••• l - - • - : • .• :r I r •j t • _.. s4. �"• :,• • - .•�..� • '•. % �`- .• ! •w- 711. '%'* •1 . •I '.'7• • ;��:�• 4 ° '-.- .7f .••I I,• i.� ,• •'L' J r!„,,k;.• • .r . a r7 '1�+.• 'y'• ? ri •}r-7 ' • • ... . . •-^, •. rT '.t.!1: J s4!r:• •. ' ••Y MCIr "1''•3i•.11 • • - • ,C4.•,,•• • } Spy • � • • • •: a•: ." "• •• ••�••••4:,% •- . • 4c »' Ii : •. fft• a.�;• • :.vim .�'� 4 • •, r Y• �t�ti. • •• •�*�,( •� •-, •' • p 7t r= \i • 70 Sale No• ___§._Property Address: Florence Hill Road - Town of Florence Grantor: Marylou & Stedman Twiss Grantee: Dave & -Jane Gualtieri Date of Sale: . September 21. 1992 •• . . • . Utilities: Electric and telephone • Tax Map No: 72-1-5.3 • Distance From Tower Site: 3.75 Miles View of Tower:.. No .. - Size: 1.5 Acres Sale Price: S5.800 • . Price Per Acre: $3,867 • - . . • . . •,,,z. .... ; -- -3ant .,..- __,,,.. --.:;-.. , ..:...,.._. , _,..,•,5 ...,,,..._•,\...,...„,...;,.....- . ..$_A- .,L,...),Ai_. ...,...-,... . ....... ....:-..,....02.et:I. :.• tp.s, ...k.40,-.47;...-:.ce:•:.;._:, ..:.• ..• :-.....,...ssr . ,..,_,_,.. ...... _ ;..,:e...„..... ... ._ • ,..... _ •.,....„, ...... • . __ ..•e -'-'..U,,.,,. , . -t't-?7,-;'-• ':1•‘ta 1:1;44' --et-,.----,--;.....t' ! 1341t... %.... .,...:711.1*.g' •:*:'4.•:- 7--' ...'"• r-eie --.4."% • .7.:::,*le:..,:-.7,,,,••:, . --..C1.1/4C-"e'r,---5.- --:*-**--. ' '' • - •:.: • :" Z. - ,:.,-. ,r.3.A •`!...... '."•-•.... '‘,•.'. ,. .......7, ,._!.., - • ..r. '''. I". -•:/‘--..1:'' .:, ' ti.:::,,,... ..% • l'...^- :r • -,- --.si --' 144.,..e.i..` ')... .*- :•:g**'"X*• .:z.- '. ..,...',..A .-• ••". • -'.'ir'• .,-/;;ISi:•-6111i.e,,*•- .iitAli•A -•". %.1. ,....-7,:p .1 • •-1",:-•..t, ....' .* .'.. ry.t• !°''''..:/4`4‘tAr-v z•-••:.'y•Irenes,4"-%1S,* . *.- *,...*-,:•:-:1'.-‘.''' ••,-t••.`"' • . ..• .. . --,..1...k.T.1,: c,-,,,4,... t•ti,_.::: ..,,- ,..... . .......y,. y.„ „„,,s, :.,- ,,,-.....,„%••_,..,..`. ••„.•."..1 ... 1.'`s. .-2,..'•.Xte•• -' ...495‘.* - -1 7'4.4_14,1'_.'4".S-""451 i",..••-4 • 'N• Z:4 i'•,:.`.0. • ..:;-..i.. .-%_...• ; .,• ..........,..-.4-1:-ko......,•i-c--„„. _IV.,, -- 1,1,::.... I ,'''t .•e_,%,ir,J1.1..fi.•-Ti-•• - •..,%. ....."--.5,.„;:,‘ '..........1.4. ...,4;_4,1! •- 4,161-,.......... ji.7..", . A L.S-1.....,..0\....%,..Pt. ."1....4-..? :;.:...„:"'. 6444 t. .•<..;4'• '. -f-A.F.-bk .. ....'..--5:.-1 • , -L-.41:$7..-+-r4R3 •-:' .4+44. •'1::,•• "':I-ff•-." •.' C .tsz......, •:.•:i-•-":'''•'-'...'s.:••:),,.--.›-ILWX.f.J.r_.. ::-.0.‘p.."• .•-•-:.A.a ..•-. ''''':•.. '".-- ..' -:-... .„,r1C,P.:;;I:••...-...2..,-. -• . - 4:1*4." ..- ••••"4-4.** ....'4'-{e#• ''.r.-A-..- 4--, • ..aiT• % . t••;.,;•• ,4 .. . •-74c9.r\-, , ' - • . •. • ..4y,..... ..-ye'.,' `r„... *a; --;,-,r ..‘ 4 .ft„.../.., ... , ••• • ,s • •,.. - -••, .•-.. • - ••''''....-' 4-:-..- - • 1,k; • .'• • ....z..-• •----7-,‘r-P-----• r • ••-:-.2e74.•. —. •k.7,.•.1.:.,-•--4.,.•.-4_1.'.,'•',•-m.,4...,-1.,--.'i.,•,.",,.-4",iI'..''.i,"-.'''.•.....-.';-1411...t s7-rt,'•--•'7-;--c.--'.:h"p.-:.P-'\-'A-'••'''.......,.•--4,_'>-.-.•;_.c-.-._.c•,•A-•'.•.„,'s••.-.•-.L'•.;.•:":•-',._7_;•i'-• -:.-•`! *-..•.4-'•.-:-•••..-.,•.•:,.7.)7-;••.}rr,',,,,•.,,.5_A,.-.:-e k•,,..,-.,'.*7•..7--4^.-.,.1:3--.,t-..,-.7 T..t•r..•c.•.-7,-.'.,_•'•..,%.,-6 4-i-•. c1r1-•.r4.!.A, ,.4-.•.•.*...• '.„..•4.'4."-.,;.•1.4-.,..,-4.,-)q.%-....3,- ,••4..-;'".-7•4,:,7•.11',..1..--„•-6 4.,......•-N 7•f-.,'7s-.',••h-‘ - ,i..'8'-•.i_syZ..--''.•--',,-5"---A-,•,-.,...,-.:,--.4:-3.-r:l•.ti.-r..;....i..f'kk:i•i..,,-•`-:..-:'-'•N•7•-.'„,•4:.„;-: Z1•,•:;'••••4-.--1,.v•A•,..,•-. —p -; „ . 4 - e - z• t . 1 : • „ 4, J. 4 . , ,.. - -" _ '= 4 t - 4 1 k--•.7•- •••,..'. ••• I •• .• • - • • .. . , -* •%...4-1,$"*„;„. e • ..r• ‘411":>.1 • .• .6. , . ..• ' .. • ... ..''..‘. • . • : .: • ...; , , _ , .••. _........ - • r4r .....--• ...- ----• •-4----are_-,-. ..- --••..-.- • _ . _• .- . ..-- - • " - 111110•Tr-111`..4-*- • . -- • • i • .• • . • • • " • • 30 Bale No. 6 Property Address: Lot 4 - Hanifin Road - Town of Florence Grantor: Land Unlimited Grantee: . Mark & Della Crandall Date of Sale: Auaust 20. 1991 Utilities: Electric and telephone • Tax Map No: 92-1-47.4 Distance Prom Tower Site: 2 Miles View .of Tower: No Size: 5.03 Acres . Sale Price: , 822.900 Price Per Acre: - 54.553 - •• 14 •, •.. : Apr •• • .r, •. —ram ti ....: : r.X` c.�' j _ i "W• �- • "••• - ,4 " J.•,• ... IF}p• c- i_. _t_ . .•.'ter 1 • ij . . , 4 •, •i _ Lt`". • - • .• . a •4 .--.-A- � !• .�W • . 4+ ti• • -=++:,yam�y~ s� 31 PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Tower Sale Sale Size Price No. View Date Price (Acres) Per .Acre 2 Yes 2/20/92 $15,000 3.85 $3,896 3 No 9/15/93 6,000 2.13 2,817 4 No - 6/8/92 19,900 5.078 3,919 5 No 9/21/92 - • 5,800 1.5 3,867 6 No 8/20/91 -22,900 5.03 4,553 Remarks: Each of the foregoing sales is of a .parcel of land purchased for development with a single- family residential dwelling. All are considered comparable in terms of.physical. characteristics, • location, and road access. Despite being located adjacent to a tower site, Sale No. 2 commanded • the same -per- acre.value as Sale Nos. 3 through 6 which are not influenced by the tower site. f. Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property. • values due to the visual encumbrance of the tower site. • • • • 32 The foregoing analysis not only indicates that there is no impact upon values due to the existence of a tower site, but again indicates that the tower site does not affect the devel- opment of surrounding properties. The purchaser of Sale 2 had an• ample supply of equally desirable and priced properties from which to choose that were not affected by views of a tower site. • • • • NNW 1110, VW • • *iF:i r • •a rMorr s7 6i:s .s s 6—. isaw b JNig r I• .o , ,.,o -,r �1.9: s '•.,� ii n :s i -� . :: .154 5 I 44,1501,4 ilitil 1 t 90111 .7 "7 d s . . , ivi �,s r• i = _ SOAP J 1.1 ,r Fr t'q= . ogi• . \ <7w 1 kkl . 4 � �— f- uaru �s'y 1 t.r i. -� F.': r ki as aA O , i L:'tt �, '- r,i . `L in\ 'T-- A ft !q- teal I' 4. .sue -c `c1 — j r r;:i '4: .s-...,..4- ''',4s-• •.L‘f, .., . ------ .° 11 lal lee ‘18-1..6" .._ 1 b.....tal-.31.!•,•;_:1.,_ .1.-- .11 lb: 4 . :• . i•-•,,i,j .t..,,:4,1- .::, tz.:1,...0:1 .. • �/ i ` . i 4,-* r -•::i it � i� ^&,fit:VA • •y,P�. �,�^, q O a< k ,'..�i. ., ..II !` l� rll• •ffrr �c;,, .r., 1�M1 dillytfi 0 "Flegliti I ... \ • I. 0. wig.li ':.::..1.i• 1 , ,. �� c+ reJ 5 s ..... __.__ - i ___:.__ .. ---.itt.,,, . .rci:3•10-:;,. `-- ---- -----�•- --- -r : 4. ss' \ !fit` ic•p d .5 �► r - i i Ewe. "'°w° ! a •f 1' 4,18 ____vil.,, __,347,. ., ,F, . „dn. )1 14 J 4..,,t,g \.<1'=. - , is __, -- ,..V • , riiilitil.. II -ri..--:-. *:d.. ii I 1 , :yAil.:1;:-4:Fs `�' '0�3 psr .n•■ae• , is41a1::: 1. rr.. .� WWI K �... tt .tea •1- %soars s • , o! � i s.. a l° II-. 1 �1� •s4-.�.rlis:i i_n I: g KlfNil.rRr�I I .IY i � hi i' i s.s vow i La... °,+si role Is s s a a i ( fit -go* ,,v 1 5. 1 1 ` WEZG TOWER SITE - TOWN OF CLAY This site is located in the Town of Clay off Davis and Caughdenoy Roads. The site is in view of numerous residential subdivisions. The original antenna and station was located in this area in the early 1960s. Subsequently, the Northtown and Cherry Estates subdivisions were developed immediately to the north of the tower site. Within the past several years, an additional two antennas have been added to the site to increase the broadcast capacity of WEZG Radio. Historically, the exis- tence of the tower site has had no impact on the development • of the area and/or property values and property appreciation. As will be shown by comparison, the visual impact of the tower site has no effect on surrounding property values. • • -a'• _ _ • • VIEW OF TOWER SITE AND ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENT - SALES MAP ••-Maw...,.... "No... 1 el• i I i Office. 31 1 1 0 . - • . N.,.. r. . \" 1 1 . B ...., , . , 1 ,•,,L_ 1 . E. • - :Ifil.,0 Till f• st 4 • i I/114/01Z.• % • I Lifil.??,6_ a: Pipit, i ' SAN PATH-14.4f,#"10..\ 11, GI OETION WM ,14 C 1,1„`%4". 41/00 V tilSON.C. • :7 Al IONMAIN I c* !1 - ,T-441•11114A c‘.• 1.I 1,.:4' 11 . ei 1 -A)ch, 440 il .‘r.. •i•.-ct,f1CNIdEBAKET PE,. ,k. ,. iiiik till - • ...- \dr 4r cp CA I a . \ zcui :,1' ..1. 4p. e, * • im • , I l l 1 ip, ..sel .., -4,.. ,./ut. ; • esi'z'4' -1 CiR,E,. N 4 (lay 1 1 III M ‘PAIkoStYlARK...AM) ii,_ e = / 1441/014V4'd I STE . . r W.11.\ .CIR74)1,„„,„, 01.111,_YL .03• Por-ICAPeihn•-••/ki zle,.1.c-C!,j1,,,,--7,f1 1 .1, . II . . ss•ss • t......1. 4 ,.. gif. /o 1 ce ' - 6, I . ...:*...„. si \BRE;.C1/•°•414 41- ir;47 06 6 A: V%"‘" 8:(73 MICAS g*CHAILA I ^•.''"P . & • -... :.. . s'''''iiik• I OU44 0%. tk *.I oar. t --. 1..d.1 ' -. I .ww0 1 1 . z . • 'c(s. •.f.1 Luse ......,tm, . • • : • a, . v-•.. i fE ,:s 'F,‘,0 1 I' . / TUPSIILLEI 4.,41? tA0/1 •.. .0:, i <,, leitir. i '::•;•.... -::;'. .•:'. .:. -.....:-.,..• • ' . .. •. .' . '' ' ••...... :.-...; ';',.... ,.... ,%..._ U.. ...-;... :„..:`..-,.....;.% . .:-''..,,,^•.-,*:' - .• • , '--• .'. ' -. -:—.."-...... . ''.' •.'-',.• \, : , „go, .„Ipt.. .. t' • -....- ' :•:.',..:';,!?,::::-':.-:::::.:`,'?::.' ..-,'".....••• '. '•; . . . '. . • •'''';:.. . •°'-‘Y • ' '•;','", :.f:-...-:'-.-...:2:i'....‘'.'.4:..:-:**.'‘.-''' ::.7•.•'.::,--...-. '':-L.-' ' -•' , ',.. -:' .•'.. :'' :-''•. - N. 0 ' — ‘,n-:'-'-...'.*:'- t•.:7., %.•.,''... .. ".. :-....'. ' : ' ' 7; 7..; -,. .,'.....: . ... ... 1 JOYCE Pt II FOXT IMALI . '... 2 IIRREI HILL cIR ••''• ••- 3 MAORI LA 13 RAO:. 1 481 4 JANNE OR . I c:. 5 TRA%V.FR COURSE -. I 1r. 6 ALEXIS OR I • rA; . • se\ I BO. 1- • - 7 WOODED BOG . I GREAT MUSKRAT RD. s• •••••••, 0• i aca,S,4 a le .A RI PP! a CIL —Et.. . JCL ' I' • .... 0 TOWER SITE. - 0 SALES WITH VIEW • 0 SALES WITHOUT VIEW • Sale No. IA Property Address: 5577 Imperial Lane - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 2/17/94 fPendinal Improvement Style: Split Level Improvement Size: 1.152 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .19 Acre Features: 3 Bedrooms, a. Bath. Fireplace, Fenced Yard Distance From Tower Site: Less Than One-Tenth Mile View of Tower: Yes - Back of House Sales Price: $73 ,500 • • •• • S; - • f5Q1 I F•�Y. _ : M.1m NIM • 35 Sale No. 18 • Property Address: 5409 Fortuna Parkway - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 8/31/93 Improvement Style: Split Level Improvement Size: 1.152 Sa. Ft. Site Size: .18 Acre Features: 3 Bedrooms. 1 Bath. Fenced Yard. Above-Ground Pool, Many Updates Distance From Tower Site: 1 Mile View of Tower: None Sales Price: S74,000 • . - • 4 ,• • • • HIE IP-11 .1 36 PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 1A 2/17/94 $73,500 Yes Average 1B 8/31/93 $74,000 No Above Average Remarks: In making the comparison, Sale 1A's two-car garage is considered to be offset by Sale 1B's many updates and pool. These sales are comparable in terms of value without adjustment. • • • • • • • • 37 Bale No. 2A , Property Address: 7925 Amor Drive - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 12/1/93 • Improvement Style: Split jevel • Improvement Size: 874 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .19 Acre • Features: 3 Bedrooms, 1.5 Baths. Wood Stoved. Many Updates Distance From Tower Site: .3 Mile • View. of Tower: Yes - Front of House Sales .Price:... 872.900 • • rt • • • I "ow- -1 Oil •ti t • r rl ,w• • ' .. • }• poi` . '"�•� - -�'.t,�ors- "IMg•e�. =r •- • • - •. • • • • 3f Sale No. , 2B , . ' Property Address: 8200 Sarona Lane - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 5/18/93 ' Improvement Style: Snlit Level Improvement Size: 1,040 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .16 Acre . Features: 3 Bedrooms. 1.5 Baths. Wood Stove. Many Updates • Distance From Tower Site:. 1.25 Miles • View of Tower: None • Sales Prices_ $72,450 � ! I � • \ ... • • ,, . • . . td .4:4 4';',%. - ----.._.__- --" ,„"' ._ .41-e"-lltk .• 1 t -..-• - .„. . . T AUL "rc z . . 0... _ __v... . . • • ,s._-_, ... . •. . .... • •. •_ . ,..,....,_,.....„::. i-.R't';yrr.: C-1!../•r'.• --"`*►t..M*-:- .." ` • • • - T ..y 'Lr.•.•^Rryti .. . - D .7Q Sale No. 2C , Property Address: 8218 Sarona Lane - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 7/6/93 - Improvement Style: Split Level Improvement Size: 1.030 Sq. Ft. • Site Size: .18 Acre Features: '3 Bedrooms. 1 Bath. Wood Stove, Fenced Yard Distance Prom Tower Site: 1.25 Miles View of Tower: None • Sales Price: 672.500 • - . / - r iI• . k . f :.,..>'•,-,,..... ...i, , ..... . • ,, ; j. •f, „-- -• -=•. �, ::4 ue. --- -_ i,9r • _ : - .. - - )k__ =_' _- -- ,r..� ,. • •1..ram •� .� rFi /'-••.' ••r . • . • • • ,•�. •. • • • • • • • 4! PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 2A 12/1/93 $72,900 Yes Above Average 2B 5/18/93 $70,450 No Above Average 2C 7/6/93 $70,500 No Average • Remarks: In comparing these three sales, each is considered of comparable value with the exception of Sale 2A's smaller size. Sales 2B and 2C are each adjusted downward, $2,000 for size before comparison for any tower impact. Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on • property values due to 'the visual encumbrance.of the tower site. • • • • • 41 Bale No. 3A Property Address: 7909 Davis Road - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 3/28/94 {Pending) Improvement Style: Colonial Improvement Bise: 2i004 Sq. Ft. Site Bise: .34 Acre Features: 4 Bedrooms. 2.5 Baths F replace. Fenced Yard, Many Updates and Features Distance From Tower Site: Less Than One-Tenth Mile View of Tower: Yes - Front of House • Sales Price: $99.900 ;:~. • •: ..'mil• • , 1.`. •.. �� ,ti. `,( ,i.. • .r ••� • ga♦ Gjp, it • • ll ••. - -- ;l 1 f, :c',;r . =,.,r 11l' `. 99 iq—. �w.+. i f r ,fit 7. iii\1(/ Ma II iii ,. � .„:i.,,,f, , ,. -",-, z•.• .. . 1 . f;'/.1:11..;, ....;.a.t. ._r_ r. it: Sale No. 38 , Property Address: 5548 Chateau Lane - Town of Clay Subdivision: Cherry Estates Sales Date: 3/30/93 Improvement Style: Colonial Improvement Size: 1.964 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .25 Acre Features: .. 4 Bedrooms. 2.5 Baths, Fenced Yard, Above- Ground Pool, Basement Rec. Room, Many Updates Distance From Tower Site: .75 Mile View of Tower: None • Sales Price: S98.500 • t =` • fiX • . i'• r:4 . .. f._ ''Y , - : = - 1 • + 7 • • 43 • • PROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 3A 3/28/94 $99,900 * Yes Above Average 38 3/30/93 $98,500 No Above Average Remarks: In making comparison, each sale is considered of comparable value without adjustment. Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property values due to the visual encumbrance of the tower site. • • • • • AA It is evident from the foregoing matched pair analyses that the WEZG tower site has not had a negative impact upon the market values of the surrounding properties which view the site. The existence of the tower site has also had no effect upon the development of the area. In further support of the foregoing, sales of dwellings of similar age, size, and utility, but not located in areas having the influences of a tower site, were analyzed. Over the same period of time, these sales indicate a range in selling prices similar to those located in the imme- diate vicinity of the WEZG tower site. • • • SITE LOCATION v\I , 4. -vs.owl..;,...er t..4 TOWN i • . ,,,. ;.� > � `' t a, M .i i ni.6Q 0,C t 4 A `/ ttea ps" -..V .,. _ . _ . _ .... :. A 4. \ tv,a 43 6 .. .01; . • \Ns f :4 1�: ammo IM..".%M. - o pow.eft 4 sh t t>e..~I f‘m7 i nilljam. K I �L - I ��` mop III_ : . 7 CCU\ ® kt.........' _. .. *Rum• 1�.. 1 . � - B w• Y Y , ile it* -4AIIMI-1111:40 .--sw•- 13027 45 s trrllltrt C2 • �. , , - , ,, op ~t NZ ''' .'''' ' 6 • uL • .- % ttottwtill • • ---. . : .m IN aim ), ; - Palmer-,. N - P— }s ,� ¢ S , 1 - S1 nu owrnxut — I r > !X optuuiso . Ili-- • '( ?! Ir.. r j . .G` •;1,. B IP. . A \ B °°` ,fir,, : 11,..N �, woo&Am t I t . nj 06.9. z :CZ%..... s I ::.• .� irk ! • t.MAw.-• - �► 4 `6". I I • -- . , ti� • tr Nam lta' ._ - LL 10t) ,ttli . . f*Iit °TOWN11� OF VAN BURN C t C \ 7&tus . t: s 1 ;jL . 116, 13209 [ .so* P4 , .tttw� II911 Vaa Bate KULTI-TOWER BITE - TOWN OF LYSANDER This site is located in the Town of Lysander to the south of New York State Route 31. The site contains two water tanks, a 70-foot Onondaga County Sheriff radio communications tower, an abandoned 100-foot Cellular One communications tower now utilized by the Baldwinsville School District radio station, and a newly constructed (summer 1993) 120-foot Cellular One communications tower. The tower site is located in a heavily developed area of the Village of Baldwinsville and is in view of the newly developing Baldwin Hill subdivision to the south- east. Village property values in the vicinity of the tower site have continued to increase over the years... As will be shown, the tower site has also had no effect upon property values in • the neighboring Baldwin Hill subdivision. • • • • .