My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Application Materials (4/1/15) (2)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Application Materials (4/1/15) (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2015 4:01:05 PM
Creation date
4/2/2015 3:24:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Application Materials
Document_Date
4/2/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Technology "t Associates <br />5. The supplemental noise report (dated October 22, 2014) contains edits on page 3 that <br />makes the findings difficult to interpret. The statement refers to the City's noise <br />ordinance relative to the generator; remember that this is CUP in which all impacts are <br />evaluated against subjective approval criteria, above and beyond basic code standards. <br />Did the acoustical engineer take into account any grade differences between the subject <br />property and adjacent properties? (This was an issue in the Rest Maven case, in which <br />abutting neighbors successfully argued that the noise travel path was different because their <br />homes were located at a higher elevation.) <br />The acoustical report still needs to be verified by our consultant (the related review fees <br />must be paid for by the applicant.) <br />RESPONSE: The acoustical engineer took into account any grade differences between the <br />subject property and adjacent properties. The noise study and its supplement provide <br />evidence that the proposed wireless facility will meet Eugene's noise limits on the <br />surrounding properties. The amount of the additional fees to be paid for the consultant to <br />verify the acoustical report has been requested by the Applicant and Applicant was informed <br />that the fee amount would not be provided until zoning materials have been re-submitted. <br />6. EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal <br />provides a convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic <br />environment, and is as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and <br />setting warrant. <br />The "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" <br />requirement is not addressed. Staff is concerned that this particular stealth design may <br />not respond appropriately to the setting and recommends that the applicant evaluate <br />alternatives or additional comparative analysis to better show that the proposed design <br />fits the setting. <br />7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 <br />Tigard, OR 97223 <br />(323) 559-4103 <br />Email: jacob.finney@taec.net <br />www.taec.net <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.