HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_T-Mobile_Monopole_090423April 23, 2009
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
APPLICANT/CONTACT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Derrick Priebe
T-Mobile
19807 N Creek Parkway N
Bothell, WA 98011
The Living Memorial Association of Kennydale
2424 NE 27th Street
Renton, WA 98056
T-Mobile Monopole I on NE 27th Conditional Use Permit
LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
2424 NE 27th Street
Conditional Use Permit and approval to locate and install a
Monopole I -wireless communications facility within the
parking lot of the Living Memorial Association of Kennydale
on a 1.99 acre site within the Residential-8 zoning designation.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve with
Conditions
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on March 31, 2009.
After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 7, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, at 9:38 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the
Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow Project File containing the Exhibit No. 2: Zoning Map
application, reports, staff comments, and other
material pertinent to the review of the oroiect.
Exhibit No. 3: Neighborhood Aerial Map Exhibit No. 3a: Close up of Neighborhood Aerial
Map
T-Mobile Monopole I on 1'.t .c7th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 4: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 6: Photo Simulations Overview Aerial
Mw
Exhibit No. 8: Photo Simulations From NE 27"'
Street looking Northeast -proposed photo# I
Exhibit No. 10: Photo Simulations From NE 27"'
Street looking Northeast-orooosed ohoto #2
Exhibit No. 12: Prooosed Coverage -T-Mobile USA
Exhibit No. 14: Existing Topography Map
Exhibit No. 5: Site Elevation
Exhibit No. 7: Photo Simulations From NE 27"'
Street looking Northeast -existing ohoto # I
Exhibit No. 9: Photo Simulations From NE 27 1
'
Street looking Northwest-existing ohoto #2 .
Exhibit No. 11: Existing Coverage -T-Mobile USA
Exhibit No. 13: Existing Conditions Mao
Exhibit No. 15: Packet of Information From Mr.
Priebe ofT-Mobile
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Ion Arai, Assistant Planner, Community and
Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The project site is
located in east Kennydale on 27th Street just east ofl-405 and just south of the May Creek ravine. The site is
1.99 acres in area and currently has a one-story social hall with parking surrounding the hall. The wireless
communication facilities would be located on the north side of the social hall and would take up approximately
242 square feet and would be enclosed by a six-foot slatted chain link fence. The tower would be just under 60
feet, and would have three flush mounted antennas clustered at the top of the pole. Each flush mount antenna
would be one-foot wide by five -feet long and would be attached to a ring mount to the pole.
The monopole would be painted a color to blend into the surrounding area. The associated equipment cabinet
would take approximately 150 square feet and would sit on a concrete pad.
The subject site is enclosed by trees on the east, north and west sides. Most of the trees would exceed the height
of the tower. The May Creek ravine runs from the middle of the property in the north to the southeast corner,
there are regulated slopes in this area.
The surrounding neighborhood is designated Residential-8 and the primary uses are single family residential, to
the east and north is the May Creek ravine which is wooded parkland and would most likely not be developed.
Access to the facility would be provided through the private driveway and into the parking lot on the west side
of the social hall.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with three
mitigation measures. No appeals were filed.
There are nine special design criteria for wireless facilities, which include a height of no more than 60 feet, the
distance of the tower to residential structures and district boundaries, compatible to existing and adjacent uses of
property, fits into the surrounding topography, sufficient tree coverage and foliage, design of the tower is such to
reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness, effective ingress and egress, care for potential noise, light and glare to
surrounding properties, and availability of existing towers. It has been shown that this project does comply with
most of the design criteria.
T-Mobile Monopole I on NE 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 3
The map showing existing conditions shows that the gravel parking lot is extended as far as it can be. There is a
gap in the trees in the northwest corner and the neighbor could potentially see into the parking lot except for the
fact that they have a six-foot fence, the second gap would be about 130 feet from the south property line and
from their backyard they can see into the parking lot and they can see where the proposed enclosure would be
for this wireless communication facility.
The east property line has an abundant number of trees and would provide absorbent coverage throughout the
year, as you move to the northern area, the trees become more deciduous and during the fall and winter when the
leaves are gone, the vertical nature of the trunks would still allow the monopole to blend into the background.