•.... . . .� ;, • yam ..+i.{•. ` ,l • 1 ._r 1 VIEW OF TOWER SITE FROM. BALDWIN HILL SUBDIVISION • 4( SALES MAP • .i.w..w. ) - , ,,,-..,. -:..), st%.,'• :,... .....,. .*: *.. . . .‘ - -: :. si‘-':—.1::=: ....... - GI : t •rt 't •-• • :'•'• -. •--•.,.: :-•••''- • . ... • . . ••`.. — ••••‘.'s‘ • ,. •,.•.. '. ,-.. :• • . •• ., -•' . ., .. • • : . '•.,•:' ..,..• '•.• .„.•. ; .„•.• :.;:.• ''" •. . •••••- - .‘-' :•.::..: ••..K ..1 ‘••• .... .. . ,N2,....-, ..• • ••••• • ••• 4In. . .......• r """4, .47-", = . • 4 f=1 ki • r'S ' ...'..." • 11 ,.... • . ; GC 1 . fi 31 ..• I ,...te ravNtif.tiss4.2°' .0 PIO\SI- - cT 1 r-, r-• . . . . on 4 • .. Icr, J Baldwinsville I . , c1/4,s65 a c 1 3027 ‘% m • i'.4., • moat . e.fx- - • . t ce & a., Aiz‘vt!... . .....,.. ,.." q... . ct Di . . ...1.1i '70. C.) < ..... ..a. = . • . \ •s , . . ‘ •. , •••% .2, ... 2, • '- / WIDE MARK DR• RD % PAy '=:3 ap v ,< ,,,,,,,,,m",mcmtw,•• CY Iv_ tires) 21 /..,•'ii. f "A. 1 >>, / • 0.49t. iSi mil = r:NT.V=1 TC?4:11 1 S H A I.A K 0 1--.. c.,‘„,-; .c, :.,,..,......,...., • N v = co,,,N.A •-- i C:2 = co\I 1 I MATANAr 4 • . n ids .0.° • •- N.Nitt • I I I= RD. W amp*. • F1 ms. CORTINA =3 C SEN...E.P.T2A ____ RD.. ,n...._ , • 1 SENECA • : A '0> • --4 cc ,; g \.• ' • \ = V 3z• ,t.:, c..• ....:ciza....... N4.'"de . . _ — -— — — • 0 TOWER SITE c 0 SALES WITH VIEW 0 SALES WITHOUT. VIEW • Sale No. lA Property Address: 13 Lee Ridae - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Sales Date: 5/31/91 Improvement Style: Colonial - Joseph III Model Improvement Size: 2.120 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .. .40 Acre Features: .. 4 Bedrooms. 2.5 Baths. Fireplace. Moderate Upgrades' . Distance From Tower Site: .3 Mile View of Tower: None - • Sales Price: S134.900 . • --. 4. II elliik . ,,,, ; • . ::,.._ _ au 111-41. :111.,"11011! ,; ._.1.7.1 . •t .,........... ......, _. ,. - -yto, ......__ _. 4 . „„„vegiwi,........ •. ... --...- --,,-,.........;....-- „.- .„- --_...: ti -;1� ----ze`.-- —..4r1y `.• �Y1a ? "_O f 'XL L .N, _ _ _...fir.. �+-'ST.i. �. .f �1.N1"g*.lit,' y 'tiy-.. .. • 'i.r`' .[•`V•+._rauT-+''?n .�ra�',5- ,. --i-.i -'t.t.�.- R,;:.._�•.•r_ .T�' :-- 1 f •Lad :•-L.,--- -..,,� ..•.. ., ` • -.ram-,ry -,-:.9 r• y r7-.—- ,,-' r 1-sv,.r+.'� �..R •.. a.. ._....:J"h_ ..- J ... ..f�- '^7�t �� . .. —�.w. . y — •M.;-f=at•. _..w �Rw��r .rTY�..ww t�..rr� 4. Sale No. LB , • Property Address: 5 Merlewood - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Sales Date: 1/7/92 Improvement Style: Colonial - Joseph III Model Improvement Size: 2.120 Sd. Ft, Site Size: .40 Acre Features: • 4 Bedrooms, 2,5 Baths, Few Upgrades Distance Prom Tower Site: .25 Mile View of Tower: Yes - PontF of House Sales Price: S135.300 • • „.L..L„\\ • • • f� rig : � r'r ; w.:v1.4 - . ti,:f••'-• _ L.wi"r�����.�.T•'gC'�►•�T.tw'�T. i_ _ ' Sale No. , 1C , Property Address: 2 Lee Ridae - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Sales Date: 11/4/92 improvement Style: Colonial - Joseph III Model Improvement Size: 2.120 Sa. Ft. Site Size: .44 Acre Features: 4 Bedrooms, 2,5 Baths, Fireplace, Moderate Upgrades Distance From Tower Site:_-. .3 Mile View of Tower: None Sales Price: $131.966 4.1 La I a i.jAi r 7.‘°.hil ,. -,.W-!;•• t i--•%.?A.,'‘ _I. ' -f-: 71H '- , RO _ Olf\:, 7. IF .1, . . . ......„--: . . ,,, . _,:_._......_.:..„.....„.„....:„...___......,...._ _,...._. .• ..z.e,;74.06r--:•...,..- --.._:- - 1/4 s`t - A1111111111RIII1111QIm• 1 .. —• r—. •----- : '..-'-.err c�.:rc•= q . --- . -. ,-..-_,....-:-_-%--...4—•*.-a•v.:"... .-""---4 7- e i •..: . 3•+'7Yya �'W -i r •.i •:3 - �' {�, tea- • —�i&--'yV "y • -� --t.: ,'r'd•�1-Y,�? 'ti�:K-S".:•�i%•Cj,.lr.�. ' '►r::'..., 4!+%71�. tF;•. .. Sale No. iD Property Address: 7 Merlewood - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Bales Date: 11/7/93 Improvement .Style: Colonial - Joseph III Model Improvement Size: 2.120 Sa, Ft, ' Site Size: .37 Acre Features: • 4 Bedrooms, 2.5 Baths, Fireplace, Walkout Basement, High-Level Upgrades Distance From Tower Site: • .25 Mile View._of Tower: Yes - Partial View from Front Sales. Priae: 9147.500 • • • • • 1i1hhhIhIhIH : .II!, • • • • - 'n s•, .+'t-..� a 4.�... •^••• ".: • �.. r... fix • ._-•yi- ' ' • PROPERTY COMPARISON • Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features . LA 5/31/91 $134,900 No Average 1B 1/7/92 $137,800 Yes Below Average 1C 11/4/92 $131,966 No Average 1D 11/7/93 $142,500 Yes Above Average Remarks: In making comparisons, Sales 1A and 1C required no adjustments. Sale 1B, however, is adjusted upward $2,500 for its lack of a fireplace, and. Sale 1D is adjusted downward $3,500 for its walkout basement and $1,500 for its stained woodwork and six-panel doors. Each house is considered to be of comparable value after adjust- ment. • Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property values due to the visual encumbrance of the tower site • • • • • Sale No. 2A Property Address: 4 Ronway - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Bales Date: 12/20/92 Improvement Style: Colonial - Timothy Model Improvement Size: 1;858 Sq. Ft. Site Size: .31 .Acre • Features: 4 Bedrooms, 2 Baths. Moderate Uoarades Distance From Tower Bite: .25 Mile View of Tower: • Yes - Front of House • Bales Price: $120.000 • • • f•fr�J ' _ ,,.:,:-•�1�}.T• ;t y�_'a. .. -_• `��.; w,- A'=•.'!w+ML+J.{y - - i Jam• ,. �.......:��•'•. • . ... 4- • • • 1 Sale No. 2B , Property Address: 7 Lee Ridge - Town of Lysander Subdivision: Baldwin Hill Sales Date: 1/28/91 Improvement. Style: Colonial - Timothy Model Improvement Size: 1.858 Sq. Ft. Site Sise: . . .30 Acre Features: 4 Bedrooms, 2 Baths. Fireplace. 'Moderate Upgrades Distance From Tower Site: .3 Mile View of Tower: .None • Bales .Price: $123..000• . • 4e1/4 • 0. v •'I r 4 _,, r }.,-3 PROPERTY COMPARISON • Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 2A 12/20/92 $122,500 Yes Average 2B 1/28/91 $123,000 No Average Remarks: In making comparison-, Sale 5A is adjusted upward $2,500 for its lack of a fireplace. The sales are 'con- - sidered of comparable value after adjustment. • • • • • • • • This series of matched pair analyses again indicates no differential between the selling prices of homes having views of the tower site and those which do not. Since its inception, the Baldwin Hill subdivision has shown a steady absorption rate of vacant lots, and it has demonstrated the ability to compete for home buyers with other newly developing subdivisions in the area. For example, the Holly Hill subdivision which is located approximately one mile southeast of Baldwin Hill is also being developed with homes of similar value. This subdivision is considered to have similar characteristics to Baldwin Hill and is also located in the same school district. The Holly Hill subdivision, however, has no views of the.tower site. Between 1989 and the present time, comparable sized homes to those in the. Baldwin Hill subdivision have had selling prices which have ranged between $120,000 and $140,000. This indicates that the view of the tower site has little impact on potential buyers or the prices which they are willing to pay. Finally, Kevin Hanlon of Eagan Real Estate, who handles all sale:: for J. Alberici & Sons Builders, was interviewed. He .indicated that the Joseph III model home (Sales 1A, 1B, .1C, and 1D) is also being built and offered for sale for the same base price in the Willow Stream subdivision in the -Town of Clay. The Willow Stream subdivision is considered to be of comparable character and location to Baldwin Hill and with similar lot values, but is not located in an area of a tower site. .SITE LOCATION _ A'�:I..i'm .i• • ii.Ji.!.di r'--. -111 r, t` ow _.-...- .— MMM R R _ 6' ,l�r•� i I I . �'lA • r 11 ' ' e w a aNuc.. punt Me • ma 1 • est• �l1,� ,. •It �I M EMI aC1rtA .,5 aTi 11 . .":'b► 0; 1 11 Aelrl.It Si I 1 • corer a ♦ I I 1 e �I .• alr' a 's;*. 1 41 R s `exn I ..•,/ 1 tl•1I1;Itt 11• EMIT 1 �11 U \ 1 xw[ltsta Q li t�,� `�� '*� d• j •nrem1o.11w C1. 1 r. •. 11 ..IRCOMtOIR! 2 / I•eM1 fawn IIIK L r.I.yuoeslMett :!! elf MOW M f V t/ll•!uK 1i ., ; .IIIWI� `•' #EL' '1YIX1 1'eC , �lur/+t M!<r •�MArw�lfi a +\ j 1 1 ' �MMR� erlMlrll ! . 4'4411C 1.- :"M • 'A - , ; - 4,.z...i_el 'It rrle If 4 %Mr _ Mrr� ilig A1t11IN4� lo 1+• e' f• •. � hl•CIYIM �d Y! A• •� • so • l — _-—-�u..„.,r'� .....� •.�1 `-/:-r 11 i. sMT ...B. i. .lel A, MITT ft VOL —•I. r-,w,^'.. i.)47.1,d �fill) oltAles .0 ti1. . 1 pl!avq M ' •.alela Aw+ 4 .. / •• . , i •'. 1 1 e. Epii ..,•••^c • i fit} • • • la is , moor t tll/t�� '1 F••,,... . ii �_u Irm.. i`. hreitosisru---44 to RA` �^ Il/I.g11y 4 • 'eel 4113214. 13214 ,• 1" , , u €1 • E " _-- p . 1 rsl• a 1`« f+ [ 4 h. —tr. 1 t • . IIII . 411p+11 � �4 D 1 ! I C^`• �b'M6MRAdi ; 1� C �. gN•II+ 1 f• at tuadiel IS • iESI 1101n _ ., ..•I�t • 1 O 1 illy.I I i • . dip ,, .,, .4 64.04 sepisal . . tit . • 0 • : 4' 'Piga . $ . s. t A • ,..erne ••• • • , -...• • ?% i . . ede•VI y+ L.. •�. 1 •� WNTO t WNDR TOWER SITE - TOWN OP DEWITT This tower site installation is located at the end of Andrews Road in the Town of Dewitt. The site which contains four radio towers was constructed in the late 1940s. Subse- quently, the Sherwood Park and Andrews Heights subdivisions were developed immediately to the west of the tower site. Historically, the existence of the tower site has had no impact on the development of the area and/or property values and property appreciation. As will be shown by 'comparison, the visual impact of the tower site has no effect on surrounding property values. - • • • • • SALES MAP `�. remit�. •G ..: R ifsupi rw R i_Z„ .. .s - ,. • wont ma Et R —• '+ ■ to 1 r '> 1 °a.Mwrl. lift-. • ,,, • ii �OINA[ •Y■ .`-< '� '. •Wq Lr f�,fw, ewe pw MI 1 ^� f . wove.41.4.41 , i:tl `..., ! jh - /•du' r c.v., a '" M: . p ~ t'� / ` 1E E \1, • �� EidT - ' saa Milli ieili E 1/ ti • :��-� 11 , EPlfitw L Y 1 ,s,,wurriclara Y E !t A h r�- µ At re KAtA E)`pt C 1 `,�•,.'EyA.te� ...�' € 1 fl 4' 1 r S ,I' w , [ ►�'ItEt:MNCERl. 'J, ` . i teino n.. ..'OtyytRl i t«tw.,______Kn...., • Y='ad ' M• Q .``lam 3 NIRIK':ii Malta l 1 fYMA[l7 _t..'�! �`e '9rsS.13214 `� i • & eM"ra ar. r•tf 1 i wm •wrwr tl byeis "'C • + a 1' •rT _: 1 �� ,,,,.+�A. 14:i-•- . 's:ji i.'• ./11.11 — . ' s'iffr4... tip, 6, Se Kt AP ' r` %'_1 ate i—:'—p :vamizixtest AI...u..9t - .sk -... - r. Er '. [-. I ' .ich,g.Y/8a� / OF 6 iG MrtlttvulE .: " i gilt • MALI 84 ira...w.AVM stye is� itIr zi. •l •. i s .pN M q...is' ..,;'-' bfllRl �p`_.',' tr i r ,1.1.1.4 7 a�lon 1n S r.. 1�t n A kii•"MiiQ Ml+ a ■As 1lUu. . •n K f ttMflilli '".a i M AtwFy A f 1 ruu t t��� ,.MOw g1t111W71 i -t►a..•�• .`�� WStltw00iA .." •• a �•`gt i1i .445e.IA soil, di FF I� k'r Imam i 11 1 k"AIezek N .•„ 0 :•.' 13214 „ n'L i �t _ i ea s �i 14' s { i 4 %As 1 a M v ea- `s, • went figs; »Num . Ask D C , - reel6. rites1.,, • i..-Tai R , •ti.. rrlArwE�.L. F Boles+ 47b .A i wa4,, • • flifiai lit noes EE��i ' MK C t1 Iht • is trk . rr '''.......7. -. -4,,,,• f i-:.,7 7:!!:-..7;:.-.±:•.-'2'C.:..'.'...'77-..,....-:;7'•:"......i.. ..•.•, ..:';`•::' 7%•-•....s:s';.7•-•;.:',..;:.•:..; ;777%.7.......;•"':::.!:.:;,?,9,0 WA9 p �`.'•` ,.1 ,• l A `7..� . ~ . �.� � rj� •it . • t. �l r�c , ;w i••r� .i ~ VIM A4 ,(� i s•t•'♦c .• '. .n • • - • '• r OTOWER SITE • .Q SALES WITH VIEW • 0 SALES-WITHOUT VIEW Salo No. lA Property Address: 105 Addison Drive - Town of Dewitt Subdivision: Sherwood Park Sales Date: 7/13193 Improvement Style.: Ranch Improvement Size: 1.487 Sa. Ft. • Site Size: .33 Acre - Features: 3 Bedrooms, 2.5 Baths. Fireplace, Inground Pool, Fenced Yard • • Distance From Tower Site: . Less than One-Tenth Nile View of Yes - Front/Side of House Sales Price: S124.500. {.• '• . . S./•, ,, ' ,I . itik • ' n' � e' 11 Pi. ahl^� *. .T/u"' 7 l ' I.4;i • Al __-„� (1 r.:fi .\ 1,i'v, • q, • • '''.". . . , I .1 L_' - . - . .44111 .1 -__. .......,.. • 5 Sale No. lB Property Address: 106 Edwards Drive - Town of Dewitt Subdivision: Lyndonlea Sales Date: 11/25/93 Improvement Style: Ranch . • Improvement Size: 1.720 Sq. Ft. Site Size: • .31 Acre Features: 4 Bedrooms. 2 Baths. Fireplace. Fenced Yard, Many Updates • Distance Prom Tower Site: _ One Mile View of Tower: None Sales Price: S118.000 ,, •• .•i.ib,•..=:.s►� • • -. -•.• - • „.-J j t' ri:= •••,M -'•. lam` A' • ` �. •.� . •. ' • • • 1�, . •j •am•" • •J • /p• ^ »• ..Jfir •• -: r••;•• c.... ._,.......- .. .`r,. .7' fir ... .. .. rr• •Pr • ..• •.0 ' • - - ••.. •'1�'t •.S:-.• • � •:., -et.gym.'S.•'. '';: S 4 ,.^may • • • - '.. • •=�. .s , • � j ems.:•�•y• •~.?`.y-,�4 ., y;•,•�:1,.- -Tiii�Li'a� %��T SR pROPERTY COMPARISON Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 1A 7/13/93 •$124,500 Yes Above Average 1B . 11/25/93 $118,000 No Average Remarks: In making comparison, Sale ,lA's inground pool and additional one- half bath, is considered to offset Sale 1B's larger size and updates. Each is therefore considered .of comparable value. • Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on property values due to the visual • encumbrance of the tower site r • Sale No. 2A Property Address: 111 Poole Road - Town of Dewitt Subdivision: Sherwood Park Sales Date: 2/1/94 Improvement Style: Split-Level Improvement Size: 1.248 Sa. Ft. Site Size: .29 Acre • • Features: 3 Bedrooms. 1.5 Baths, Fireplace. Fenced Yard, Many Updates Distance From Tower Site: . Less than One-Tenth Mile View of Tower: Yes —Front/Side of House Sales Price: S91.000 • fr Nit • • 8411 1. - I�' • �� ;. i Sale No. , 2B Property Address: 104 Stonecrest Drive - Town of Dewitt subdivision: Andrew Heights Sales Date: 9/25/93 Improvement Style: Split-Level improvement Size: 1.250 Sa. Ft. Site Size: .38 Acre Features: 3 Bedrooms, 1.5 Baths. Moderate Updates Distance Prom Tower .Site: .25 Mile View of Tower: None • Sales Price: 886,500 • • • • • r-`�' . PROPERTY COMPARISON • Sale Sale Sale Tower No. Date Price View Features 2A 2/1/94 $91,000 Yes Above Average 28 9/25/93 $89,500 No Average Remarks: In making comparison, Sale .28 is adjusted upward $3,000 ;to- recognize • that it does not have a fireplace or a fenced yard. After adjustment, each sale is considered to be of comparable value. Conclusion: No evidence of a negative impact on • property values due to the visual • encumbrance of the tower site • • • • • • BQMMARY Each of the foregoing matched pair analyses adds further support to the conclusion that the visual impact of a communi- cations tower does not impair property values. Also, the existence of this tower site did not affect the development of the area over the past 50 years. Property values within the neighborhood are considered to be on a par with those in other similarly developed areas of the Town,-.indicating that the tower site has not affected property value appreciation. grim OVERVIEW Current Property Values Based on the foregoing analysis, it is- the appraiser's opinion that the visual encumbrance of a nearby communications tower has no measurable impact on the development of or values of surrounding properties. Although some potential buyers certainly may not wish to purchase a property which views a tower or is in the immediate vicinity of a tower, the data conclusively shows that there is an ample number of buyers who do not give any consideration to the existence of a nearby tower site when implementing a purchase. In each analysis, the buyers of property viewing a tower site had an adequate supply of alternative properties to choose from which were comparable in terms of price, location, physical character- istics, and desirability. FINAL OVERVIEW: (Cont'd.) In conclusion, all available data demonstrates that prop- erties with tower influences are currently selling for the same values as properties without tower influences. Therefore, properties surrounding a tower installation can be expected to maintain their values and be developed to their Highest and • Best Use. Future Pronertv Appreciation • In addition to the research performed to determine if the visual impact of a tower site affects the current values of surrounding properties, research was performed to determine if the foregoing has any impact upon the future appreciation of property values. Our research included tracing each of the original tower influenced sales which we utilized when analyzing the WEZG tower site in the Town of Clay and the WNDQ/WNDR tower site in the Town of Dewitt back to their original dates of purchase. Total appreciation between each property's original purchase price and its most recent sale price was calculated and then converted to an indication of an annual appreciation rate. The sales, whether or not having a direct view of a tower site but all located in the vicinity of a tower site, indicate an average annual appreciation rate of 10.02 percent. • We then located and researched past and present sales of similar-style and vintage homes within each respective township that were completely removed from tower influences both by distance and by view. Performing a similar analysis to-these sales indicated an average annual appreciation factor of 9.29 . percent. FINAL OVERVIEW: (Cont'd.) These figures conclude that properties in neighborhoods subject to tower influences have experienced annual appreciation rates consistent with those of properties located .in neighbor- hoods completely removed from tower sites and tower influences. • •• • AssUNPTIONs AND LIMITING CONDITIONS • 1. The legal description furnished us is assumed to be correct and we take no responsibility for matters legal in character nor do we render any, opinion as to title which is assumed to be good. 2. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disre- garded and the property is appraised as though free and clear and under responsible ownership and compe- tent management. 3. Sketches -in this report are included to .assist the . reader in visualizing the property and assume no responsibility in connect with such matters. 4. All information furnished by others is deemed to be reliable and we assume no responsibility for its accuracy. 5. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication nor may it be used for any purpose by any but the applicant without the previous written consent of the appraiser or the applicant and then only with proper qualification. 6. We are not required to give testimony or appear in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made therefor. 7. The distribution of total value in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separateFvaluations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with. any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 8. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material., which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the pro- perty. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in 'this field, if desired. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: (Cont'd.) 9. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We. have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in con- formity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that .a compliance survey of the property together with a .detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that • the property is not in compliance with one or more of requirements of the act. If so, this fact could .have a negative effect upon the value of the prop- erty. Since we have no direct evidence .relating • to this, we did not consider possible non-compliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of property. Further, since compliance matches each owner's financial ability with the cost to cure the property's potential physical characteristics, wecannot comment on compliance to ADA. Given that compliance can change with each owner's financial . ability to cure non-accessibility, the value of the subject does not consider possible .non-compliance. Specific study of both the owner's financial ,ability and the cost to cure any deficiencies would be. needed for the Department of Justice to determine.-compliance. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MICHAEL P. WICKER. MAI EDUCATION Syracuse University - 1986 Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy Studies, specializing in Urban Planning & Development and minored in .Business Management & Marketing PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS& ACTIVITIES Member Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation - No. 9695 Candidates Liaison - Upstate New York Chapter - 1991 Program Chairman - Upstate New York Chapter - 1992 Admissions Committee - Upstate New York Chapter - 1993-1996 - Board of Directors - Upstate New York Chapter - 1993-1996 Nominating Committee — Upstate New *York Chapter - 1996 Finance Committee - Upstate New York Chapter - 1996 Member Greater Syracuse Association of Realtors JIICENSES AND QUALIFICATIONS Licensed General Appraiser State of New York ID No.46000003753 Licensed General Appraiser State of Pennsylvania ID No.GA-000770-L Licensed Real Estate Broker State of New York Approved Appraiser New York State Department of Transportation Approved Appraiser New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Approved Appraiser/Consultant Resolution Trust Corporation GOVERNMENT Appointed to New York State Youth Council by Gov. Mario Cuomo-1986 ADVANCED EDUCATION • PRO-JECT + plus Real Estate Investment & Leasehold Analysis Marshall Valuation Services Computerized Cost Analysis • 68 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MICHAEL P. WICKER. MAI APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS Appraisals have been prepared for real estate tax proceedings, condemnation, mortgages, investment counseling and analysis, acquisitions and sales, estate valuation, foreclosures, insur- ance claims, income tax, rental assessments, and partial- interest valuations. Properties appraised include shopping centers,_ office buildings, industrial properties, apartment complexes, service stations, restaurants, farms, subdivisions, institutional buildings, forest lands, hotels, recreation properties, golf courses, condominiums, easements and rights-of-way, and others. CLIENTS INCLUDE All major banks and lending institutions in Central New York; New York State Department of Transportation; New York State Department of Corrections; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; New York State Urban Development Corporation; Resolution Trust Corporation; municipalities including the Cities of Syracuse and Auburn;. Onondaga and Broome Counties; United States Postal. Service; United States General Services Administration; insurance companies; oil companies; Syracuse University; and attorneys, developers and individuals. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWEF. .CILITY IMPACT INVESTIGATION PREPARED FOR:--- - ' 360° COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 8725 HIGGINS ROAD CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60631 DATE OF IMPACT INVESTIGATION NOVEMBER 21,1997 US 401 FUdtJAY VARINA (WAKE COUNTY) NORTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY: Joseph F.Smathers,Jr. J.F.Smathers,Jr. 6040A Six Forks Road Suite 110 Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 919-846-2313 I`,.i_ II J.F. SMATHERS & COMPANY 1 Real Estate 6040A Six Forks Road Valuation and Investment Suite 110 Raleigh,NC 27609 919-846-2313 Fax 919-848-4983 IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA (WAKE COUNTY ), NORTH CAROLINA Joseph F. Smathers, Jr. is the President of J.F. Smathers& Company, Real Estate Valuation Analysts and Development Consultants, with offices at 6040A Six Forks Road, Suite 110, Raleigh North Carolina 27609; he is a licensed real estate broker in North Carolina; he has been in the business of real estate valuation, brokerage and development consulting for 28 years; he.is a Senior.Member of the National Association of Review Appraisers and Mortgage Underwriters; and a Senior Valuer with the International Institute of Valuers, and he has performed many valuation impact studies of the type presented herein.. No two parcels of property are identical so there is ultimately some element of valuation expertise necessary to draw the conclusions from the data contained in • this report. Every effort has been made, however, to include data in this report which minimizes the level of opinion or interpretation required to reach a conclusion on the potential impact of the Facility. The methodology used in this report is designed to allow the governing body to examine primarily factual evidence, rather than opinion testimony. 360° Communications (the"Company" )has requested that we perform an Impact Investigation on the proposed transmission facility to be located adjacent to US 401 Fuquay-Varina ( Wake County ), North Carolina ( referred to as the "Wake J.F.&hers do Company County Site" ). The transmission facility ( the "Facility" ) consists of a one hundred and eighty ( 180 ) foot monopole transmission tower, a twelve by twenty eight ( 12 X 28 ) foot equipment building, all of which is to be enclosed in a fenced eight ( 8 ) foot high forty by sixty ( 40 X 60 ) foot compound. The fence will consist of a chain-link security fence with three ( 3 ) strands of barbed wire.. The landscaping on the perimeter of the site will meet or exceed the requirements of. the County. In addition, particular attention to maintaining the existing vegetation and trees on the Site outside of the compound area will be made.. The purpose of an Impact Investigation is to determine whether the Facility located at the Wake County Site will .have any negative impact on the use, development, or value of the surrounding property. ,An.Impact Investigation is not an appraisal of current value, but rather a determination of whether development of the Facility will have any adverse impact on the natural progression or current or planned use and development of surrounding properties. Methodology • . Conducting an Impact Investigation is a two step process. The first step is to determine whether the type of development being considered generally has an impact on surrounding properties. This requires locating comparable facilities in comparable locations and analyzing the impact of these facilities on surrounding properties using conventional,analytical techniques. By examining a statistically significant number of comparable facilities, the analyst can formulate a general. conclusion regarding the impact of certain types of facilities surrounding properties. The first step is generally referred to as the"Comparable Analysis". The second step in the process is to examine whether there are unusual features in this area that would produce a result different from those obtained through the J.F.Smothers&company 2 Comparable Analysis. This step is referred to as "Site Specific Analysis". The Site Specific Analysis includes review of the use of surrounding properties, land development plans and growth patterns in the area surrounding the subject site, and the prevalence and apparent impact, if any, of similar facilities in the community. Both the Comparable Analysis and the Site Specific Analysis are discussed in greater detail below. Section # 1 Comparable Analysis The Comparable Analysis is the most important step in the process because it establishes a presumption regarding the impact of certain types of development and the presumption is based on objective criteria rather than solely on the basis of the expertise of the analyst. In the case of the proposed Facility at the Wake County Site, the comparable process includes the following steps: i. Locate comparable existing transmission towers situated in comparable areas, which could be susceptible to the impact of a.transmission tower. ii. Insure that the comparable transmission towers have been in existence for at least five( 5 )years. iii. Review the sales and resales of surrounding properties, compile the data and *calculate the average increase or decrease in property values of the surrounding properties. iv. Locate an area of comparable properties ( comparable age, price and condition ) which is not susceptible to the impact of transmission towers. This is known as the"Control Group". v. Review the sales and resales of surrounding properties in the Control Group, compile the data and calculate the average increase or decrease in property values of the surrounding properties. J.F.&gathers&Company 3 vi. Compare the data obtained for Comparable transmission tower sites to the same data compiled for the Control Groups ( comparable age, price and condition ) without transmission tower sites. Each Comparable Tower and Control Group is discussed in detail in Section # 1, attached to this report. Section # 1 also includes sales data taken from public records, photographs of comparable towers and a map of the subject area. J.F. Smathers & Company prepared the Comparable Analysis utilized in this report, dated November, 1997. We reviewed the methodology used in the Smathers Report, the information contained therein, and specifically examined all of the tower sites listed in the Smathers Report. Based upon this review and independent investigation, it is our opinion that the conclusions set forth in the Smathers Report are accurate. Section#2 Site Specific Analysis The Site Specific Analysis is used to determine whether there are any 'factors peculiar to this site which would lead to a different conclusion than the Comparable analysis. Specifically, our analysis focuses on compatibility of the proposed Facility with the uses of the property surrounding.the Wake County Site, and on the existence of any factors which would indicate that the property surrounding this Site would be unusually sensitive to:development of adjoining properties. The Site Specific Analysis is included as Section # 2 to this report. Section#2 also includes photographs of the Site and a map of the subject area. J.F.Smashers&Conrany 4 IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA ( WAKE COUNTY ),.NORTH CAROLINA SECTION# 1 COMPARABLES J.F.Smothers&Company • TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER FACILITY IMPACT STUDY Raleigh And Wake County, North Carolina Telecommunications Towers DATE OF IMPACT STUDY November 4,1997 #1 EXISTING TOWER • A. Baileywick Road Wake County,North Carolina SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Shannon Woods Subdivision COMPARABLE NEIGHBORHOOD Bridgepoint North Subdivision #2 EXISTING TOWER A. Windel Drive At Millbrook Road Raleigh,North Carolina SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Windel Drive Crestview Road COMPARABLE NEIGHBORHOOD Sweetbrier Street PREPARED BY: Joseph F.Smathers,Jr. J.F.Smathers do Company 6040 Six Forks Road Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 919-846.2313 IMPACT STUDY OF RALEIGH AND WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATIONS INTRODUCTION This study evaluates various real estate markets in:Raleigh 'and:Wake County, • North Carolina in an effort to determine the extent, if any, to which telecommunications towers impact property values in these areas. The study focuses upon sales and resales of residential property in areas ( Comparable Neighborhood) in which property values would be expected to be affected by the presence of a telecommunication tower. In order to eliminate as many variables as possible, control groups ( Control Group) in adjacent neighborhoods, without the presence of a telecommunication tower, were investigated as well. Generally, we found that property values in the subject neighborhoods have continued to escalate over time, and further, that the control group's property values exhibited similar trends. Our investigation included an extensive search of the public records of Raleigh and Wake County and three (3) on-site surveys of both the subject neighborhoods and control group areas. No two parcels of property are identical so there is ultimately some element of valuation expertise necessary to draw the conclusions from the data confirmed in this report. Every effort has been made, however, to include data in this report which minimizes the level of opinion or interpretation required to reach a conclusion on the potential impact of the Facility. As discussed in greater detail, the methodology used in this report is designed to allow the Governing Body to examine primarily factual evidence, rather than opinion testimony. CABLEVISION TOWER BAILEYWICK ROAD ( HUNTER ROAD ) WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The three hundred and fifty ( 350 ) foot tower is located on Hunter Road, just off Baileywick Road, between Six Forks.Road and Creedmoor Road in Wake County, North Carolina. The site is further described as Lot 40, Tax Map 280, in the Wake County Tax Office.. The site is zoned R-40 and.contains_approximately two point four nine one ( 2.491 ) acres. The facility consists of the tower, several heavy guy wires for tower support, a small equipment building and a chain link perimeter fence. The site has been operated by Cablevision for approximately twenty three(23 )years. No details are available regarding the lease. This tower is located in an area currently slated to be acquired by North Carolina Department of Transportation for the extension of the Northern Expressway. On April 8, 1997, 360° Communications requested and was granted by the Wake County Board of Adjustment, a special use permit to replace the three hundred and fifty ( 350 ) foot guyed transmission tower with a two hundred and fifty (250) foot self support tower. The site is located in a highly developed residential area of Wake County,just off Baileywick Road. The site is bound on all sides by single family residential development. Our investigation revealed several residential properties in the tower's immediate neighborhood that were sold and resold, subsequent to construction and operation of the tower. In order to eliminate as many variables as possible, only sales and resales of identical properties were utilized. J.F.Smothers&Company The results of our analysis of this area are outlined in the following tables. JF.Smothers&Company COMPARABLES BAILEYWICK ROAD TOWER BAILEYWICK ROAD&HUNTER ROAD RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA SHANNON WOODS SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ADDRESS PURCHASE PRICE YEAR SOLD .