My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 1 - ATT Additional Testimony (5/27/15)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 1 - ATT Additional Testimony (5/27/15)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2015 4:05:57 PM
Creation date
5/28/2015 9:45:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Misc.
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.
/
204
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
May 27, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />• EC 9.8090(3): Attractive as the Nature of the Use and Settine Warrant: <br />AT&T response: The setting near the site, while well vegetated, also has regularly <br />spaced utility poles with equipment and cables prominently visible to neighbors, <br />pedestrians and drivers. (See Hearing Power Point). All of the elements visible must be <br />included when evaluating if the project is as attractive as the nature of the setting <br />warrants. <br />In analyzing this code provision, it is important to keep in mind that the nature of the <br />use proposed here is a cell tower. The stealth design has been added to make this use <br />as attractive as possible. AT&T has met and exceeded this standard by proposing a high <br />quality stealth monopine for this cell facility, designed to resemble the trees in the <br />vicinity, rather than the standard monopole with full antenna array. <br />• EC 9.5750(6)(b)(2.): Capacity to Accommodate Additional Antennas: <br />AT&T Response: The submittal requirements in the code do not require AT&T to incur <br />the expense of conducting the structural analysis for the tower for submittal with the <br />CUP. AT&T has submitted drawings and a statement that the monopine can <br />accommodate collocation. In the November 4, 2014 Completeness Review (HOA p. 190), <br />Staff notes that the documentation appeared to be complete, with no request for any <br />additional information, including structural analysis. Since that time, AT&T has reduced <br />the number of antennas from 12 to 6, with ample room for collocation. AT&T has no <br />objection to a condition of approval requiring the structural analysis be submitted with <br />the building permit, as it has with other cell towers in Eugene. The city's building <br />officials regularly review structural analyses of proposed development and have the <br />requisite expertise to evaluate the tower. <br />• EC 9.5750(6)(c)(1.): Visual Study, Photo Simulations: <br />AT&T Response: The photosimulations have changed as AT&T has altered the design to <br />respond to staff concerns. The latest set of photosimulations submitted on March 27, <br />2015 accurately reflects the proposed design of the monopine today. For sake of clarity, <br />only those photo simulations are included in the Hearing Power Point. The earlier photo <br />simulations are useful in providing a general idea of the mass and scale of the proposed <br />monopine, keeping in mind that the final design has been slimmed down and the <br />number of antennas has been reduced from 12 to 6 to further mitigate visual impact. <br />AT&T has also provided photographs from the monopine vendor of the proposed <br />monopine design actually installed at another location. (See Hearing Power Point). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.