When looking at the existing and proposed conditions from the northwest the monopole does peek out a little
because of the angle. Due to the visual impact of the equipment cabinets from the two abutting residential
properties to the west, it was recommended that the accessory cabinets be enclosed with a more pleasing
material such as cedar fence planking or CMU block. The applicant would be required to submit a new plan for
approval by the Planning Division.
Landscaping has been proposed and will be inspected prior to occupancy permit issuance, the equipment
cabinets would be located behind the existing building to limit the visual exposure from the street and sidewalks.
The proposed monopole would minimize the adverse impacts on the environment by locating on an already
developed parcel within a gravel parking lot. The footprint would be limited to 242 square feet in area. The
monopole would increase the wireless internet communication coverage and wireless telephone communications
in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposal does meet all the development standards such as setbacks, height, maximum lot coverage, except
for the landscaping standards. There was no landscaping proposed due to the fact that the monopole was hidden
behind the social hall, there was a comment submitted in favor of the proposal, the letter did comment that the
landscaping was unnecessary because of the location on the lot. Staff has required a revised landscape plan
showing a minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip surrounding the perimeter enclosure to reduce visual impact
from the residential properties to the west.
Derrick Priebe, I Broadway, Suite 316, Tacoma 98402 stated that he had a packet he would like to submit as an
Exhibit. He spoke of the existing coverage for T-Mobile and in specific the Kennydale area and the City of
Renton. Much of the Kennydale area is able to only receive service to commercial buildings along the freeway
system. Currently T-Mobile is not able to provide adequate phone, data and 911 services to the subject area. T-
Mobile's proposal is representative of the City's plan for the future of wireless services.
The wireless facility does contain the maximum screening requirements under the existing technology. The site
is located along a treeline in order to limit visibility. This site provides the maximum coverage with the
maximum limit of visual interference for the neighboring residents of the area.
Jeff Smith, 933 I Ith Ave E, #F, Seattle 98102 stated that he provided the site acquisition services for this
facility, he procured the lease from the current property owner. They have operated this facility for 50-60 years
as a community hall. The property owner has expressed a commitment to continue the use of the property as it
has been used for the last 50-60 years that is as a low-cost or no-cost meeting facility for various organizations.
They have no intention to redevelop the property in the future. The current landscaping provides a good buffer
and the code does not say where the vegetation must be placed, it does provide for a IS-foot buffer, but it does
not specify the location. The best use of the property would be to take advantage of the natural screening rather
than to add additional landscaping that would limit the use of the parking facility. They would agree to plant the
vacant areas in the north/northwest area of the property.
T-Mobile Monopole I on 1'.L 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 4
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager stated that there is some internal conflict within the code section
for the wireless communication facilities. Under RMC 4-4-140F!b there is a requirement for IS feet of sight
obscuring landscape buffer around the accessory equipment facility, however there is some flexibility noted, if
the accessory equipment is located on a public right-of-way the screening or landscaping is determined by the
reviewing official. In the table that describes the requirements for Monopole I, RMC 4-4-140G, it states that a
minimum landscaped area of I 5-feet shall be required surrounding the facility or equivalent screening as
approved by the reviewing official and that landscaping must include trees, shrubs and groundcover and must be
irrigated.
It has been a practice to use a combination of fencing and landscaping and to determine the need for irrigation
based on the circumstances. Generally they have taken a minimum 5-foot landscaping plus fencing as
acceptable equivalent.
Mr. Priebe read the staff recommendations and stated that they would comply with Recommendation I.
Recommendation 2, T-Mobile has required FAA approval for the location and it was determined not to be a
hazard for air navigation, FAA noted that marking and lighting were not necessary for navigation safety.
Recommendation 3, Kevin Durning would be speaking to this recommendation.
