My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 2 - Friends of Amazon Creek Submittal
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 2 - Friends of Amazon Creek Submittal
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2015 9:28:58 AM
Creation date
5/28/2015 9:26:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
5/27/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
345
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
(j) viewshed. The transmission tower shall be located down slope from the top of <br />a ridgeline so that when viewed from any point along the northern right-of-way <br />th <br />line of 18 Avenue, the tower does not interrupt the profile of the ridgeline or <br />Spencer Butte. In addition, a transmission tower shall not interrupt the profile <br />Spencer Butte when viewed from any location in Amazon Park. Visual impacts to <br />prominent views of Skinner Butte, Judkins Point, and Gillespie Butte shall be <br />minimized to the greatest extent possible. Approval for location of a transmission <br />tower in a prominent view of these Buttes shall be given only if location of the <br />transmission tower on an alternative site is not possible as documented by <br />application materials submitted by the applicant, and the transmission tower is <br />limited in height to the minimum necessary to provide the approximate coverage <br />the tower is intended to provide. <br /> While views of the buttes are not obscured, the application is legally deficient in terms of <br />adverse impacts on the viewshed. The proposed monopine will dominate the views of <br />surrounding residences, and the proposed monopine does not preserve or enhance the desirable <br />features of the surrounding community and neighborhood, which include parklands, running <br />trails, the Amazon corridor and creek, and the natural and sensitive environment. <br /> <br />(11) Application Review and Fees. The city manager shall retain one or more <br />consultants to verify the accuracy of statements made in connection with an application <br />for a building or land use permit for a telecommunications facility. Notwithstanding any <br />other provision of this code, the city manager shall require the applicant to pay, as part <br />the consultant(s). <br />This standard is important because it demonstrates that the consultants used by the city <br />building or land use permit for a telecommunications facility. <br />makes certain representations that are not accurate or otherwise verifiable, the city has the <br />authority to deny the application because the applicant has not carried its burden of proof. <br />Because this standard places additional, substantive requirements on other standards and <br />requirements in the code, those other code provisions are mandatory approval standards. <br />As noted by CMS, the applicant has not demonstrated a technical need for a single <br />location or is the only option <br />to address coverage needs; and that (2) the selected location is the only location that would at <br />least mitigate or reduce the size of the gap in 4G LTE service and improve the service overall. <br />15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.