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
Therefore, the applicant must resubmit the application with verifiable and accurate propagation <br />maps. Furthermore, <br />signal is belied by the drive test and conversations with agents for the applicant indicating <br />excellent coverage. See exhibit A <br />ed maps showing full coverage). <br />CMS also identified unverifiable or inaccurate statements regarding alternative sites <br />required under 9.5750(6)(c)(2). The applicant has not demonstrated reasons why alternative sites <br />are not technologically unfeasible, and, therefore, the only rationale for rejecting alternative sites <br />facilities cannot be used according to an EWEB policy has been shown to be inaccurate, and, <br />therefore, the application must be denied. <br />The applicant similarly argues that it cannot use existing light poles in the public right of <br />way along Dillard and Fox Hollow roads because the poles are not high enough to provide <br />adequate overall height. This justification, however, begs the question of what coverage is <br />needed. As noted previously, coverage is already excellent in the area, according <br />to agents for the applicant and there is no gap necessary to be covered in the neighborhood. <br />Thus, the agency has not provided verifiable and/or accurate information related to <br />9.5750(6)(c)(2). <br />For 9.5750(6)(c)(3 <br />service coverage area needs, <br />coverage goalsand <br />the search ring are of insufficient height to meet the service needs at +/-By relying on the <br />center, the issue of what is necessary to cover an alleged gap in the area. As noted elsewhere the <br />filled. If the needs, once verified, can be satisfied with less intrusive methods not requiring a 75- <br />ft monopine, then the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to satisfy (6)(c)(3). <br /> <br />Conditional Use Criteria <br />9.8090(1) The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and <br />applicable refinement plans. <br /> One applicable Metro Plan policy is policy E.4, which provides: <br />facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable <br />16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.