% INCREASE/DECREASE 604 Misty Isle Place $195,000 1985 $196,000 - 1991 0.51% $221,000 1994 12.76% 608 Misty Isle Place $120,000 1984 $203,000 1993' 69.17% $244,000 1996 20.20% 612 Misty Isle Place $198,500 1984 $205,000 1991 3.27% 613 Misty Isle Place $190,000 1984 $223,500 1993 17.63% • 620 Misty Isle Place $195,000 1985 $203,000 1991 . 4.10% S215,000 1992 5.91% 621 Misty Isle Place $163,500 1984 $183,500 1991 12.23% $211,000 1997 14.99% 700 Misty Isle Place $229,000 1986 $232,000 1988 1.31% $214,000 1992 -7.76% 716 Misty Isle Place $190,500 1989 $213,000 1994 11.81% J.F.Smathe s et Company Bailey:rick Comparable 816 Misty Isle Place $156.000 1987 S 160,000 1990 2.56% $235.000 1996 46.88% 817 Misty Isle Place $225,000 1985 $208,500 1987 -7.33% 600 Down Patrick Lane $191,000 1984 $214,000 1986 12.04% 605 Down Patrick Lane $235,500 1984 $245,500 1990 4.25% 609 Down Patrick Lane $188,000 1984 $191,000 1987 1.60% $237,500 1995 24.35% 613 Down Patrick Lane S202,500 1985 S230,000 1993 13.58% 625 Down Patrick Lane $225,000 1984 $232,000 1993 3.11% 624 Down Patrick Lane $215,000 1985 $215,000 1988 0.00% $192,000 1992 -10.70% 628 Down Patrick Lane $196,500 1984 $185,000 1991 -5.85% • 632 Down Patrick Lane $213,000 1984 $254,000 1987 19.25% Total Average Change in Value From 1984 to Present 10.79% J.F.Smashers&Company Balleyi/ck Comparable 2 • CONTROL GROUP BAILEYWICK ROAD TOWER BAILEYWICK ROAD&HUNTER ROAD RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA BRIDGEPOINT NORTH SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ADDRESS PURCHASE PRICE YEAR SOLD % INCREASE/DECREASE 10604 Dunhill Terrace $208,000 1986 $288,000 1996 38.46% 10605 Dunhill Terrace $210,000 1987 $250,000 1993 19.05% 10608 Dunhill Terrace $208,500 1987 $252,000 1991 20.86% $300,000 1993 19.05% 10609 Dunhill Terrace $230,000 1984 .S282,000 1992 22.61% • 10612 Dunhill Terrace $338,000 1986 $377,000 1989 11.54% • $319,000 1993 -15.38% 10704 Dunhill Terrace $225,000 1987 $284,000 1988 26.22% S255,000 1992 -10.21% $318,000 1997 24.71% 10705 Dunhill Terrace $230,000 1984 $260,000 1992 13.04% 10708 Dunhill Terrace $265,000 1988 $272,000 1990 2.64% $264,000 1991 -2.94% J.F.&taken&Company dalleywlck Control 10709 Dunhill Terrace $210.000 1987 5232.000 1991 10.48% 10711 Dunhill Terrace $175,000 1985 5219,500 1992 25.43% 10712 Dunhill Terrace S265.000 1987 $280,000 1989 5.66% $313,000 1994 11.79% 10712 Dunhill Terrace S237,000 1985 S241,000 1987 1.69% S230,000 1991 -4.56% 10724 Dunhill Terrace $235,000 1985 $256,000 1992 8.94% 10729 Dunhill Terrace 5275,000 ' 1987 $294,500 1992 7.09% 10733 Dunhill Terrace $246,500 1987 $222,500 1993 -9.74% $250,500 1994 12.58% 10749 Dunhill Terrace 5240,000 1987 $250,000 1989 4.17% Total Average Change in Value From 1985 to Present 10.13% J.F.Smatkas A Company 6alleywlck Control 2 . . 0,-.? .'-.-. I II•:...................7......-.:;77- P•••;.. ;.: ":'.,7rt. . • lif'N‘\N' ,..t..,. • .1.•..:,.. • .•• •.i•: •. .' : ••..•... ..1; . .•:1:•7•.:: ..•4:: .:q?lilt,"I:, #1:41-••••::::).• '.-; : •.., :. i'4,11, ig - .• : .. . . .... • •.; -.....:,...:• . •,..':..:::.'......:„..--:••.:',•••.,:i••';:psfA,...,::,.1,,j,,,, .;_";:z'sf•:•,_:•:lt. '4.;....‘;•,:,, • ..'i, :.Y.A •• *YIDA-\....._ • • : • • -.4 ••-' •• •*.••••• *Y• :• - •'....1!.:'•••':•..!/A:•:?..i...gi.-1/4'4•ilt.Ail./4.;71........,:,°•:••itz"?4'. i•15-'5,01•144A1.:;•!';:t..:'".•':' • ."\;), • • . ..‘r 3 '-••-1,10 . • • ,,,... ..... . . ..,.••,t..4,•,1•••t:'•••4PiRry••• 'Cjr..'•;V:aki:Viii......',..;V:f.:','. .. . VC ''....• • ..•:.• • • V:::;..:';=•:,,r.eigtfl) ,e,,,,,k.,p..'Pe.:-Ssr?• ..".-.4".;'' . ' • 4.4fit • , ,.,,.e .._. .... „,3-3._ .?'--1, 1 4 1 .;.. .• .. ,.. . ...., _s.:;:..;•••'•isI.-;,,,,,,-.0,, .." .. ..''1'.... .. ...:...:..... ....::::;*:; '.?Tj Z3.:4.3';‘1:711:404': ....i 1;i; ia t e,',1 tr.:' .: . 1 i i•, ' fa .: - . • ............... 97, . .... •:,........,.. ... . • .. .,••••••„„00,.„......,w "S" . "•.-'• ..,. l':,'.. "M ; r 4 .,.. ri • ,,.. ..1,,,,ygvyil,..fl ,...-.- f\r:.•I.;,,,,.•.71;... .-- :, • •..... .. , •... ..... ........ ...•.•,, .-1,,,,,,6.• ••...41f:-4.4"-ir.,4•&,..i.,,-,, •!'-`,1'..•:E41z-• 1.;-,•'" ..•') • i ....,. k. • .., . •:.„...;‘,..:, ........ ,.....„......,.......,......:„.„: „......,..„.,„:„.,.;,,,-,..,„:„.„-.4.4,..,),....kt,,,..,0,..„,..:::„......„:,...-„, .,,- ... - . , :. • . . . / off,„...c..i.... • : 1 . g 1 ••••:.•:.. • .,,.:., :,...„,:. . .•.:.• ,•,!..,Ate.P.:4_,k-1,-,trAtix.;:ais.•m•;:...,•::g;:imr,;•,..:,..''..‘;',1,74 Y%i i IP ': • •R -N z ,:..."•.••.. ...::i..sj.•.:•.*•..:.•:::i:::- ..;:,.'•'..•.•..' :.....ti•••... •. k,.•:•.. .4'k..44.z.ifhl•Vi•i'441.a.g.f:?*•":•6:-..'s•::::: •.„..3-•••;.1•..• ... . ' ! ostarlig •,.. 1 - '': r.'.tr!,....:3'•,:.•,.,...,-,..:.-. ••,:•:.:I':.1.1••••::.:-...',741 SA•s.;`",•13, Aitis.v.Vi.V: :.'•::-.:••'.:•::'i: - ••• eSY VS :,•1 Qb"frica !,:... .>,i f: : • '4•.:.::....:.••••.' •.•-1 " '',"••'••••:::::1.:::.,1•V ,11.',;,'!!'54..1:1,/i-1:.' '. • -,.;.:{,p,.-.•-'i .. . - 0 '...-.:'• - .::,:••• .. i ...,:.....•-...•'8-1,;.....7..4'.:=6;:t.:4°''."......,:',.::;:7;i:•:1.-.:.::::'.=;1?•::::•••(.;y.....f-•:'•--$...,•'•: • . . - • - OlAkI". -' 8 1Y 4 I I'a A d .: .•• •'• ' .• ..•.,: .....-• ..,.. '•;.-.:•••••......44`41.31:41';''',F.,4 ::•:fi!--;*:',:.",,;.:!.i.;••A:F.;:7-..,;,„.••••-•:' - •••.. . : • 7.11.t&vaio ....:.,, . . . . ...?..,...: • •..., ••.,--... •,:,',: '•24;: -•,....' ,;..,....i.?,!.::,,,..:.:;::,'.,,z.;;;;:i;.:.,;.:"..,.•,..z\l',;4.;•.%":4:::1;..:-.74:r.:.r.:•r1/47,,71.,...;.;:..." :.e.r. ..... ' RD '-..7-!1-, 444 qt. 1' 1 w .. • " -'.., . w • •• • ., 1,-.h•Y; .•_,,•..1;•;e1.:..,"-•" •"•••••"7-'•-_-.7•'.N''',.. • ..•.':: •.; • -. " , • , , . .......' '.'':••.7.:',, :1,4.:'.."1%..,!.;.,:q: -.(•••:,-;.:41::i:..t,74. .'•••-" v•;AC4*.T1r:4"446!'A:: ' i (fr•-k* • "1 . . • • ... .:: . ••.::. ...••.,..:. ,.,••,.1„,...,...,,,:„.,t.: „.,....,.,.•,....,.....,N,I.,•; -• .......„.::....,: .... •-•• ... ... eir--ww --'11,:. ••Id;...,•it.).,.... . 41A414 "/ Y4 z; •'.' •. ."• . •••'•':-'.........:••::::'..'•-• -•i•li.'g:?••1.:tg ii:?"...itia.1.!k311.•.rik::... .v1/4•• :.if`'i.;•1„Ls..,_,: ....'. . ., ' . • At, e I.. II Iii I--19 '. - • . N ..• . . .'..• '.. ••••••• •.'.1,•...:•;.,•;;;;•:::::',7 ?-.:•-..-•-...'-iftlit.•-IMP:i!Vii1.-;.--•;.P.-.... . 7-11•41,4i: • --!.• .. Ai_......_ atiti. a§r,../.0 ra. - .-. ; .• . .. .,.. : . "::::..:'3:7.:: * ;::0 R*6.441.:,-,ffs.,!7.1:(...t.•:.:::;5'.",,,•;.;;.:,:..: ..i.-....f. .:t-"It Y,:ti,, .•tl.'.... .,. \i' • ..'• . •'• 7' - ••,...:" "4.•••;••,f:'••'4,7•••• w ••••••••. .'•:••,) ••;.. .•::•••• -.: wed • ". ..: ,;".'s.il liCilY*....*..0..,....11-7;7".....'''f•//,',....-/...,-.:. ...- .. . .. • • 1, c g gil cc re ''' ii, 4,0".......4,-----..-... rir • . ..-, . : .. .. '- ---- r ii0---- -41,9-t i t 1 4- l'''' --.--(I• — . ' 1 N L,. l Z iillflia. S'' - f . , • ...,.... `. . • . . . • •• • ••••'-:•::,......?...g....t: ,...-.,.?;!!:-,•..,ii,,,i1.-,,....,, .;:,:. --.' ..,:, •.•>.. .. 0 , .;4:-......' :...•••••.,:•,'':1....!:::-..:,...q.,:•:i.i;.:.„,f...5,....::..:..........,,,••... ; '.:•.:,..c. •• • • • ":,,....:. .:-..:•:';•••.',N;r,,IY::?...;:::,..::: '7/... '.!-,.:•.i.•,....,••,"-. .':•.:... ,a;'''''''•' _. . •.... :.'. • . . • ' • :': '.....1:?;'.:*:,..;.;":"..;/c.":.,4;11f•;:k.-...:-...."-'i?i,W,,4:.;;:-." ....;.•..,, - I tri •il.s' . . .: ;-:':-.1:-:•'74:'....1::::iilatt.V...&.:Ce•I'...-, A.f.,..... :1 .. ii syp .ed....,. • ;•:•••••••••• ' . .... /. . • .•;cr.‘,;•,.;.,t*li*;.••••••.......:.4.?..', ,,,‘:151' ;,...'''..',.:7 :. .).---':•61::„ 1 . • i li g_ co re pAto,...,. . J..rnr t, ••1, .,..• - . - Alit ..6.1-7.0.^: I ..;rp\N• . ;., s..!,• ,...,i!.;:!•!..,•;?ji,"...If 1..''-.."...,...7,...)•?:1:•:t11.:':::::.,F•Z......:.....:::...1. ;'..,..API! "...'P Vi.14.10:?).; . . : . • .. 11117r. ..::'...;•.:V.,; :.;R::::;...:1::..... r,::...WY Ariiiej;i1i0P;r:: • .. . .N .i.... .4,1 .N. .. .t..,' '. I•f,..e ..... i.:1'........''''',"' ' • . '""41L'i ill ...,...::'S• " •.c•'. • / •.. 041 ."'Ic. , . .1 al ; 414 E '494 •.,• . . • • ••.'.....!•,2,••• :'..•-. '..-mt!-:!:".•Th''. •,-,:x;,..••• ,•:,'..,4-'-.•;•.' • 4. , z al i •• • ••••--•,•••••• • •,. .4-•,•-•-•.;P:P..,•:;,...44:f,:•.-,:•.v. •••••' •,:•','..T.• ','a...7,,,m,w IN'I .._ •• , . • i ,•-.• it' soz)(00.71 g _. ' 8' ' . . . • :•••••-.1.7.--...:':%:::::.::::.;..........1,::::•.,.4;•-:,2\''•:Ztiii'..:1:••::-•;c•;;.:0-1•:.'''rre.... '.;.r-4.,•:••••7i..:::.•:•::'',;:•!:•••::.•'..,-..-1•:' ' ...• ' 1--1, -....,-..„.. C.) 1r* tt • • ' • . ...: ••:,.-•,•;.;<••• ',.... - •-•- ..••••r .",*:*4..„,,...C,t .. i _ \ ee,\ 1 . ,,..........) 1 • . :. -2' • • , .• . . ....:, :„.,.,.,..:. ..,, - 0. .. loft • 1 ......4. ' .,)'• • • : . • 'I) ' . .••••••• : • .. :::1';':•ii'..sz:,,ti.:; *:••••411.$'ii..:::::0:'," :;"*.il. ;...40. .:;,,. .. - !. .. . Yotitt;,. N hi t..0 • ...t- . .. • `... ••.,,,.?-,, . ‘••:, •.....,,.., ••..:,,,,,,,z P..,-,.J.,:,,.:••..„ v;,...-p,„..N...,„,t, I .V'•,` a ' . .. ,' ' ... ...• •.,,: •'.'.': '•: :;,,,;:`,. .:',,,;:.:;:i.4..1;:::.::17,F. ':,-;';•,::•-•,*t,hi.:.;:il'i," ,1-...t'.7'''....-. - g IS - • ......... ,..1..:„ 1•j''7`'''' .,• .....C...•;:•,--;;.'15,f211:3 :§10 •'•cs Gkisr..... I rU V&-aivbr ••-. • •• . % ..,1 . .',...•1 •'........;':igs.7Soi...••• ••:i4:-.;;r:'.;;,•:-::.11164(ia\;,`:**;'•61, 0-• § i %,, ,...‘,..' ! ,e' cm • • • 0 . •:' :. . _• 1 . ..'.•; -:f:"....,...:-. _';"•".i:1::-Yig:barm,e..'''.••"- ..11-.1,134 ' . . 1 2 . ... .. . ... . oy .-,....,...1...z,,....,•,,f•••••'::-'7... :LI••:;.:'.•'.f .r oh 1 ...SI• u- 1'. 0 . Cji ' • - - •0 • •••:: .,:....."•::7-5.10.••01.'•;••,tf?,:.•::%•,..,. : '. .. ,, , 1 § • .. t tiary2y . , _ •;:i.ise.......a",;•.4.;;;:'.,'.e ,,, ..,,,'"),S; :t.,:"..,-' • '')<,•:, ..71,' ''. •..4',...;,•,,.i i:iitS•1;t •!..'!`Z.'.: -.1.-"•'.t`:.;:''''''';Va .r4.. •.. ." '.:: .r.C)' ..--:;'S:.-, ''''Y'44.!'.'"'•i'.i:a4;,!k:1:..i..,'.i.? r. -., ''.. .4 ,..i 5. 7 E--Zi . ' ; : :*.i.• 4*. ' :.2i:',.;!.;,',, i'. '-;1.:.w , • ..'.. ::,....f,"::T •..1 Tt .X' .. '. ... .' g• . . .41:"*Ifi.4..f.i.:, ..??1,;.',. . .' '. - ' ":',:•• I •c . .• . . ,---••7, : 4....‘,%•ii,..3filf',C:.. ,?....-...: ...i 18. . .: •-....::::: :•....;intor:.:*`., ' e,,,I.;,...:!....,..,:•••=i• -:..;....:i.:. ..!1, 11 1... \4 I.,,..... ..., .:., - • ,,. ......,-----,- :• ...0• ,; .....; ...,,,...,:,,....!,t,.., •., •-.•• - .. .7 .- -.--03,**1410ri at 7-4.4/. • ..• :.•.•,..,•••,:,-,,:::•....,,,;.; :;,,:.;•:,0•,..!>, •41.,1::'••0;,•14,,,,,gip:, ......c..... ,..,010r.:.''''"..4)11q42,,s, . : • . . .. <,,,,, , :7111 .-:. •.',...:.•,-...:-..-.•:,'!!.:.1.?•..,'''-i.i.,,:;1,4..1t.\.:44,,...... ',..(.\•::;:fe:i , .,in.6.7;;:::‘;..:1;;...... ..., . ..''s:,-:... .-....:.... a..ri . . : .- !'• . • §' •..,,'.4•:.';'-'::•:,..,i.::%.:.P•,:v.:-.,'Ale,'t.,0;-. 0..ks ,:*:';•7.;•!:9°Z."".•:..1,-;.-•::••"....'. • /4.7.1 8r-- •• •• . •: : ...•,.., . •* •,,a,•. '',.q1,...:tri.4‘7•••••:-.-vy.4,1.Y. ...• :. ••4... .• •- . - .- .1: •.t • - • -..,••'''• ' V .. % ...'"'"'...."Yicr"....:"‘. s'i•f.111-:' .'"':''-,e•'.4.41. ..,:„.. •••t':-•-..:.-•• it ::... r *,..: ...C...',..;:;.:...?. ..''.;I,s:"4".$,Y141!"&:.''''.;:.%i.::.....,rj..:AV ''N''',.!, '':':•':. '''::.,.::* : '151 W.f. ;. •• • N... ...• ' : a: ...•• ,:.::;:"....4.!.P1%,%5.;iSt.1•41::,`‘..k.,..''.g.•:::%-.,:;•rzl'i,;.:.....:•!%:•••k:-:',:.•...•.......:.'.. . . 4. . • • ..\.,.....-..••:.':•••. .. .kx1;r:: ..,,,,,,:?.,.,:;...-. ... . y . ,y. ...:•;ti .:;.''C.••.;-''.':‘'... ":'•.* • * - *,:-. 8 • .. " " . • • •'. .' • •••..•... ..... '!...-.' .f.''•''.1',...;i..'',,e-,...,-.:•,..!:jixl.:. ,;;;.c.,:r:.!:-:,,..:f.:":...'" ...... •.• ....t.„-;. --:,. 4 8 • • . . . . . -,-,•- , ...........:•<-s..i4 ,,..".•;:kit..,-;41., il:::i4:.....'..&:,,,,,,.1.*!- .-....... ....:. • ,r?,,,,,,• ... : . ._-.. z 3 4V . . . . . . . -------- • .''.. --‘.."-Ns. f • .. ...., -. ... • • . • • • • .. •• ...........,,..,..... r,... ..,, ....,,,,.....,.. ... •.,.. , .. ...,,. :... ;•./i •••••••••:.:- :,- - . • v ...., . . , .._, . ... , •• TELECOMMUJNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATION PICTURE Baileywick(Hunter)Road WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA L y �: \ t. '3` ..� .1. \ R• r�! ve+•1 F. .f •'Ir 4.. , � . Y' /,•,�' •tom. - r" jl d • 7:4 ti I. y, •' L► i~ r2 11 t . ta ' l't� rr pr 1 ?tom • .,AZx',•:4� ,' . , 1 i 't r a 1.. /'4Lfp'•!A eft.• ay 'u � t .11' • ., t ,. t +•�I• i J.F.Smathers& Company CABLEVISION TOWER WINDEL DRIVE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA The tower is located on Windel Drive just off Six Forks Road in Raleigh, • North Carolina. The site is further described as Lot 68, Tax Map 379 in the Wake County Tax Office. According to County records, the.site is currently leased by Cablevision from Ethel S. Womble. The site is zoned .R-4 and..:.contains approximately one point five eighths ( 1.58 ) acres. The facility consists of the tower, five ( 5 ) large cable dishes, an operations building and a heavily landscaped wooden perimeter fence. The site has been leased:by Cablevision for approximately 15 years. No details are available regarding the lease. The site is located in a highly developed area of North Raleigh,just off Six Forks Road. The property is bound to the North by the Colony Shopping Center and the Golden Colony Town homes, to the East by office and residential development, and to the South and West by single family residential. Our investigation revealed several residential properties in the tower's immediate neighborhood that were sold and resold, subsequent to construction and operation of the tower. In order to eliminate as many variables as possible, only sales and resales of identical properties were utilized. The results of our analysis of this area are outlined in the following tables. LE&oaten A Company COMPARABLES WINDEL DRIVE TOWER WINDEL DRIVE&SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA PROPERTY ADDRESS PURCHASE PRICE YEAR SOLD %INCREASE/DECREASE 108 Windel Drive $26,500 1984 S37,000 " 1985 39.62% $68,000 • 1991 83.78% 200 Windel Drive S52,500 1981 $68,500 1985 30.48% 208 Windel Drive $69,000 1987 $75,500 1990 9.42% $80,000 1993 5.96% 221 Windel Drive $57,500 1979 $39,000 1987 -32.17% $141,500 1996 262.82% 301 Windel Drive S52,000 1978 $88,000 1984 69.23% $154,000 1996 75.00% 305 Windel Drive $76,500 1983 $92,500 1985 20.92% $104,000 1986 12.43% 307 Windel Drive $47,000 1986 $30,500 1988 -35.11% $101,000 1992 231.15% J.F.Smothers&Company Wendel Comparable 103 Crestview Road $40,000 1983 S74,000 1984 85.00% 104 Crestview Road $38,000 1981 $100,000 1987 163.16% 114 Crestview Road $26,000 1976 S90,000 1990 246.15% 206 Crestview Road $27,500 1977 $113,500 1992 312.73% $119,000 1993 4.85% 209 Crestview Road $31,500 1980 $105,500 1986 234.92% $112,000 1987 6.16% Total Average Change in Value From 1974 to Present 91.32% J.F.Swelters do Company Wendel Comparable 2 • CONTROL GROUP WINDEL DRIVE TOWER WINDEL DRIVE& SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA PROPERTY ADDRESS PURCHASE PRICE YEAR SOLD %INCREASE/DECREASE 4709 Sweetbriar Street $37,000 1976 $73,000 1984 97.30% $84,000 1987 15.07% $129,000 1997 53.57% 4716 Sweetbriar Street $38,500 1976 S78,500 1985 103.90% 4809 Sweetbriar Street $34,500 1985 $80,000 1991 131.88% $145,000 1994 81.25% 4816 Sweetbriar Street $23,000 1980 $29,500 1983 2826% $82,000 1987 177.97% $99,000 1993 20.73% 4812 Sweetbriar Street $28,500 1983 $33,500 1985 17.54% $85,000 1990 153.73% 4719 Sweetbriar Street S36,000 1977 S79,000 1988 119.44% • 5000 Sweetbriar Street $27,500 1976 $115,000 1993 318.18% J.F.Smothers&Company Wendel Control • 5106 Sweetbriar Street $29,500 1980 S85,000 1987 188.14% $111,000 1994 30.59% $131,500 1996 18.47% 5205 Sweetbriar Street $43,000 1978 $83,000 1984 93.02% $111,000 1989 33.73% 5308 Sweetbriar Street $42,000 1980 $112,000 1988 166.67% • $123,000 1992 9.82% 5412 Sweetbriar Street $62,500 . 