Kevin Durning, 19807 N Creek Parkway, Bothell 98011 stated that he is the design engineer for this project,
they looked at various sites and found this to be the best location. The structure would be a good distance from
the trees. lfthe monopole were to be moved, the tree line would mean that the monopole would have to be a
good deal taller and they would have to be located due north of the property. Moving the monopole to the north
would cause more problems. They have a limited distance they must be from the trees, moving to the north
would not allow that distance.
Mr. Priebe continued with Recommendation 4, they would be willing to build a six-foot solid cedar fence.
Recommendation 5, they believe that the current design and proposed cedar fence offers adequate screening of
ground equipment. The proposed location behind the building significantly limits visibility from the street.
Adding landscape may limit use of the property, the landlord has confirmed this in a letter dated 1/18/09, which
was submitted to the City of Renton. There is a lot of existing screening on the site which adequately screens
the pole and accessory equipment.
Shyla Bundy. 10024 63ro Ave S, Seattle stated that she is the owner of the property just west at 2400 NE 27th
Street. The tenants have expressed major concerns about this proposal. It seems that this could greatly affect
the property values in the area, they would never have purchased this property if anything like this had existed.
They have not started any planning, but a reason for purchasing this property was the possibility of the future
subdivision of the back lot. From their backyard they are able to see everything in the parking lot. They are
further concerned if the monopole were to be move 70-feet to the north, what other equipment cabinets etc could
be brought into the site.
The Examiner questioned the applicant about the owner's concern about losing any of the current parking on the
site. It would appear that the co-location of any other facilities would not be possible unless they were powered
and used T-Mobile's current cabinets.
Jeff Smith stated that co-owners would be located to the east of the existing building. A future carrier would
secure his own leasehold of approximately 10 x JO-foot parcel of property. There is sufficient space available to
locate that equipment that would not adversely affect the use of the property.
T-Mobile Monopole I on NE 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 5
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager stated that the code does not discuss either radio frequency or
electromagnetic fields, they defer to the national standards. She read from a memo from a previous Mayor that
stated the City would not substitute any discretion for what the current federal or national safety standards are.
The Examiner stated that ifhe were to approve this use, he would most likely ask for restrictive covenants that
the site would remain in this public use while T-Mobile is there.
Jeff Smith stated that the initial term is for 5 years with 5 5-year renewal terms. He further suggested that it not
be just restricted as it currently stands, but limited to non-residential use.
Kayren Kittrick, Economic and Development Division stated that her concern was for the narrowness of this
particular section of driveway, there is concern for the fire and police access because of the distance it is from
NE 27"' at that location. Fire will take a look at it at permit time.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:41 a.m.
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Derrick Priebe for T-Mobile, filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
install a monopole for a wireless communication facility (cell tower).
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # I.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of
Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located at 2424 NE 27th Street. The proposed tower would be located on property
owned and used by The Living Memorial Association ofKennydale (Association). The site is located
on the north side of 27th Street just west of Edmonds Avenue NE (if extended).
6. The entire subject site is approximately 1.99 acres. The subject site is approximately 252 feet wide ( east
to west) by 308 feet deep.
7. The Association occupies an existing building on the site as a social hall. The existing building is
approximately 3,552 square feet and is located generally in the south central portion of the subject site.
Gravel parking is located west, north and east of the building with a narrow drive connecting the north
and east parking area.
8. The May Creek natural area, its creek and steep slopes are located north and east of the subject site. The
northeast corner of the subject site is dominated by these critical areas.
T-Mobile Monopole I on J\.w 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 6
9. The area contains predominately single family homes and open space. Single family uses are located
west, south and southeast of the subject site. The site and properties to its west, south and southeast are
zoned single family, R-8. North and east is zoned R-1, low density single family districts.
10. The applicant applied for the Conditional Use Permit to allow a Monopole I structure under the City's
Wireless Communications Facilities regulations. A Monopole I structure is permitted in the R-8 Zone if
it is no taller than sixty feet (60').
11. The applicant proposes erecting a 59'1 l" Monopole I structure. It would be accompanied by an
equipment cabinet. The complex would cover approximately 242 square feet and be enclosed by a six-
foot tall chain link fence. The applicant proposes locating the facility just north of the social ha! I.
