My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2015 4:05:46 PM
Creation date
5/20/2015 8:10:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT @ CROSSFIRE MINISTRIES
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
4/30/2014
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
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
applicant may provide documentation. The documentation must explains the service needs of <br />Voicestream and relate that need to the "dbm" levels necessary to accomplish the service needs. <br />I'or instance what communication services are provided at the "dbrnl" level given in the <br />iIpplic.ation7 <br />Oncc the reasons for the height and location area are sufficiently justified, staff can then revic\v <br />the next standard, EC 9.5750(6) (c) (3), to see if collocation would be possihlc on other sites in <br />the location needed and height needed by Voicestream. <br />City stalfexpect a high degree of public involvement with reviewing the applicatiun after the <br />application is Completc. It Is cxtrcnicly Important that the application contain all the necessary <br />documentation IOr the proposed cell monopole tClecolnIII unlcation facility for it to stand up to <br />public scrutiny and be able to withstand any appeals of the decision that could be filed, if the <br />application is approved. Staff do not want to be in the position of denying the application simply <br />because there was lack of information contained in the application. <br />The revised Exhibits 5 and 6 will need to be reviewed by a technical consultant. Thus, revisions <br />to Exhibits 5 and 6 shall be accompanied by a fee to cover the review of the Exhibits by a <br />technical consultant, as noted in EC 9.5750(1 1) Fees. Please submit a fee of $2,000. This fee is <br />a deposit and any unused portion of the fee will be returned to you. The first review of the <br />technical documents amounted to a $1,940 fee which leaves $60 deposit remaining from the fee <br />deposit you provided on May 13, 2004, in the amount of $2,000. It'is expected that if the revised <br />Exhibits 5 and 6 provide the documentation noted in the consultant's report, the consultant's fee <br />would be much less than $2,000. Any remaining fee deposit will be returned to you. <br />If you have questions regarding the consultant's report please direct the questions to me via e- <br />mail and I will forward them to the consultant. <br />In conclusion, please submit revisions to Exhibits 5 and 6 with a deposit fee of $2,000 to cover <br />the technical review of the documents. <br />Sincerely, <br />X;L~ <br />Kent Kullby, AICP, Associate Planner <br />Telephone: (541) 682-5453 <br />e-mail: kent.r.kullbya..ci.eugene.or.us <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.