1979 $122,000 1993 9520% 5508 Sweetbriar Street S52,000 1977 $84,000 1984 61.54% Total Average Change in Value From 1976 to Present 91.64%• J.F.Snntherm A Company Wendel control 2 •� '--7' • •;•` '�\ •P'> `Slo. a` ion. cc ' , , .� _ • :ah Ridge) '. ' 'J s:GS ter.. •' i • t Q? ` !'- 77,§ {/L.+ ,a"_ iIt4-3. 1 .• 'Y• JM &. I / �' ' \_ • Ju - ( r • -� 4 0 *,,. I O ° , r • if s _j 4 HUN iNo RIDGE- ,, Ito Z t. NNorth Ridge Coupt�y Club !, oe'll 11.. . , ., 1 / k-<fkrz.° k( r - % $ 4' r., „III.. :,. (tomb I t..;"ti ::..../ :\tAjoi 4.„:"„vi:,.. iilviiv • : /.:• • •.• Existing Telecoaununictions Facility •'��• a••• -.• r l :. • , ,-K , r Windel Drive s • • 1L• • . ;,P`. .. Raleigh,North Carolina vER _ . 4 t I c,•• ... ... �Zr,{ % ( Num• Thirteen Cra eekWater r r.•, •1 ^'.0 hA•.:• ,Q( . ,, �1'.v •• • • 1Ll' • CLVENiRY * .z a r_ rN 11 ;.;/ -°.----. .. . , _ . . ' 4 i R07• -,.!.!I' 'Z. 'U:-.r.I Z.-0 I c'`e t..- 019. I 1....s elliallibilillit:.. .. 04,,,,,,:_.•• RiLl p •• • •.• • ••o • m �.. wail • l- - Sht 7rlit CS •• r /� r� N r. V' � t Mt FRENCH \S�� a J i M' ' j W �ii . g .r _Ihii.il:.: C.:1•.:!-; : W _o-�Y •dam` :,. .:8 6 ��WOOD :WE :.ii.r• •' rta, mow,�.>.• n?:; 1 .-ifie,C., = , .:!5 k .:>,,(,. . ,.....4:,, , ,,,.,... vs .„, .„, : _il 7;:,-.,1„...:,..;,..?-y-..1.,-..,..,,,. .:;:„.3....-, . .._.: id .,0 . 1 N ... .... ._ , .„ii,--,111,.. ,..:-ilifi . 1 I-�f��l ~•��� 4�1 M,.•• • ,-'...r. lifii, - „ ,;\ • �.1 is•.- - .)111 •- �� / '4' R .�.-✓: `•.•''icy.t.�: : ^ , ;,•. '440 _ ` fir <, , 0.a ~—440 :®I .,r:y., ....V ir% 4trAt , ,,..; .:. 0. ,f ve. it . ".1P _ .:. vor-F, i i' 440 .„4,. idit, . ‘,41:' _.:, ,-,,A7 _. .. I It,..„ , , . .-4 44.1. 4/4 i Ati > t1E1M lail • .1 ., 'Raleigh *It unity + a. e•ave Creek ,. 44y \=, , .,. �7J1' .Del onne. Stet S (4,. .r .-- )" NV: \' Mag 14.00 Scale 1:31,250(at center) • Tue Nov 04 03:271997 2000 FeetI I Local Road - Major Connector ' 1000 Meters l ®Interstate/Umited Access . OUS Highway TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATION PICTURE Windel Drive RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA • 4 *�s3•A• Y 'i - � + j{i rt^•s.Itt' _4 •a ia 1;3 11"pA tp • s �. F 4 • R...rfa"fit ., ,t1 � Q f a�4 • " i • t x: i t' W.•.ue , '.. • KC„ ' >4 r- 4 •`f' ems. , ," • • , l c J.F.Smashers& Company CONCLUSIONS Our analysis of the impact of the construction of telecommunications towers was made . in order to determine what effect, if any telecommunication tower construction, and subsequent operation, has had upon neighboring property values. This study included tower.operations located in areas surrounding the following highways, Baileywick Road, Wake County, North Carolina and .Windel Drive, Raleigh,North Carolina. Our investigation focused on sales .and resales :of residential real -estate in subdivisions surrounding the subject towers. We also investigated adjacent neighborhoods, comparable in age, price and condition, without towers for purposes of establishing control groups. The total average change in values as outlined in the preceding pages is as follows: COMPARABLES CONTROL GROUP Baileywick Road 10.79% 10.13% Windel Drive 91.32% 91.64% While the value of a parcel of real property may be affected by the use of adjoining or surrounding property, that use must be significant in its intrusiveness or lack of compatibility in order to override the primary factors which will affect property values. Uses which generate significant traffic, noise, odor, or dangerous conditions, are generally the types of uses which are so intrusive as to override the J.F.&waken4Company normal factors affecting property values, and result in a material adverse impact on surrounding properties. For example, hog farms, rock quarries, paper mills, manufacturing plants, adult entertainment establishments, and similar uses, are generally believed to have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties. In addition, development of property in a manner which is significantly incompatible with existing or planned use of surrounding property can result in a negative impact on property immediately adjacent to the incompatible use. Our examination of the effects of the existing transmission tower sites and surrounding properties, and our examination-of other,studies:on:this,subject and available data, indicates that, in general, transmission towers are not the.-type of use which is so intrusive as to have an inherently negative impact on surrounding properties. After inspecting all of the sites and surrounding neighborhoods, and carefully considering all of the information compiled in our investigation, we have concluded that telecommunication tower installation and/or operation has had no detrimental effect of neighboring property values or the natural progression or planned use and development of the surrounding vicinity in the Raleigh - Wake County area. J.E&lathers&Company • CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, .unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. _ I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of&predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. I have.made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and all comparable properties. J seph F. Smothers, Jr. Seor Joseph F. 5msthers, Jr. subscribed and sworn to before me this d day of MGEm 66 A/ , 1997. tiep Notary Public My Commission Expires: l7 40,e//02.000 00.B4ifte% sOTAI►y �i •40•«r PUeLO , Cr IF.Smothers&Company CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS I have been requested to estimate the impact of communication tower construction and operation on neighborhood property values in an area surrounding the proposed communication tower delineated in this report. 1. The information on which this report is based has been obtained from public and private sources normally used and considered reliable. 2. No opinion of a legal or engineering nature:is intentionally- expressed or implied, and no responsibility is assumed for matters of this nature. 3. No survey was made especially for this report. Property lines, area calculations, etc. of record or otherwise provided, are assumed to be correct. 4. The maps, plats, and exhibits included herein are for illustrations only, as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within this report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose. 5. The undersigned reserves the right to alter his .opinion on the basis of information withheld from him, or not discovered during the normal course of research and investigation. 6. In the event that any material data provided in this report is found to be inaccurate, the sole liability of J.F. Smathers & Company is to provide an amended report based upon the corrected data. 7. Liability of J.F. Smathers & Company and employees is limited to the fee collected for preparation of this report. There is no accountability or liability to any third party. 8. No part of the contents,of this report shall be disseminated to the public, to a governmental body, or any other private company or persons without prior written consent and approval of the author. 9. Acceptance of and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of these conditions. J.F.Smathers&Company IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA ( WAKE COUNTY ), NORTH CAROLINA SECTION # 2 SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS J.F.Smashers do Company SECTION # 2 SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA ( WAKE COUNTY ), NORTH CAROLINA Our analysis focuses on compatibility of this proposed Facility with the existing uses of the property surrounding the Wake County Site, and on the existence of any factors which would indicate that the property would be or is unusually sensitive to development of adjoining properties. As the photographs in this section indicate, the proposed Facility is to be located on a portion of a large tract The property is currently cultivated farmland, with a treeline surrounding the Northern, Western and Southern boundaries of the tract. Revel's Tractor Company, a large tractor sales and repair facility, is located on the Eastern boundary. The current zoning is HD—Highway District. The general area surrounding the Site is highway business, rural agrarian and rural residential. The transmission facility ( the "Facility" ) consists of a one hundred and eighty ( 180 ) foot monopole transmission tower, a twelve by twenty eight ( 12 X 28 ) foot equipment building, all of which is to be enclosed in a fenced eight( 8 ) foot high forty by sixty ( 40 X 60 ) foot compound. The fence will consist of a chain-link security fence with three ( 3 ) strands of barbed wire.. The landscaping on the F Smothers&Company perimeter of the site will meet or exceed the requirements of the County. In addition, particular attention to maintaining the existing vegetation and trees on the Site outside of the compound area will be made. The final step in the Site Specific Analysis is to examine the residential property located around the proposed Facility to determine whether there was any indication that would be particularly sensitive to the construction of the Facility. As outlined in the Comparable Analysis, extensive sales data shows that transmission towers have had no negative impact on residential property. The existing vegetation and topography on the surrounding property and the Site will screen the compound and tower base from view from much of these residential areas. We could find no indication that these properties would be adversely affected by the proposed Facility at the Wake County Site. J.F Smothers&Company \/ ,' ; :••••• • 1......2.----(----—1 -‘.‘..;\ .---i---.1..., / 1 i 1 I- .. r \ , ....,„ kt 1 : . . :4 i .'",....---•-- air ' ' 1 a I .. ,.4.)--1:7 •(.4.!. i . .-• •)(1 ---71-.,=77-1-' ------,-- --1 •:-. VI I • CCU41.8.. —1 ' . . -• ...-•••"*---..t.);,..' - ... • ''4147e • 1 ) • f 1 fl........_. . )6,„....., / 1/2, ..•••• •.• .\:-, LA '.:. • _ --4 . \ 1 . ; 1 : / 4 -.• 1 / ..... .. . 't (., t.. ."--.. / ' ! Sunset Ir- e DA • t / ,,- • . rei • .. .. ' • ; 1 I`-' ,.i'' a " - `•\.. /1 I . .: ik.). c r-"-* •,i'•' ,.'''''•I'gkieigt : r ,r / . • • ': '' -,1 ••.. q `e".'",-. 14-fis7 .‹'•) / 4.../ ( f 1/171 . .• 1 .... '...4/ y.- .y.ij•-''../....., '(,,....,.'„ e c,rek / i - .,-1, .• '[INN •tta0-. . ) ..._ • ./ ----,.__/....A .../ / -I- Ck, ,• oh..- i ' "s • 1 ----... '14-.r.•,.... 'V.': , •....... 0.4., i . -'• .. / \--N.. 42ri . •4'1' 1-- .... • . . ...'• i F--------:n. il :--• . 1 , , , ‘. . ...... -, , 1 - , ,* . Lc • .- , :- At, :Pondivwfx; Proposed 360 Communications Facility ...t- , .•_. U.401 L . l . .-. : / t;ir :: Akins p awf N„ 775\d\. Fuquay-Varina(Wake County),North Carolina ....., k ''''.. _ 7 . • --z- I j _ .bam- •.. -...1-r- i -.... i .. ... $.......:_,_ -/-iii. Ti..... ....„." . j....,* ! .. (/'• ,.. ,... ' •T5 ,Cp '.. . . • %k.. . i ,' i L,.. ... . .! : A.. . .. . 1 k../..... . \ 7:,...„. ,:,,,...). j • C------ -.. i ., • ..' 1.. '7. 'S . • • • . . . • . . • j/ \ , • 1.1 . k-, • .,.: . / 4", \,....1-- ,•.-.,.-:•• - ----\'`I;:\.„./•• 1 ,...• • i• i 4 • . f:. .1. • " .....! •, I • r : ,:, . °Slop' , Club .1,... • .) I*---t , . •71 A ..'• . c j----4. I ilL •N..../. . . 4 tai r , .... .4' •YVillgw S ng . c_..___..y.4.• 111 ,.. ,.,...,....c:. e-'''''..: -''Orits....... "1-, : Pn ' . • I. .... •''-. - 0 ... . --- - '— -. IP- r . .ii• .-,,,a.-,... .. • ca i I-- ' l' N\ . 1 -s ,ond . , ,. .• , . •• - . : Pa. . i , 1 ::,4 fr--r„, • .. ....4 ...... \ ..,... \ .. • • \‘,' , .. . 1,--,..../ .. r i .., ' 1 \ -;I i • . . • ...„.. • . . . ; ..-•'•.-;1: '::• : - •• • \.: !•. ..owe hke. - .. ...-. II-. 1 . . • .1%. k..-. ii eir, ), • % :• • • gli•. ....- .. '- 4• - •!•• daiid .. : : .•:: ..::. •-•-•-.k:.; 77;i:*•:-.1r'. ' • • , ) . • • • ' . .1 ... ..... .1 — ail&its, . I. •: i;.S IV .:. ...• ...;-....,: ...... ::.',:),..f.:• • . 'liz b.-....:. . .........,• Partif.°mt. -..-;:., ..:7.---. ......-1: • j::'..... : .....i..,.. . . :...: :•..A ,6 I ,yton F,:::., -, - .../ rie .•.:';':':..;.'": .1.•. •\ s.v.:.--7.:•:: •::• ,..-- ,P••• • •:•-•-•• IV ,Irr,:!..., '• ..',. :. ..• .:.;• pant .. ...... . , , • .. .. . : s :... • , .„-..V.i: .......'....... • . .: .,.. ---.....-.7\ 7. ..., ..• - . ' • r"-- :.:'4. • /. • . .. k. . A .... •• •, , •- : . ..... . . .. 4 : .. k..\•. - . . . , • •• - • • - .. .."." -I, ..( -1 • • -3 s• -1--- ,." „,, ,> I,. . - ••. • •A '/".. .1 ' '......:\ . . • . : ill7 - " . ;••• .,; ' • ., &Min Valley • ntry Club : ••. : .. .' , . :.• . . . . . '..i- 1 ICJ- • .... .7\-- i., ,/---.\ ' - ... : ... , • ... .... !... v. : 1-1' t.. .. .;•,-../ ( '.....„7/A • '..._ ? .., . : 1. Ezi ....F uay/Angie .teld_.:r : i , ,... ......L. • ..- 997,Celaxme. SA LA •'- % . \ , -.,, ;•;. 1 *. . ( 1.------(.;/ . I Mag 13.00 Scale 1:62,500(at center) —I Local Road •Thu Nov 20 15:18 1997 1 Mlles 1 I — Major Connector I F. 2 KM I elmam State Route =bus Highway PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE LOCATION PICTURE US 401 FUOUAY-VARINA(WAKE COUNTY),NORTH CAROLINA • i • • •V �f .4 . • • r 4 wy • 1'ATtAy F ?.• • `Y .. Via:• �r�•{r;,,_:.q • • • • • J.F.Smothers&Company IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA ( WAKE COUNTY ), NORTH CAROLINA SECTION # 3 CONCLUSIONS .LF&fathers&Company SECTION # 3 CONCLUSIONS IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA ( WAKE COUNTY ), NORTH.CAROLINA In general we have found that the factors which primarily affect.property values are use, zoning, topography, and market demand. As the factors change, so does the current market value and development potential of any parcel of real estate. While the value of a parcel of real property may be affected by the use of adjoining or surrounding property, that use must be significant in its intrusiveness or lack of compatibility in order to override the primary factors which will affect property values. Uses which generate significant traffic, noise, odor, or dangerous conditions, are generally the types of uses which are so intrusive as to override the normal factors affecting property values, and result in a material adverse impact on surrounding properties. For example,.hog farms, rock quarries, paper•mills, manufacturing plants, adult entertainment establishments, and similar uses, are generally believed to have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties. In addition, development of property in a manner which is significantly incompatible with existing or planned use of surrounding property can result in a negative impact on property immediately adjacent to the incompatible use. J.F.Smashers&Company 14 The analysis as outlined in Section # 1, Comparable Analysis, demonstrates that transmission towers have had no negative impact on the value of residential property in surrounding neighborhoods. A summary of this analysis is listed below. TOTAL AVERAGE CHANGE IN VALUE COMPARABLES CONTROL GROUP Baileywick Road 10.79% 10.13% Windel Drive. 