12. The monopole would be approximately two feet ten inches in diameter. There would be three antennas
at the top of the pole. The antenna panels would be flush mounted to minimize the profile of the
assembly as viewed from the ground. The antenna would each be one foot wide and five feet long.
There would be accommodations for additional antenna below the applicant's units to provide service
for other carriers.
13. The monopole will be located 150 feet and 215 feet respectively from homes west of the subject site and
220 feet, 225 feet and 23 0 feet from homes south of the subject site.
14. The applicant did not propose any additional landscaping or screening.
15. There is generally dense tree coverage to the west and along the top of the ravine above the creek.
Some gaps in the existing landscaping occur to the west and northwest of the proposed monopole
location.
16. Staff recommended that the monopole be moved toward the northwest comer of the subject site where it
would be less of a hindrance if the site owner decided to redevelop the site with single family uses. It
would be further from the street and possibly surrounded by more tree cover in this new location. They
also recommended surrounding the cabinet with cedar fence planking or CMU block to screen it more
effectively.
17. The applicant noted that the underlying property owner preferred the current location for the facility,
abutting the social hall, as it would not interfere with parking or vehicle circulation on the subject site.
The property owner was not at the hearing. The applicant also noted that if it were moved north, trees
might interfere with it's function.
18. The taller tower could be considered an obstruction to air travel based on FAA regulations so it was
reviewed by the FAA. It was determined that no lighting or beacon would be required for this facility.
19. The proposed tower is intended to provide wireless service in an area where communications have been
impaired. There are no other towers that would accommodate this carrier in the vicinity.
20. Code appears to require 15 feet oflandscaping although staff has interpreted this requirement to allow a
combination of fencing and 5 feet oflandscaping if the facility and cabinets are appropriately screened.
21. The applicant indicated that the underlying owners did not intend to change the use of the site so that
redevelopment with conforming single family uses would not be hampered by a monopole on the site.
T-Mobile Monopole I on NE 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011. ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 7
22. The owner of property west of the subject site objected to the use and indicated that renters of that
property were concerned about the tower and potential health effects.
23. The City accepts the Federal guidelines on the health consequences of wireless facilities and does not
separately review those impacts.
24. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to cellular facilities:
Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening
devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g., visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent,
less intensive uses.
Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive
uses, e.g., lighting, fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design.
Policy U-100. Require that the sitting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished
in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses.
Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited
and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers
wherever possible and practical.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless facility must demonstrate that the use is in the
public interest, will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance
with the criteria found in Section 4-9-030(J) which provides in part that:
1. The tower's height meets the limitations of the site's zoning with allowance for the cellular
exception;
2. Proximity and separation from residential uses;
3. Nature of uses on adjacent property;
4. The surrounding topography is appropriate for the location;
5. The buffering aspects of surrounding tree cover and foliage;
6. The design reduces the overall intrusiveness;
7. Ingress and egress is appropriate;
8. The impacts of noise, light and glare;
9. Alternate existing support structures; and
10. Compatibility with the standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
The requested conditional use appears justified for a Monopole I not greater than 60 feet tall.
T-Mobile Monopole I on}.,:, .. 7th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 8
2. The R-8 zone limits most structures to 30 feet or two-stories but allows Monopole I structures to be 60
feet tall. The proposed monopole is one inch shorter than permitted and meets the height limitations of
the R-8 Zone.
3. There is an approximately 150 foot separation between the proposed monopole and its nearest neighbor
which is a home to the west. There are no easterly residents. Greater separation is provided to the
closest other homes. The monopole is 140 feet from the subject site's west property line and 110 feet
from its east property line. Ninety-five feet and NE 27th provide separation on the south. The proposed
use meets the separation requirements although additional screening, addressed below, should help
screen the use.
4. The nearby uses are single family except for the natural area encompassing the creek and slopes. Gaps
in vegetation along the west property line probably permit view corridors to the tower and cabinet from
the western neighboring homes. The applicant shall be required to add landscaping along the perimeter
of the site including both shrubs and taller trees where staff determines gaps exist in the surrounding
vegetation. Shrubs such as Rhododendron can screen the equipment cabinet and trees can screen the
monopole and antenna.
