Metadata
(6)(b) Construction of Transmission Tower. In addition to standard required <br />application material, an applicant for a transmission tower shall submit the <br />following information; additional application material is required, as specified in <br />paragraph (c) below, for applications requiring a site review or conditional use <br />process: <br />9 <br />(1) A description of the proposed tower location, design, and height. <br /> The proposed tower is to be disguised as a monopine. Because the monopine with <br />antennae from the applicant and future antennae from a collocator will be an anomaly in the <br />viewshed (and because there is simply no such tree as a monopine), the applicant proposes to <br />screen the monopine in an attempt to salvage the loss of aesthetic value to the neighborhood. <br />Friends believe that many of <br />cartoonish, contradictory, and inconsistent. These representations of the monopine are important <br />because aesthetics and view are so fundamental to the inquiry at issue. The applicant has <br />proposed several different representations of the monopine, and, therefore, it is impossible for <br />Friends, the public, and the Hearings Official to ascertain what the proposed monopine will look <br />like until it is constructed and too late. The individuals that live in the neighborhood and <br />community, as well as those that visit the adjacent park and trails, will easily identify the <br />monopine because it has no surrounding trees of sufficient size. Sufficient screening would take <br />decades to grow and the residents, trail runners, and others would be left with an obtrusive <br />monolith that towers over the shorter, deciduous trees along the street. Finally, there has been no <br />demonstration that the proposed color of the monopine would blend in or that it would represent <br />the true colors of an existing tree in the surrounding area. For example, the CMS submission <br />includes <br />considered the use of this technology. As such, the applicant has fallen short of the mark when it <br />comes down to the most fundamental aspect of the proposal describing the design of the <br />monopine. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />9 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary to <br />determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />5 <br /> <br />