91.32% 91.64% As indicated in Section # 2, Site Specific Analysis, we could not detennine any factors peculiar to this site which would lead us to a different conclusion than the Comparable Analysis. Thus, two different methods have been used, and the results have been the same. That is, such communications towers do not impact the value of surrounding properties. Given this conclusion drawn from the two study areas and a through review of the proposed tower location, it is my opinion that the presence of the proposed Wake County Tower Facility, a one hundred and eighty ( 180 ) foot communications tower, would not impact the value of surrounding property or adversely impact the natural progression or planned use and development of surrounding properties. J.F.Smothers&Cagy IMPACT INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO US 401 FUQUAY-VARINA (-WAKE COUNTY ),"NORTH.CAROLINA SECTION # 4 CERTIFICATION AND LIMITING CONDITIONS J.F.Smathas&Company CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the'reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a.predetennined:value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,-the attainment of.a stipulated result, or the.occurrence of a subsequent event. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and all comparable properties. Jo eph F. Smathers, Jr. J eph F. S thers, Jr. subscribed and sworn to before me this 02/ day of /PoPe/hd£Xe , 1997. ole,/40-4/ aedhfi tary Public My Commission Expires: /7 4). _/./.,20040 Mott aft oft. s "1UIL%0 .r iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .r.F.Smothers&Company • CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS I have been requested by 360°. Communications to estimate the impact of communication tower construction and operation on neighborhood property values in an area surrounding the proposed communication tower delineated in this report. 1. The information on which this report is based has been obtained from public and private sources normally used and considered reliable. 2. No opinion of a legal or engineering nature is intentionally expressed or implied, and no responsibility is assumed for matters of this nature. 3. No survey was made especially for this report. Property lines, area calculations, etc. of record or otherwise provided, are assumed to be correct. 4. The maps; plats, and exhibits included herein are for illustrations..only, as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within this report. -They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose. 5. The undersigned reserves the right to alter his opinion on the basis of information withheld from him, or not discovered during the normal course of research and investigation. 6. In the event that any material data provided in this report is found to be inaccurate, the sole liability of J.F. Smathers & Company is to provide an amended report based upon the corrected data. 7. Liability of J.F. Smathers & Company and employees is limited to the fee collected for preparation of this report. There is no accountability or liability to any third party. 8. No part of the contents of this report shall be disseminated to the public, to a governmental body, or any other private company or persons.without prior written consent and approval of the author. 9. Acceptance of and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of these conditions. J.F.Smothers&Company Preliminary Consultation - Limited Assignment BellSouth Mobility Cellular Tower Sites (market analyses to determine impact of property values in proximity to tower sites)„ fr THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP GN,cb, _ 12 THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPLING GROUP AN ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS COMMERCIAL.RESIDENTIAL APPRAISERS&CONSULTANTS W.S.SrnPUNG.MAI 3960 CROOKED CREEK t;,&o WAYNE S,Aw Sum 20 Wu Toco STRIPLING NORCROSS.GEOtCiA 30C92 RORAN B.NOON )404)449.1600 HOwARD F.STEPHENS 21 April 1996 FAX:4494110 Mr. T. Michael Tennant Alston & Bird One Atlantic Center • 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 Re: Preliminary Consultation - Limited Assignment BellSouth Mobility Cellular Tower Sites (market analyses to determine impact of property values in proximity to tower sites) Dear Mr. Tennant: As requested, we have viewed three BellSouth Mobility cellular tower sites and have conducted market investigations of sales of residential property within the areas of the tower sites. As agreed upon, and in keeping with your needs, this limited assignment is presented in a letter format. More extensive information is maintained in the appraisers's files. The purpose of this assignment is to assist in locating, and negotiating future and/or potential tower sites throughout the Metropolitan Atlanta area. This is an on-going effort and is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable near-term future. Subject Description f r Three sites were designated as case studies for this project. The.first site is designated as Site Atl. "BBBE-1".and is located at 6300 Spalding Drive within the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Holcomb Bridge Road and Spalding Drive. The tract is designated as tax parcel 6-313-9 by Gwinnett County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Ray James Inc. • The second site is designated as Site Ad. BBC3 and is located at 4968 Bush Road within the south-east quadrant formed by the intersection of Medlock Bridge Road and Bush Road. The tract is designated as tax parcel 6-300-216, Gwinnett County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Jesse Stanfield Burch Trust. Page 2 Mr. T. Michael Tennant 21 April 1996 The third site is designated as Site Atl. "ND" and is located at 2526 Chattahoochee Drive along the north side of Chattahoochee Drive northeast of Georgia Highway 120. The tract is designated as tax parcel 7-204-4, Gwinnett County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Haggai Institute, et al. Analysis Procedure and Purpose The intent of this consultation is to determine what effect, if any, does the existence of a BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have upon surrounding residential property values. Site Ad. "BBBE-1" - 6300 Spalding Drive - Tax Parcel 6-313-9, Gwinnett ' This tower was constructed on 1 October 1992. In order to determine the,overall impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon 8 improved residential, condominium sales. The utilized data range in time from May 1990 to November 1994 which effectively frames the tower construction date. A brief summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More specific details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the relative location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter.' Sale Date House size/s.f. Sales Price Price/s.f. Location 1 5/90 1,937 $109,500 $56.53 4039 Deerings Drive 2 6/91 1,610 $105,000 $65.22 6381 E. Deer Hollow Way 3 - 3/92 1,573 $ 91,500 $58.17 6530 Deerings Lane 4 8/92 1,537 $ 83,500 $54.33 6518 Deerings Lane 5 10/92 1,937 $110,000 $56.79 4072 Deerings Drive e 6 6/93 ' 1,937 $130,000 $67.11 6413 W. Deer Hollow Way 7 7/94 1,937 $117,000 $60.40 6409 W. Deer Hollow Way 8 11/94 1,652 $115,000 $69.61 6519 Deerings Lane The utilized data ranges from $54.33 per square foot to $69.61 per square foot. The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 4,.indicate an overall average of$58.56 per square foot and the data items subsequent to the tower construction, Sales 5 - 8, indicate an overall average of$63.48 per square foot A comparison of these two subsets indicates an overall average increase of approximately 8%. Various comparisons among the two subsets indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1% to a high of approximately 28%. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and on-going presence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on surrounding and adjoining residential property values. Page 3 Mr. T. Michael Tennant 21 April 1996 Site Atl. BBC3 - 4968 Bush Road - 6-300-216, Gwinnett This tower was constructed on 1 September 1990. In order to determine the overall impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon 6 improved residential sales. The utilized data range in time from August 1986 to December 1993 which effectively frames the tower construction date. A brief summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More specific details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the relative location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter. Sale Date House size/s.f. Sales Price Price/s.f. Location 1 8/86 1,911 $126,100 $65.99 5049 Old Ivy Road 2 7/88 2,565 $142,000 $55.36 3772 Summertree Court 3 8/90 1,834 $117,400 $64.01 4989 Old Ivy Road 4 10/90 2,364 $123,000 $52.03 5019 Old Ivy Road 5 2/91 1,712 $117,000 $68.34 4969 Old Ivy Road 6 12/93 1,764 $115,000 $65.19 3803 Summertree Court The utilized data ranges from $52.03 per square foot to $68.34 per square foot. The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 3, indicate an overall average of$61.79. per square foot and the data items subsequent to the tower construction, Sales 4 - 6, indicate an overall average of$61.85 per square foot. A comparison of these two subsets indicates an overall average increase of approximately 1%. Various comparisons among the two subsets indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1% to a high of approximately 24%. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and ongoing p1`csence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on surrounding and adjoining residential property values. fr Page 4 Mr. T. Michael Tennant 21 April 1996 Site Atl. "ND" - 2526 Chattahoochee Drive - 7-204-4, Gwinnett This tower was constructed on 25 October 1993. In order to determine the overall impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon 6 improved residential sales. The utilized data range in time from February 1993 to December 1994 which effectively frames the tower construction date. A brief summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More specific details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the relative location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter. Sale Date House size/s.f. Sales Price Price/s.f. Location 1 2/93 2,644 $143,700 $54.35 2332 Villabrooke Court 2 8/93 1,932 $124,400 $64.39 3615 Longlake Drive 3 9/93 2,504 $149,900 $59.86 3630 Longlake Drive 4 12/93 2,044 $132,200 $64.68 3620 Longlake Drive 5 12/94 2,262 $164,700 $72.81 2454 Kingsbrooke Court 6 12/94 2,324 $151,800 $65.32 2467 Kingsbrooke Court The utilized data ranges from $54.35 per square foot to $72.81 per square foot. The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 3, indicate an overall average of$59.53 per. square foot and the data items subsequent to the tower construction, Sales 4 - 6, indicate an overall average of$67.60 per square foot. A comparison of these two subsets . indicates an overall average increase of approximately 14%. Various comparisons among the two subsets indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1.50% to a high of approximately 34%. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and on-going presence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on surrounding and adjoining residential property values. If Recapitulation In regard to these three sites, based on the utilized data and the various analyses employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers's that the construction and on-going presence of BellSouth Mobility cellular towers have no adverse effect on surrounding and adjoining residential property values. This conclusion is further evidenced by the fact that in regard to all three sites herein analyzed, on-going residential development and construction have been the norm and general overall increases in property values have been realized. Page 5 Mr. T. Michael Tennant 21 April 1996 This business is appreciated, and we trust that this information is satisfactory and serves your purposes. Please do not hesitate to call if any further assistance is required. Sincer/el�, W. S. Stripling, MAI Certified Real Estate Appraiser GA#211 AerAt Wi I Todd 'plan Certified Real Estate Appraiser GA#1291 WSS:WTS:mjl R Attachments • it CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses. opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. The compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client. the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 5. The analyses.opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 6. A personal inspection has been made of the property that is the subject of this report. 7. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing. this report. The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and SRA's who meet the minimum standard of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. As of the date of this report, I. W.S.Stripling, MAI have completed the requirements under the •continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE Disclosure of contents of this appraisal report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected) or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI or SRA designation shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media.public relations media,news media,sales media or any other public means of communication • without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned A"- 1 St.v.ph William Todd Stripling W.S. Stripling, MAI Certified Real Estate Appraiser Certified Real Estate Appraiser Ga. #1291 Ga. #211 THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The property description furnished the appraiser is assumed to be correct. 2. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature. 3. This appraisal assumes that the fee simple title to the property in question is marketable and unencumbered. 4. Any sketch or map in this report is included only to assist the reader and no responsibility is assumed for its accuracy. 5. The appraiser assumes that the soil and subsoil conditions are in harmony with the highest and best use. No geological reports have been furnished the appraiser. 6. Although the appraiser has made, insofar as is practical, every effort to certify as factual and true all data set forth in this report, no responsibility is assumed for the accuracy of any information furnished the appraiser either by the client or others. If for any reason, future investigations should prove any data'to be in substantial variance with that presented in this report,the appraiser reserves the right to alter or change any or all conclusions and/or estimates of value. 7. In the event that litigation is involved,court preparation,i.e.,meetings with clients and/or other involved parties,preparation of exhibits,pre-trial conferences and actual courtroom testimony, the fee is S800.00 per day and $125.00 per hour or any portion thereof. 8. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. 9. Additional copies of this report will be furnished at a cost of S100.00 per report, plus any additional expenses which may be incurred. 10. This report may not be used for any purpose other than as stated in the report, by any other than the client(s)without previous consent of the appraiser and his client(s),and then only with the proper qualification. 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report,rthe existence of hazardous material,which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraisers are not qualified Soils Engineers, nor have we been provided information concerning soils testing, unless otherwise stated. Therefore,we assume,unless noted,that there is no existence of such materials on or in the property. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation,or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 12. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property's value, marketability, or utility. THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP • Attachments K • • THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPLING GROUP Site Atl. "BBBE-1 6300 Spalding Drive - Tax Parcel 6 _L3-9, Gwinnett • ,.• .lN" E'r.t�i • i• •• +Y•�vl • `•.. fix:• ..::�` g: r. 3� t•i '``Y1 j1-;n! • 1.1614 • �._+ _ .'..� • � g` • • • A . �y: c►• : �1• • < - I 11. THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP Survey - Site Atl. "BBBE-1" • r 4 r ...�. r,M �■ f •• • f •• • �. -. II'jiiiI1Iji1iiijiiiiiI1 ff + r•1! i,lic(ililtfil iiliii ' I fli. 1! I'i .I ;.i tl I • .