5. The topography, particularly to the north drops off substantially while gradual slopes generally exist
south and east of the subject site. The technical studies appear to indicate this would be a reasonable
location to allow better cell service for the surrounding community.
6. The applicant originally proposed no additional landscaping. The property owner is concerned about
the loss of parking or aisle width to the north or northeast if more landscaping were required. As noted
above, the applicant will be required to supplement landscaping where view corridors through the
existing trees open the facility to neighboring properties.
7. The flush panel antenna coupled with the background tree cover should reduce the overall visual impact
of this facility. Clearly, there are limited ways to screen 60-foot tall monopoles that need the height to
broadcast and receive signals from neighboring towers.
8. The current driveway will serve the limited traffic once construction is completed. There should be no
traffic impacts on the community.
9. There should be no additional noise, light or glare created by the use once construction is completed.
The FAA has indicated that no warning light is required.
I 0. It does not appear that other nearby towers can provide suitable facilities.
11. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the need for such facilities as long as they are appropriately
designed to minimize intrusive impacts. It also acknowledges that it is difficult to completely hide such
facilities.
12. Since the monopole would be incompatible with redevelopment of the subject site with single family
uses, there should be a limitation on the conversion of the property or condition that the monopole be
removed if the underlying owner attempts to redevelop the subject site.
13. In summary, the proposed use appears to be reasonably sited given the apparent technological needs of
the applicant. It is located more than I 00 feet from its nearest residential neighbor and is fairly well-
T-Mobile Monopole I on NE 27th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 9
screened by the existing trees but it needs to be screened by additional landscaping to make it a better
neigbbor.
DECISION:
The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions:
I. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Proposed Construction a minimum of 30 days prior to
the issuance of any building permit for any wireless communication support structure or attached WCF.
2. The applicant shall install either a six-foot high CMU block wall or a six-foot higb solid cedar wood
fence around the accessory equipment cabinets prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant
shall submit design elevations for approval by the Planning Division Project Manager prior to submittal
of building permit.
3. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC.
4. The applicant shall be required to add landscaping along the west and northwest perimeter of the site.
The applicant shall plant reasonably sized shrubs and taller trees where staff determines gaps exist in the
surrounding vegetation. Shrubs such as Rhododendron can screen the equipment cabinet and trees can
screen the monopole and antenna.
5. The owner of the property shall execute restrictive covenants limiting the use of the subject site to the
current social hall or require the removal of the monopole facility if redevelopment is proposed and
approved.
6. The applicant shall maintain all existing landscaping.
ORDERED THIS 23'• day of April 2009.
FRED J. KAU AN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 23'• day of April 2009 to the parties of record:
Ion Arai
Development Services
City of Renton
Derrick Priebe
T-Mobile
19807 N Creek Parkway
Bothell, WA 98011
Kevin Durning
Jennifer Henning
Development Services
City of Renton
The Living Memorial Association
OfKennydale
2424 NE 27th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Shylo Bundy
Kayren Kittrick
Development Services
City of Renton
Jeff Smith
933 II th Ave E, #F
Seattle, WA 98102
Jennifer Henning
T-Mobile Monopole I on;·-~ 7th
File No.: LUA-09-011, ECF, CU-H
April 23, 2009
Page 10
19807 N Creek Parkway
Bothell, WA 980 II
10024 63 00 Ave S
Seattle, WA 98115
Current Planning Manager
City of Renton
Derrick Priebe
1 Broadway, Suite 316
Tacoma, WA 98402
TRANSMITTED TIDS 23'd day of April 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Renton Reporter
David Pargas, Fire Marshal
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed iu
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 7, 2009 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 110, 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. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 7, 2009.
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.
ZONING
PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
07/15/08
CS -33 T24N RSE W 1/2
0 200
1-t.J
1:4,800
_S_E __ b§i.,,:4:,'
400
IF,,t
. ---~-
'/ ....
EXHIBIT 2
-r----,.--__J i:l
R·10
D5
04 T23N RSE W 1/2
S304