• Y..I i'tutij;;t,1I:il,1111de. t 1 !ii1l;lil: - 't ' t t, : ,..... �' II ��II' giiiiiiiil+il1ii l illf',9iallidlt,;�ll. 1 1 i r I r . I U II Ihi!iitIiI1ii!ii, I!iih:tI1 . rig. i,�+lillli�.I :ilil = 'Il (i ; li ; l! 1 i'ti'Ijii�''isili''i1t'I+{+ t. = _r.% ‘l" • .1 i lif.ii,•til+l;!iltill.111 ; •l ,1 ii.14.1;40;l j.; y a d ' 1.111 11•'1 ' :s.11i i • l.11t . �.,i• f• . E i ti - I I t. :1 f 1 l •. I+ t+:1 f if li iitd + a 1l1 :fif;lllit1l1ili1;llEI;j: !II NIIIIidt'I�iiIHii:l!lli, ga W i 1.=I f it: •.s' Is i i 1 ti I '1 t • gil ,. `s .. li; l 'iiII!• \1• 1141 if II !i14111 "I .1, lig • d • ~l• • 11 I 'iPi ill • • tA\likt 41r -. imay// ` e . 4..1. .4.. . -.•Jt11 t. ......�.--,Ia.-. .16'I I i '+ •.• I. tut /l •t ♦. - II 1 1 • , - • ' •!`. .:.- • .!�.:! It. • \ afti ..t'. t.Iy •—M. . i' •.444{- • II is • ' 1 Iii, I Mil ,\ . . \ tl \*1 ...itke ..# 1 li . riilikk • lik4... - 7%:—.--"‘'*. i..-.4 .7.:-.,,.. .. it.- sa ' r \� •..••. _ . ._. / of till_ • ( . 1 P' ii Iii. • • •Et • i Ic• 1lit Et Ilii .. • .ti4-:.a4i?; • -, :k.-.!..Alrot THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP 1 - • ni • lel 11. . 1 ./r 1 i tirs-40-wc4 z.4,46" . :00230414t•N ' 144 r ..L. i so. ,,-,, - 'AP-4,4'4:k ti.A..,. cr.° 41VI 44.1.1 I . i pi"k--41 • t 2 .S• ti ag Kr 1S B 1 1 U 3 ./• • te81 ..."......-.......111I• .... ..ik. • illiki , *' so 1 . C'2 �'�' fa � hiata L/N�t A z R M far> , ..., fa • o Its k r� = hp, .,1 A 0.•2 I n afre D n I I.1a E et 9./•.tt .�{,tttlH• Ili �_I 4e41 0. .... • Wes"._ I c i . ..„ T Z • . • okl‘ Ilk • CC 0 IF nit� /r - tat Iq 1"a [et.Mu au/ • -•- s/6 rMs N C.COM. yr /,,,,. lVt Ir' IG su *s•• ) - N/ tt;♦lfN • R-100 / /. • NI� ro iY ![.HAtl �t14 i�� ..[/eC i��.N�t = .o K[ �I a r- m Lae*CT RZT 01_,I ,.IN, Atm rats Subject Location Map - Site Ati. "BBBE-L �/�,. ' I W v� - till• VII.• : • z 83 , i WILM R 0". r •• -i of E �4 _ c1 � '-. -�•.xt' " GLEN�c 347 h` 1 Y *Flak r 1 a TM.... 13, w'G� !� ' ',Y• -` �"•=..• sslkC CR :.. \ CREEKSIDE fl - le N . BURNS .t _.7 L *..:,. -i•a V b �hi._ .4 25 F. CT '<•.�`. 4,4 Pe MSo g-Y • v�•, x I.. e+ ci CKAMOOD !0 r 9. ELF. 4 C SDI • 5.- `(i�uE � =.NetwAY - • — , a o_� 4� IOEO!' t w % *c la MA• 41 14 4. G - OR'.•- ' „b @S 3'�l 4..c.13 , ENE A\d•" •P 0w _' , tr by �, Milt �5 ,� p' L r .r ! QlN A /lj *+ i A. V try r is • 4:4 6 J O14/1. a. so' 4 'O 'f.40 • '►( Nib . ..' • 41111. i cr o -Y . R r• 4 yr— e 4. 444,, p4g 9. .off. �. yf4 !0 A IIw 346 `*y .� `0� `'O ���� o 4r;:nr, ! W �` I MAKER .� - �. ."~�. ' 1 �, �,• � �� �0� 0 �.tf tow SEE 82�• EE 6\ INSET! , _g CC' G� RIDQ(/ej �.±. �'" 0.: SA• A`. v* PAGE 14 I� 345 4c,.. z* fy '`"` e31y} see 586 ? a� • 333 �F s. ♦1 z gt3Ve BRIt 440G Zd �G ecC,c?'� !* ..¢rG f *$�cs �c! % Guy 830 E79 CC.' co t ` ` y��e�'tY r Nff f A I. ! 'Ycy 4 ` tR` COTLIBII rn 883 1 r-t ;4 ! 'Teo f4 OUAS O� Y rV G ti !,� 3 MAyt • 9] :s Fiko 0a00 O try. 4. , 0�etiCi BED N eia , S^ 34'K. no R s �1. y a. ����Q r BENaQtCT C 344-. _ AEG s3. t et t @OA�1,,AF•op, /c R`Oc ��`' y I. SO fai. �C.� ..... 344 f,A ' -j— t:_ A- •` cC. '�< se '0 re cry,. `.1 • �� ---• i¶.. 0-*Es •yt8- vtZ • G,\0 Z �r c'; ALLENNue' 0• c EE y i,...4 O TON Z °g'' .' 2131 883 936 I �Co 004Ct' 1 e / `e6� • BR07trON,.' - OHofcomb e 4 C O. vie%OR �^$ v' a s : MARy 4 C c. 4,eT!S�' Brtdp�i. - �'S'p�0 �Oc� E �lF N . d��v� :ON' yG`�oo9�, f CT 4. (1, t 34 • -• fie 0i .. •�\2 - 'ciltF.•0! • s �314s5G.A. cf'-,c* °�y0 1.o° Cr 6�.. �a i 0 48,4 fAL•c _ Arft !< „E y E LA L 0t < •PJf +! e `, ` p Ike, .141, 3 3 5 Oar pet— << MEADOW_ ® �o rRf e: ti • , ,yEa c W•irc SO¢et $ c �.ti_'wittrutts,LA titik O 4 3 3� : '\ oCNa <IA * 'MIA'% µOµ_S►+tow. z_..6RAN° . z4.V ..e ` i `^ - �� • ;paid n@ Cornet 0 'ei 9 4.. '' <Np5Et:0M • A• <- aP a10 eT AVERA H..c: `. `f• t - Sop Our. G�4 a fr et pit � o-, CT ,. • *Tts .•• �9i LA 303 GN SCR` Ia�i . `��Oei !y ir9 �. y �.t Gl�E,51 . , g ,k �� e�S\ ;-.3. �*EE '�� <y�!' cfo. '< �t ,G*QS ti a� hone �ROS 40 tt, EC'"a 2 z fi�ie$C� NES@fr 4 0.0„c„ 'tee GT E. OEfR O%Co ' . N cf ( rid er d.e to *y ,g0�' s .�s; Ls `Ou5col RRr 4:30.\NSZ :I. of S! . te, Owl 4 4sie`. �"0 -•., a.;30_4 �o 41, 0e o o' ' 1 +'��EosyAQ 4.'a <<l eenn@t y i.'° o �rOCP f? ��� � �� -.y 7''t PA 312 . e`F. ' C CS C•. t 313 0g .Nc c c� 0!` r, i1nl,QV', * •m Sch��b 4' ,� C�" c` 1 dr 312 `'� et► f' `� �,�+�� �' 0 TCREEK :;14.11.C.A.: ATAI ple 4.;`,..3. ,tx Q. '4�SL =' �e��, 'rf\ f (�JJ ye°!' y oR. 'l1GspRLO 4 $ r! 305 apt,. .`�i� r Q�► �4y 7-a. _,ray p 0 �a�". (;w�sE �0 f 0 1ma 44 fte 8c: - �.i.• y • t � I ' jt� y y _ •,, ®NO 11�1 • - S�:l N • Ioa5c t: ey .. �,L iao ee�e � �', Q�N ra .t*S r 1y' u mot• ,��,or 4,� o„% • Qo cT o ck 4. g ..:e4°'".� •+r• �D. 2S3 etea '7 mow, !A .+F ` .6 et OP t` ��g lC v+ QAy�.a e O 0 4 i t`. .R •fe• ea 0 ` !' l 'b Oa AV - u 1'F -,. ` w,. c C 41o,OR - i Y f Q.,h Q, d9 T de 1...F f fNTAINEo t-;- i•�!A 4. ei Cr N S LAW �(/,y,\�►,• d0�� Ms • • $ Lt U t g g;�1,:,f MA.K ',,. 0! cs+ 10:048 efe col TREE •i I i0 INfBLEAu a� �4• ,° � CSUM►T" } 74\11 - � ge M 282 �@s•,T� H�[CQ/y�no 5 3°- s�.t "< ' \ CONCEPTS 21 , SII" I 1 J04 -•Phi 4,i*00 ' F. 'c�C '� ♦ Cfe �, it n e 0 co ASHLEY e' ►® Q\ !!*O" ` 75 i� a rJ eL111E J • RUN CT S'ti at0 4 �s Q. I. pCE, -v 4.+ -c - . • 1 �/ 10. Di s 28 R Kitt Rt .A eT�f `�A^ MK OR .a1 s . / cAS. Cent t • THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPLING GROUP • . • .. *. :Ms* ,,two 41.se. e . r ' 1 gos sie ti,_ • . . alieR"igirif tAp.- '444 rie4: a Et R. iiile/ ...i. so ),;.%,ct gYL'iarrAtili?:17� —�xi. . . r,•ran. % ...2 �V}� e —7- 4.4• __ . _ _. b PI afro M H lams tr r �9 • z R M' go t� Vit • I • . sw •ff III 511 nr Ili t N CO) li t I I.f tt• I �..� lit Q ge •iic �' • I MO n M dowirlihaiti... iii Learn • ^ t• CO M .as ass _ 1, ® ® n PC A �' NS lies• •f. ~111 PO + 'gemtaffft~••wlraf t•Mff 8•LOW 14 o .� JOIMMINIIIII „inC 2 a n -8 CO ease limos to .1146".< **t �•trot r' ar— is , row1 �.A ,^/. • (T•MI Z. r.aa •.MAGI ,.. ••" IA I I t` ;►•+rest• away Las act a4 �' ,iip12I� 1Q n.' He' m .I M Site Atl. BBC3 - 4968 Bush Road - Tax Parcel 6-300-216, Gwinnett • •\ • , • Aef. .•• • rtta. • • • • lt•P‘• • • •04. • •- • •• t• %.' • •-•r. '! ".tc• • .1 " .; s •••• . • -• •• 7.441/4 . "vs •acr•-t_- Of • • k.•. ": •- • . •z- • ••i• ,.t •-tr • r • •- .•• •• .Y- . • Y.1•• 44. 67 • .2. AI'. . • - • • 1•.• ;r • AP • • • • •.1 ••• * • '••;''•4 4 . : a_ 71 a•L ; • • _ , . Of • - - : - • • • • THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP • . (A:t,;(..... • . y l /4" • �' ,.. • LOCATION MAP N.T.9. • I. eusK Ro, o s� ... ■�w•• i •• • r••r.r..r•r I.Ina r....r r • .7•.. •r•w.••r+.'�r•rrr•.� �• J w.•.• .a .. •.•...�tiu.w..rrr•r u...•..w -.-........•�...............• Y▪� _.wrm MI.____/.r. - w ,..... .•.••••••NB 0 Om in a 4r.•am.w Nr r I•...•r Cl)0 s PI 1 • - ii L.• w.r•.••....•....w:.-....i•.•...�....•r r•.�. 'r t7i w.t.`• ..., 7 ' t4= w..• .'.'.t-.. •▪ rr•••••••+•••I•i••it•••.r• •- / ,,•. / F� . r •rr,r rww rw.,... • •a , •••\I• .`•'.tf'• •SIT/ Y r�.1• M.,.r. 1 ~.i 8.■ai.•■••••r•r•�•r+:rr ' _fr•• ▪rrr r••.•rr r=•r••r. L a• .rr •ter : it mwas.00••••w�► •+•ram r r r r w • .. • u•.••..•+• wt, f r I 1 C Mf•t/•••r•• M.1400, on, Mr•••i.•f..00■t•~•••••••. • V w.wra w••.r�AA.....•.s...... .\ �' I 1 . •••.•+n w w.r•r • �,�,Y•,� —.II • SITE �aaE�." • 0.1402 ACRES -- --................ r . . • area !soy.FT.I , • • I r.. • • SUBJELCT Qx104s Acmes •••., BELL60tN 1T MO® IN Il.1TY, G. , PROPER TYi. .I . . . a•osa ea T ..O.F • . • - 0 r1 r d_ 1.4. I . ...''r C«.Kese.ea Walla---- =-Mw•,-;os.r+_rrr ; • ift act it 11 g a I -, *N.V. . � ' is -� �\*"41 . . -�� i�i �WIliker�u..,,�■I :�=q N . . • ..1 4itstg nitif&410 °P 9 'n*,1111....A.N. if jam' - ..,. i . inkmi - :mu. WWII WIMP 3 I ,'..1161, 1 C144 Ar446;1414"'.Thatir 11)111111ill a I AU I 11111 lifirg " 'ketSr. Itit 1 ' AM.. Acilligicil 11,4 ;" IL Altti . tlier - • . .1., 141414:1111" i t 0. ; i r■ r .�a ! � i0. Ifilf!/�'7 44" 40 JAVI . 3t k1 10• i I ,..I.1.1.i.4_.1•, rr 1: i s ■ x' ,,, 1 • ,1 �1 • = M/r ..1iIM ? wwit • v a. CO0 ' 1.7, du".ZVI ... A•11 ." FX.77 itillitikra 8 c.. v 'gliihk.. .,.., 1iiilkCid 6 + ! r-. obit i - 1E I 03 0311 a� 3- rr i,u I../,* eto a. . j ' 1 �i U t c I i `• Ilea Pfril'. 1 {.V N r16% 6 in:" . 0 :. f . 4 11 riZe4 ,1441,"! NI .3 er ,,,: a il 'Pliir • "FrtPtc),- - affAtrtor 1 I. 1. . 13.1.4,ril am... i .nr• . . _1 iau \ --7,. �� \ ` --- - -/ � ± -i—�—I- -- - - T-- Subject Location Map - Site AU. BBC3 ' ; w wiz.% ii, :. • � EAt-2,. fE .Y-��± 0Rv-- i As F • � � OCEE-• wti " ` ' " - _ J � - /,''`:. ''r •e- � 4 .1c _. — ' '• 1 °" a =. ',Jr. 4 .'•• e fluk 49..ris:! • Cr �.� Y 348.4 �c .0 \� 4,,` 0. 329 ` .Icdtack ,. t a Br;dS Q It :.c CO '.0-Shining?\ H or;ii, `�y�� •�K05 �or� GO& �C1h. ,DR' I.NTY G• Ow. �de y CA • �EO:S•t`ManOQI�J� i�4 ., Q �a C4iti� 1► ®CNN 0 .. �i er,. eto.0 • `oow, �i, .se,,° 33.* tq dIl `\ , c`► u.k t C0. t c �� % °�` w*� 3 3 �.4 . a ., 0 ,r F� w - °o OJ .) �c :J �i*. G� N.> bpi�►`f?� �v 4 CS' if. °`'C' 1tf' ,, g O LSO 9� `� v`z`�`' W E. Cik G‘f` } •O A•`1�� .. • Gt `. `.Iia 09 347 o-0 1 y AP NAP 4. e' O _•. �` ` E..0 % 4$3 94 -R u . •AC£ f:TtnT:S tom N, ,. . ALL 0,4% ,r` is• `!'l, 0 3 •itel;I�.: •. Z G ° 4.• 319 4000 •,¢ f0` ®N�O��fi �►.Ct s �'� 'A�• Q� �r'94'.f' Ise ®��CL 9� o Z �•, r o Q• µ Z f'P 9 5 ;N\ .; I.L,T ...T/�''? Cole, e t1i t`Q� �O 3C® 7 F 24 0 . alOE 0 `4. o„ a �EF,i Sy t R S} 4 Q o = $ 1� 3 ,��c C o �,�� f�.i• ., p or M i r° !'ES i`,Q`�� w r CS x C' �` 0. *r O 9 tt` +Y f+ _. 1 1NG A P <rr w "•. - ." it C'�+9 S wi T,�` ,PAY ri `�i���' c . PO �CT„ 4' RIVER MOL/8�0I . l' !'' jA �04 4-'P.. Ov . - . el �! OQ•" i ..W s%A � W 1 i �,• 4,ir t- 4 n rl O 0v I i .0 vreOR e'r a CI �v y.Of;a 1 (10 ,6T 0 ?NA" es 00f.Ot .s ,rJNi .t • A. C GA Z� .t,S-P !.e 41- r} 3. �°R�®Gfa�•r�� + °` ' ;s EH � _ � `ctG T" //318 �o• °a t' 0 I Z rQ•ie 8RtIs0 0 g••.,t. . wtD - to °l� Z 3 y���'•>��fi! rC t O1AL�;`Z�A • ;/, B COVE Jt1 • ?Co �.pG.,1y'/iu� g74 / art 0b 0'% ga. es \ !,r 0� POI"' i �/ t y • r r 4 Ala. COLBERT e c, ' O� zz.•7•• W Fi it %/Ti^• N', ir �/ tag tRL -�_ CT •'4is. °F. 300 •P° c'. ,� s ; '-•NAYLOR C �a ®�. IS• 'GE o1 M'y ♦ < lE n k•eycillr E02 G CO' N 8 Nt(;E CORA, SMILLERS CO-.' OS t 44./.. BE�� N 41�a tcdh ems,s Qct. et. O •i �` N ��W,r' C, ZL+201 CT Oa 3 o �, L_ #.�• ` *0. < . LL CT BOST (CK•':.� A• NdtOftel � o��a*f 0 e0.0 e • TO CT•{. �'�i.`'� z Q�'C'� ••_ �+ to s �E'M. ,-.F..• r �. Z !'P V ALL Nx s t0'61 O8E tf �6` Cp o.G. vM �A s-,I •• Pw�•� • y RORT0 •• TON . GO F`o•1 y It. �f r,� '� - K 6 �287 Eti �'i` .. L Cr s�° �e r CrRf`N do��S `•. Ct ;� o At i�,y o„$ SII� �'°�!;p o ray4. Cp�4OtO uNJ 3` 302 �0 �� N NA,..N w• �Al,10 w.-.. • f• C�0 p0`. "Ce c,4,,- = t 0 c OATA° Peach lost .13 y 4j'�,.�^ �. ° �' T'�c, '~ `"��,+�� ` SPALDINe �P r O. MONTaosE�Pinckne.•citto e. i �rTNURS LA. ..'L� 4- 4 40+• e�'' POa • • J' 286 110 t OLD rEACltiltEE ire-GRAND• wt .AIR t" Lib 4 ��+ 46:4OR ` .6." AL de Peadikiel • v. re • hertz f, Vie►e, 0 p S ON RESET`-t • Cen` Aii l arid r r9' 0 e' y e�„ °. �'„y . ' - r NV* ESl' rJ'• = �, • eilntsQPeA%a -,•'304 "•0'4'e tp -- tip o„ w ••••` 285 • f 'r v�y �J'1 aak®• Itr•1Q �O mo, o* �Tt• , CONs�. to`gyp t .% -oe•- OE c,..- it P•: tura a Cr t 1.. .- • .41illp, . • f VTCREEK ° �� ,� 0lp `'Psi ��O * f1E u • �_S Cl" 0. 9 ; ,` HNOL!,- ,r� i�1 �P�' wr�:jv .t. srwsa e` ���- . PARK �QS ' TENOT •t oR . 00 e .• V' �p g ES GN - EA �4 C►P 272 .4�. s': COR04, NER /THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPLING GROUP improves . Aaenuai bales L,ocauon map - Site . .. MMMSC. ) • 444 . / 4% I of ..1.. TIT le 1,1 Ol• CIRCL 4~ �e�saI co -.- `S 1 • 4. • TMS act ,111..onowa14.0* R-I00 [LT:evSN n. • •Lilt°• t r•. 1/ r M �' �� p• 1M' R' C • E.y p` !! � 1_ !1 ! !3.! 1 = rr or ,swa ;. J a m .w . • E Y w• 7 ... .al i p• OI.D 11R R0. W .t „ y 3 IT 1► ,.r e ! u r �1 R • In al Z`1 t eireg: I i -Lr ~ ' . w ITf� :0 a virago ()'1i _ !! 30 !1 • st "� .-\ 4 r .. w01 yCOTT$ TILL ia on 5. a ss �r i jN ` la w O 4z O LL M• 0 dim �' .MCfSL) °"Y' Y SSW i .. ti / ir • {� 74 . 1114Sit �� • :N.1 A .+u• r W •IMl,\ Ili i ~ 101A0 .i rff Nt L..+ .■ is 0 •!10 ' w 1pil w t�.i r - : I so 1. .. r . r•„ SAWS• 1N L,t1 1%.11), '•: ': imt.s.r al ik 1111010cT • W S.t...ON OO m PS.: •t A4I1W\lo.y., am •,*Ac at- s,:r:i:.1•,a• p.Jt --1 --V.....p' .4.ak;t p,"6.l 7A.r." Au, o / .:41111.W. .1 Naltr.... ..: RZT . - illiN4r ' 07: t ►tei r' .t imam CUM TI1. f - alOS • nr lar NMt"�.a s50 f•+• CM121 Iu as U 114 .. P . AM allIM WI INI • MI illiAlir 301 300 •� i . 8.14 :0112 0 7 . 1 • • THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP Site Atl. "ND" .526 Chattahoochee Drive - 7404-4, ..winnett . ` ;. tip, • A .. L :.:__,,......: . . __ .• ,.. ... _ . • . L . • ....;._-. ,..40 1 ,i •• •. . • . •. .. :. _1 ......e . . ,d. 1-314. j .;45- F •t •• • .''. •. t�L• T '� ..l" - '` • • • • • • • THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPLING GROUP - _ :; ;„ �.�: - y • .r A......_... . . —•—/•—• • ••i•-••t•—/•i/_-_-'..-..._..—.._..•,-•.•_.-.••—.....1II••!... 1:).04:.1,:1•5•.3l772t:.11i:'71. C.'--4,e.Sr7'..17A'i• " S..14'ZA•11N.1.1: .=i . • 1. r•wr or . . J ' /r •• . ......_ • i Ctl....:17 :.-1.::::::;' / / .• .r ▪ .r•N.wr IMa 0 Ms Pr r.ir w IN.M1 '+/�e/ 1��N • / M•w •.•••r ••�•r•/rare r• • r!�oro / _. I•••.• • •f1•• • _ / • rr.rrrr ▪••ram••••••••••••r^••••W r00 M N•rem.•Moro o• C/1 •V •••.•,• / / •w•r•••r rooms••••+.rw•r• V� C • • •••,. Orr M••r •+•r+•••.row Wrier ••• f / • / 1 ••••r"•••••r••w r w••••••N••••i•r.•••••r•.r.r •e•• •--""- // / Iti .. Io.// / rN••MI••wre�..M• •r W 7•rW pN• w••r / • .,l��• •1 / / WNr M••••••••rr r••r r r•r�+w y /� ,, .• . •.j• •'•• . '11• r r!r .. r �_�• I/I , wrrww•••••i••••••.rit rr w w.�W r.•ri . _ �1 •Tr� •r•Nr r• •••r rem•••r•r••r•r•+' i (10 6. �/ /•/..":�•• •••' •,l `•tf.•.rG� — 1rrr rr.••••r•••••rw•«•••;.z .:r••error.•wi Ir. "� / • }....... ..j•• .. ;.• ^ , ' Or+.r M rr.•=•r•w•••..wi�Nun w r rare i w • _/ / r•• •• ',w • \\ /rr •�1�«• I••M..•••Weir r••i W••M••r•ir •r. • •L� C. Y • •• • - or'r re r— • I•M WI•r •n•w• MMrrr. ••r�. w• I••r (� ▪ erle Pt...op A roar •rearm n w 06 on �� _�, ....... •• �I M 11•••.••A I• •NA•i••H••••N••wMr•/r I • - • • • • r 1 • •••••M N mow Mr•Mrrr r w w/r r r we •tee•• •�• ••••r••Y r , I Wrr•�iNr••r••r MMrN••M••••r �•• ••••••••Mr•Mawr M r.r M r•rr. r ^� r r.r. Oros r•err. • sOf lam RAILWAY IOO•II/VI I +I • wlw.wrwnnalael+. Q. • I • •••r•r•• _.I ,II • 1 rrrrM•w•r • • •••• BELLSOUTH MOBILITY.INC. •wM r•r• a ••e••••N••••• •(�•rJ• L; •4r . •.•�•• H rew••Mr•Orrr••r I.�l�/ Ir.". arr. r woe r MN. Mr Or r M r, ••.r M•rM•Ir•...•If. •leer•••.Ie•r Mr OroSrMile `, 1MI Of SO M••M• .r.11•.1. WM• • rr MI••• Or W .Neer r M•••.••r•••M••••••• M •N_M Mr rr goer w••r•• ••rw Mr••.rrr• •••r 1 ••1 •W r r •r•M• a for.. ••• ..y r..•r Mr••r r rr • �•w•..rrAr•�N••yr.••1»1. rrwnrli rrrr•r�•rrrr r rrrrr•••r r rN.W w:r. «•r w M••••r w�•rr••wwwr LAB•1—fed. CMYIL[!®Y[tYN t��•¢�•9r�r{ ••M1N•r.M••.i'. ._.••••••r rr. • ..1...•. roll,.r•r..r r r••• ••M• w••••.•r•. •r W•w•M•.. • �.N M•I I•R _ ND wM M•w••••r. ww•MM r••e • rr r•.•M•1 • •r• Mr W •r r••••rr w _� F. •-- ••o="•M•••Mere••• ••• Wks errs•.r l Nrr•••r r error M _ .•• •.•wrNr rI••••••'r•••M�/•r•r r•r.•rr. •r •r.IM•M• .. ••• •• rN Mr M . . • • . • • 113414 i i . • - . MON •• •• . .. MOO • ''.. . . :lic • • I 4116 • ! . + 114/00e 1 Si • • • . . . • • ..'• • • . P0111;:i iii.i.ii, tivir i I.': :•• • It': '... . be yvtiliat4• .4.1 4,„ti ,,,111;;" ........ .1 *No • '.... • • • .. * 44(4AttA4A•lf; TISIttr/e. /11" Ik‘ffi'04./..,Z1 st,NUct 4.4'.' . • ... ., . ,.. . ,itaar-lip• . . ; i441)- , # 1411.5 i.a111 ,,,,.:114$0,„L.,1* qkiW1714.r.v,121V 04,64r • \..• . ; ..4 , . 11. 4, • .. •... .,,-4... ..1.:' ..• •., 1,j; ir ,,ii i PA Zr sx ............v4 7,1-.i., 1.14;At , ,.. •' ,..,,,. , , . .• .••••+•,N4'r • . .. ,.... ...'i./..:. ..g.I'-4'. ajli '1•''11: ., •IV!L'Ir7-.L'IMAV30114- 41,t7z17.:fr441P4 lft:r 06- vid , '. • P •i• . '' i..;•..: 1,1'. , . . . .1 ' .lig• .o..!... . , .,1 . ,. It./.• •,i:::• . .:..i . . , .,..t.,!,.,,,,:i6u.: ..r. '23.11.1 . .it?,,,R.irrs. • 74q‘. 4.1.11. k.p• tilerip Illi4L2'44-41‘. Let at - , . • . . .i. ....4 , • %fit:. ••• .• • . ., • 0 - I • „• .4. .• . . . ., . ,..... ._ . , T hap . ••..,/,'..'• . k li - 4. .3. 1. V1;411111; ISO. TAuggirzuverior ,tioi,firt.: 11).#,„.. . . . • . , • • • ...fil:-••:. .., •• i • . ' I • - t.••..44;• • 1,. .,tter, ASJ 1 1.-4 1-" 4.•..il't i .i . . ; • . .! 411. -AUV VIP•riat6 44r. *..)1.1111h• .. . •. , ' II . ,tro. • ,. pp. . ..4.1 .4..... ., ,.1.0. .warryt.44A141.I ..1, . ,,.. vitlir ittx-zilc ..5 ..- .. ..co:, •1.:, • . ''.1)1P Iv illiY4144tV .Aetff,.WPIN;,tjt. 1T4 .- 4 -,.._.44,-.0,,N . .. • 1-, • „,.,,,,./„ , ./..„ki ....Till:L.,: .,., . ...5 ...(ct,,, ., . . . ._..nte- ::. ...i..1:. ...i.-.. ;,.• . . .,.; ,...„.1•::::•...„.:.,,i ..... .".2. L....r.b ••"1.1,11..• . ••. • .. 4 • ...:.•. r!), . l' Mkt lk -11...-4:1111W.N1 7:41:it, f 7 0 ,I. ,-. •.,. .... .. ....... . ... :...,..,,,,...„... .,..). •,; . . ,64:4tinetcH4 1:41U.t1. 4 k474.41/ _V' '4.0' 1:0`11:'. .i.vv.Y. VI, ......e „. • :: , •:::,•.... 4,,i. • W. q,.....1, ,,,,..r.... ..:„. , • , ..,., .,,,;,., :: t 6,1?:.,;:,. ; ....goolletriZie:24 .4111114.itrttijV • /41._ rt,,IA 401,db.` n't .;.4144:),,,iviWVI.V eV. "3-11.1-. I 15 15t #141/If 1 4,1:1"..kno 41,1111'..1;.k ,;,/i,. ..ily‘1.111 ir 1 I In .0 e,.. ...c... ., - . . . • • .. .,.!.: .. ,. . ...• - ,. . .1... . p1114fr,glif‘liW. -440,- . i ,,k4411,. ifri, •..i..YJ,1.'410 N-1,-. ‘4)No-'-'4,1144 jelicikj.y.iit tOr -M., ' .10,•. • •;r .1 • • • 01 1,401allb 'AV .9•Itt:54. •-44K,Jk.,0,-, . g. •• ,I,11,, .II i . !.•,•• ,'. : s • .. .:1.....:....... .• .1.!!.. • . • •1.•••,.11! .10.11,311[110i Te 7 •I'a V* ../S0 4`..7- 1.411-' 444/111-Ve Ai. '--(\t"444 ..il "J. . ....4 :.;••••• ., A' tt I.'t i 1.. • :. . -..."1 ..,.;"•'''' '. ;.11. ;;' I ''). . ..-1..,-ii:44:-,.NA €. 1.4:<fr,/c5.4. twl..,„4. .44 4.,ft,.. ,4014 . te :,.,.. .i. .... .4::.-.. ...; • ,.. • • (. ....-.... ..:::,.. .,.. -.i . • :I . .,,r,......--1..,....4,17ris 11.. . , %IL, ..- \tv,,,-..4,:ir‘ . .I*: . _ •• ,. • • r. of! . : . .: i . e!'," ' lt 1. 1 • ... ••. -r- 1. • ,..• ••••.,. , 1 .1•• b! k..,ir 4.. li • . $•• .-0. • Ji •• .1' Th * • • 1* . .' i.' ,...' on •'.:. 0 e,..,;; .. *,. 4..;t14 ,•11-'....;1%.-433,11\11'tilVai,!"Abigt:y:t1;11.4::,11141. 16,?s.‘14441Y)".. I leIrLAO • . , '$. 7414 er.," 1... 4 .: .4..• ; 01 4 1 1 ' t ',i • ..0* 1,4 ' '711 „,,,,,j4 .144V-- : . . l a . . e. .. '"titiff; .:•-•; t . A i•••• 1 .4i.L.I.4j, 1...C•••• 1. .. .', ‘. fjf..!: .1 4„'Pla.t.ell /1.1.% 1\4, .. ••• • , • 4. . . • .I,. •Nr i v.)r•-, .• .i...ri. • itrtr:iii;•1`t •.. . •i . . !I!.. : %. 1C114:‘•,ct.V.4k.lit t.`441--,. •,.,Zigr' 1,0.1: .. r 1 ; •4. A • • 'N.'.' -4" 4,e•- ..e . . ..‘-. • 6. I I! VA...Y.'.: * '.'" ..1. •. .......1;'* .• *; ".14:1"•'"•4;-!....iftts, "1 .• . . 1 '. * .. ' •'l.;,. k1 '...$ ...,;••'.i,4.,••./kt.tir . 44 1. • .• • ,6/•••• r A.t. .• " •• ' • •' . . ...11.• til• .-1-4,.-:4 t -... ."P' 4•444` " • ,,, .1. •rke • .t: .. . ....' • '1;•i • , .' •.• ••,...i :I .•;64.4. !:' ••/;.1 ; 1 .1 , ' • .3.-"• l'i.%••1-.'...1111:-Ir'rlli'll - .I,*. 4# . . ": : %.,,, .1.• • t ...,.: . . f• ..i. 1 • •im• • .•.. . '! 1.:14.%IA:. • l' . '• 1111AV . • I .• • 1 4 41 . ;01 VI •• •, ••/. • • • ;` . • . : 41 •. k , .,- -. . tiitl Y .‘,,,,,,‘7,,vt .•,..0111;tVISVP;3/4•T 1, .I .; :21... •4••••t. 1 . •.•1 .... , - .. .. ;.• • •. • i *4 4 L 4 b.1 VO.V\;-'1 04:..).;)1.0. 11 -1-__. -11,S ;I $7 :,.. . L. • il 0.i• • AL.%'./,4;10 iit•I 4,rt s, ,,,Lts,..1,ktici,p'x*". 0 , '.'. . . • • , ... . . • . ' r ,,,,-0!or!,.,,.1(1•J,S•k-tiLli:5,.• `'''VP . " • • . . ••ire• .1.7 . . •. . . • •• • 1:.,..c : •,.1.,:... . • i ...-, ...;. -. • . .• • • ' • 1. • • 7: ..61AI VI r!II.4;0 voo 04,1t44;,t14 c.1•41 1,V40); LI ii•7s 4-, ,_ AP 1 ............0, .:. P. ••'•i•.• • . , .,.. . . , , . Itti ' '''' 'ills %.44LT.:k!,* . . krellill‘ 4t4T$'44'. • .. . . . . ,.. i • .r•. . - • • it I '''; ..' •;I• V.4-"'Vitt k'','Ik.."" ••• ' Ari5. ILL - di WI:10k 145.4111]!,4ki:M} 12.VVitik . .* •si., ii .• •• i a't --1"; ''' s .111:::' ' . . ' :. •' e 4.41-• .._.L.Lisafj!. il• .e ' ..7 ... ' -- • - - :.it:'sir i.?:•:. .• " .•1' ••: , .. .' ' L. .. .'. ' . - ' 1 . .• • 4. ; . ,• ,'; . ..-"..9. . ' ! . ..*". -.: • . .• • • :141! ••:.!li , i. 1 /111. •••• Lir. . , L....Xi ...I, ..ii . - , : .I.; t !. e •,•' - • 4 „ . . . • 7" i.4,ii. i.,. : ..;•4.,. .; . .. .;,4 tptn.f;..:, . 1 : I. E 0. '' ';.,• • ..., • ... . 1,1 400;,f?" • ‘‘.:, II. :4 . .4 .; ....',. . I:I Tei f ;• ! ! 4, . . i". '8 Y•..':'... I..' • . .1 is)‘;i14. 4. A14.• A''W...;74 A.; . . 1%II• •.•• • %•::1. : 1 r.. . . oi.. . p..) , .1. .. - • .. • . . •. '" ' • ,. . . b:. , . , • • . ., ••••. - - • - - ;If,. •i4... ,.,I. tiv• ..,*4. . .. . ...: • •1 :-.1'• :".?57.tV .•: ri:f..4 it AM 1" 1:. . •••••• ' •• IVO'•)4•4;•• •7!;f.•Pli•fl 1 ." .4. ': •!..t:;• :.•1 !. . :1.46 1 r .$I. '':•• • • •1.1.i 1.flit 14' • •!. . . , • a' Nr . • . # 1 . ... .4. • ;. .. :: , • •: • :i; l'• ' , ...:,ifor .i 1 4 ., 1.Vs ir.! • . ..,• P'•i.11 ... 1 : . • . ' .• • 'AA'• "44,* : •L 1.? • •e• ': ' . ,r :• ' :•'•.: ' °;:'i . AL,r ••...: •. • •4:%*- .1 -4• . • .. „ I y I,, 41 I I 4l• any. l sv::%#�'— ,r. r___.._ —moo , 1 05.•o„ • -4.• .4. .0 x •-• :;..-1-1 0 7., 1 cri • ct %.......-..• ...... .... 47.4$1Cli -0P---7.- \g .),s ,a, ..,.# .„ , ,...,_ -i,._. , ..!{ NAL . .• Vd..., /2 C) eto I, • VO lb. Od• ! 0,si FARM aD N 5.,A 6 v y�� • srs 0 .1 /.1,Afq, 4.w ett>,) .. • 1 v ► e'�•lg9 Cm cN 1.r ° ,c S • `y NI Ll1t loom Cf Z S rim, /9A1 i11:v Jo 3k tb .� \., ` fir► Inner 5eS • - 1 . r d IOC' p I i r. •m OA Sfi�. t K L ••� tr• IN ` rP TIL i en v I 'I.r I "K I ► d "� ~ I on w •U 1^ti�f ' 4• (44 r 3164•1••:� tr. ; • en 4. i.. 21 C's1 • i•-...;.. SO -°P 't:\ 2. 1Z ;)1 ., i a I %k%TOY tee r ^ M N w I1- ' r y Z10 - tt>s,J .'1° • `S" I:I .. V �0 1 G b / , �+ p� ,`O , d •4 a',lipJ I • ► 7�IMI' $m -4'6� laviii ur t Y7 8 V"N - ‘ o �!j 1 yy•,.,� I ��t1i, ads BRIDGE _ RD �1 E,% 10 I< Y7o',�T`I '1' .10• • �� �♦ •y , 0 B ,, 'P -4 ®' ze/ Q'9 ROGERS N�..—�--% SW vi&A 3N01S,: S I81.S �itV. O , .� 1 O. 'o aS. ,ti II) s • Iowa r Wide I o WI I I ' W. sY111Ap r� E ,; Y • _ •.� '. t ,lit: i•i I yr x �,,: rt. ®n �ci. ' , . •*:r.a-soe? '3 . A. i 11AV H % ; W R` I CAIIRf.TTS Rh N oseo "�.`' „• • tr. of,, <. a �6 /- C 1►WISPOIN 4 Yr, ►WILW oo n��a i k K • lnp 11E'V + I: °♦ .1 o A 0 co ,2 •F.,ir,.. cSlNlbj y '' �.__. l.r�'x�, w, • ONIS ' • • ,J �,to °F, '`�'s p N • s < o . -1.--� •r ago , `�.� i . �, d0�3 i� �►- / 7Tgp V� m iStl/U "4 N1 1 oLTHIN CRIISSINe d0 / . NL'� �vy�v ig iiNCIY mil 4., '$ Alb -1 f? I' Jteg a : ; ,• -✓ CI T 'TRACE •�$� dty iilANrW' 'r►dv�o �� ct R °� '9 ��► 'r�,�z sa �° {o?�" , �; '{1 ; w N I U r„ g �4T vTdy � - C w.� oo4. 'C►� J, � � p I. y � .♦ 1 m% I V 9T 'l'' Iqk l• • ' rc �' I G 0� Nffd` �r d�9. v • E 1 b o '� r `, f ilo,` 1 II a c• 1�Of. .�1.1� f� y' o t r��►�° t� W o g I To. 5 I .010 3` ^ i' 1.`1,1`1 t,N II" o o '`fs��r Z1:09 ty O. % r Ip1�cr ia��1°R{�fpNl �i���".: .r �� M1V`' °�y o�IP :•, J �y �� :i '`�� °� ^ 3� e��f�N yi' ', t. tQ,fit`• *Si'r) rn Oj • T RD r.r„ .ti _ a1+1 � 1 ♦ 4t G•+r �� , S{ �Y � Y�7/�' w �� D�lfll Ot\K 1•q�� �,M o 1 . # • ,�Sr • 4 G o. oµ1• ,l► ry{, �► �• :+ t r% ISO ® VA I'‘‘ - rJ CA r �,.,`' I (IROWN RIII a :::a `- :pep:: ,► wti ON•P coN .•,1 t� �`, / 6 .* r • ou. � 4.•••♦_. a Jjoe ' a M �00 `�Sl 4lox - ‘,I )' Io f ^. . '� ::WIIRIR `a Ti 1 ^ V b S 1 'h,:��,1)1 `� 1'.• • • - ., OY , w s ;./ _ , �; f ! �� T Tint .::.; auelka5 �W '3 "�'llRrlfl-i "CCCI OJ ';;,_.••y;., 17:a 1' - -. V , I adct ' CA t'�r Maw- s,i" i i�oh • :• .MN ��� 1 ��r� , 0 3i N is : Ar ;lie • i-sur- :i . i. _ , -% . de i \ ..r, 2 o4-'''"y a... • �r..y L c. ". a r-D. ity. .41.1.1rar ..4f, ,b1. CI - i4, e.4' 4,„,-,4',4..,.'441.,,:t.,..6lt,A,c.Ai,.titt.,i,r,,e,l 1 .Y N►�40. -1'3 7),.1 '" ' • . s+ i i y � 1� `r 'AYE 4 I 41" it tik „ilf.... - .4.01,..tip. ,..0. 0,:A tit il / ... I 4 % 4** ..0•1:1.4Y. l.� 4�4÷ give 1 r7r:1:=• / �1e FCid . 1 •/ ateD--i-t.ik.)1t - z i ATP/mg* 4 ' • si6V- 1-4, . . . , , , = . .4. 4.41:4& Lt• ..,E.. ,4 lista, 1,111Aieirr alks.. i?-itf .'•\*. et A 4411.p. .i.f„!it . i. : . 3 r lAlsinctrk.. _it.40 i-rpt.:0,01.-Ave.tcsmil3A•::-.4vt. " 1 . 1 0 to-wit,_ iv- .v.-. . A.,i‘v - 1p, . ,tr.,;. ft% Alki,•_Tg.s lot; I ,„ -a tr.,A*0,.# 146kwp,vt,.. *I ,e041. s-- 4,I 'I i 154 iiOrPor, .11XL 0 7i . fT W JtKi. a . 0.-41.14.41;'' c,'.4p. 4r4,*,,s.`414 '- .17,,, 44.41A, si 03.14 VA, z t Uri , _10 qt., lovzio4,47-0 ve.4444ktfaatrykr "Alittit. 2" 0. eu 4 hcc nriiii' Emir , \ 1 *Ur 46,11,4.#. *� it4.i itinix-7-fkA. . 0 Yilit [� itAIGICB W 41% ✓ - tiltrater tbkail : a 1 'NA 44114("titrtcr -.0: 4*. -1--- 64:$4Aracrizmp 104:• .4,AVEr.,,Z*, 0 il . ..1 -,,, ,9,„..... . ,4 azkr, . ..didttfaiya,,,ii,. „Atomic'IT jvat . skiyv 4iover-rvIrtrinhenifiti,ir le A 1.5, ■■ �� DIA. 4 gX i .:: s ' Alen VW. II 9 i , s . ai ' .. II, ' . 1 . to ' I. . t �- 1.1 R QUALIFICATIONS -W.S.STRIPLING, MAI • Education: Mercer University, Macon, Georgia (1958-1960); Georgia State College School of Business Administration, BBA-Economics (1960-1967) • Continuing Education: AIREA/AL• Narrative Report Seminar (June 1965); Land Development Seminar (April 1967); Capitalization Methods&Techniques(1967,1971,1983);Course I-(Basic Methods&Techniques)(1968); Course II-(Case Study-Urban Properties)(1968)Component Depreciation Seminar(1980);The SIR Real . Estate Simulation(1980);Standards of Professional Practice(1981, 1986, 1991, 1994);Business Valuation (1982); Real Estate Valuation in Litigation (1984); The Electronic Spreadsheet in the Appraisal Office (1984);Contemporary Issues&Methods for Appraising Commercial Properties-Influence of Debt on Real Estate Values&Models for Investment Real Estate Counseling(1985);Faculty Training.Seminar(1987); Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia - Eminent Domain (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993); Ethics and Counseling Training Panel Seminar(1990);AI-Litigation Valuation(1991);Cash Equivalency (1992); Depreciation Analysis (1993); Appraising Troubled Properties (1993); Rates, Ratios and Reasonableness (1993); Business Valuation Part I & II (1993). Understanding Limited Appraisals & Reporting Options- General(1994). • III/WA: The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions (1987); Land Titles (1989);'Legal Aspects of Easements (1989);Effective Written Communications(1990);Instructors Certification Clinic(1990);-Environmental Considerations(1990);Course 101 Real Estate Appraisal(1991);Basic Appraisal Principles(1991);Ethics 103 (1992); Principles of Real Estate Acquisition 101 (Appraisal) (1993) Teaching Assignments: N. Certified instructor for International Right-of-Way Association. Contingent faculty member for Appraisal - Institute. Have taught commercial real estate appraisal courses for the Atlanta Area Technical SchooL Certified instructor for Georgia Institute of Re_al Estate. Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia - Eminent Domain (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992). Floyd College, Rome, Georgia -The Appraiser Licensure/Certification Program(April/May 1991). Appraisal Theory and Principles(IRWA Course 404). Skills of Expert Testimony (1992). Experience: Thirty years in full time real estate appraisal,counseling and related activities. Have completed appraisal assignments for major financial institutions,insurance agencies,and private clients,such as attorneys, accountants,investors,developers and mortgage lenders. if . Appraisals have been made on all types of real estate including Residential(subdivision land,single-family, condominium and multi-family projects);Commercial(office buildings,retail stores;discount houses,motels and shopping centers); Industrial (vacant land, warehouses and manufacturing plants); Special Purpose (churches, schools, service stations, medical centers, nursing homes and post offices); and Right-of-Way acquisitions (city,county,state,utilities and federal projects). Professional Affiliations Member. Appraisal Institute; Gwinnett County Board of REALTORS, Inc.; Georgia Association of REALTORS,Inc.;National Association of REALTORS,Inc.;Rho Epsilon National Real Estate Fraternity, International Right-of-Way Association State of Georgia Certified Appraiser-GA#211 • THE STRIPUNG SHAW STRIPLING GROUP QU • ALIFICATIONS - WILLIAM TODD STRIPLING Education Graduate Studies, Georgia State University,Arts & Sciences, (1993-present) Bachelor of Arts in English, Georgia State University, (19874993) DeKalb College (1986-1987) United States Marine Corps Reserve (1984-1990) West Georgia College (1982-1983) • University of Georgia (1981) Al Report Writing and Valuation Analysis,June 1995 AI Hotel/Motel Valuation Seminar, February 1995 - AI Standards of Professional Practice Part A,April 1994 AI Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation,August 1992 AI Standards of Professional Practice A& B;October 1991 Georgia State University Real Estate 415 Real Estate Fnance, March 1991 AIREA Basic Valuation Procedures,June 1990 • AIREA Real Estate Appraisal Principles,June 1990 Georgia State University Real Estate 410 Real Estate Valuation,June 1990 . Georgia State University Real Estate 301 Real Estate Principles, March 1989 . AIREA Litigation Valuation, February 1988 AIREA Capitalization Theory&Techniques, Part B, February 1987 ..- AIREA Capitalization Theory&Techniques, Part A, March 1986 . AIREA HP-38/12C.Seminar,August 1982 :4. AIREA Basic Valuation Procedures,July 1982 ;x AIREA Real Estate Appraisal Principles, May 1982 • Experience ; ' • Twelve years experience•in part time and full time real estate appraisal. Have completed appraisal assignments for private clients, such as attorneys, investors and developers. Have completed appraisal assignments for major financial institutions,insurance agencies and mortgage _ . lenders. Have completed appraisals for Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Georgia Power • Corporation, Georgia Department of Transportation, Gwinnett County Department of Transportation, and Cobb County Department of Transportation. ' Have completed appraisals on all types of real estate. Residential:Single-Family and Multi-Family Commercial:Office Buildin - Retail Stores r Shopping Centers Industrial: Vacant Land • ,!ce/Warehouse-Manufacturing Plants - . Special Use:Churches-Schools - Medical Centers Right-of-Way Acquisitions: Gwinnett County, State of Georgia, Oglethorpe Power Corporation- Georgia Power Corporation Federal Projects Qualified as as Expert Witness in State of Georgia,Superior Court • Member,International Right-of-Way Association • Candidate for membership hi the Appraisal Institute: Candidate File #M861462 Certified Real Estate Appraiser. • State of Georgia Certification #1291 • State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPUNG GROUP ww.• j ♦ T • 1 I ' I), •.^ s � 1 ,' I F rc _ 1 '. aj, . ,r ,ram er { .,.• -mot ' I ' l , P4 * 1711V7lagrgi • • • • V.ai a. .• �� T say �J II1M • MO j �e...�.,t w * I I f i k •' lito "lent 11111M. I .V . 'rt R-f W'L. A. wbrry* w ....--'-- , _._, dux �� �: 41111141Wrir% t "‘ :. . "'as �� Iry. I il I ' bird- fil r s* • 1 VIP fir• • 7,s' •1." _ • .ice . .. arm , k• ' , . 1 • : - w 4 At, NI) .1., '; 11 I* lrl• • • - IIf \ii t At lift - ti BF 1. t.. A • , i, . ii , 1 • ......._ F •r iF:. 'Ct 4: i. • I / . %*I-,W ) ! ! / 1• '. 1 E 't111 y 11 y 0, _ .,,„ ,. . . ,,,, ....,,, 0..j , , 4 j 1 t- % I » ii ►1 • 1 jt. ---11k4''..•:. --: ' - \S • ; • iy1 • .� , rll • " • .11, , aq AP 't i 4 • re" • • tf.'1,•^!: _ . ".• '''•• • t• • • • . • • • • - - - elers . H . I. ... I P ._. ro...... A Vtiv,tt t3/4 •,.:,'''''. --a.', V . \-.. Iry .. , . . \\ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ I , , , , ,,•4 . ,.. , . , , . . \ \ ,,, , f, t,t,, 0 All,,P.'7' / \ \ \ 11141,11 ! <, . \,.,, \ •, \.. ,,,,.. •::\\\\\\* .,, ‘"O• i 011itisr e,' • \'k \, 's . N. N \I 4; :,\\•\ \ \ ,\ \\ \\.\.\\,\ v .,„ .,,...., . ... . N \ ,. ..,• , \ \ \ \\\\\.\ • ,A 8,...,.,3. ,., . , . • 1-'1 '•: . • •'.. 10, , N \•"..--•• , \.,,, - . • \ \ \/, , 104re,'„,, -iv. \, ,..•, \ \ ,,\,,:,2,, , . , .. --" . , ,.. \ \ N. • __,, , , ,_•, . 4. . • N. N S'. ' ' • •• ... • "".• • 0 ' 4. • .../... • . . - •- . . • . • __--.‘ ,,,, Ye* ,,::;,,___.„, , ''*.' Id* • , ,' . . P, , -/..,': illyk• ..,,,,,...•. „,„ „ _„.../.: , ,,, !i „. •0.• . • . " 4i. - • 4' .'. - ' - ..-:-:.;. . . . ... . ,-'rt,r ..„---- ...-k„•,,, .1,.,..,.... _ . .. .: , 17.hz. ,0,, , 4....._ .I'' , l, .•,.. /I .... * ' 1‘ t' :.••.- '4' . -a 5 i,kifitif. l'. •Ili:,t' .•, -:. ...IN%if• {{i `TTii v ` 'f44 �i . Fbi � ` 'a kl ,to 4 II 7 It �' l iii, � • mu • iiil$A ■ ! tiiS �' I i 1l' A r n. N + ''rTkr. . .. ...••• -' • ....I iiiii y...-!..:441 .. ' %•**'''::....-!E-30Yaheal.4 1 • ,• ,,IA . . . .. .... • - . . v.. c _ • :. . 71! . .A, ... 41.4 ?• ."''''FF . •'.. , . ... .,•:*,,, ....-.;,,, . ., ..„ • , • / Al -- P ; ,. V • • • • 1 _ ...nom.' I,. A a a a a ii...4 . , r. -t 2pt 'F - IP • .;:yft . tr. 4 yt jet , 11111. "111 5 ;.t 1111 NJ • Ng • 4. . . I : . ., Ole ..--.. , . � s - . 1 d 4 ,iir . . : Jo .. . .wnI Mow 114 , fi