My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2015 4:11:17 PM
Creation date
6/18/2015 10:30:06 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 submitted after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
6/17/2015
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.
/
259
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
In this decision, however, the hearing official is requiring the applicant to place the equipment <br />supporting the tower underground. This will buffer the residences from that equipment. The <br />hearing official is also requiring the applicant to employ a landscape architect to design visual <br />buffering of the tower both on the subject parcel, and as seen from the parcels that adjoin the <br />subject property in the vicinity of the tower. <br />No matter whether one reads this provision as broad direction to the city or as applicable to <br />specific proposed development, the proposal is consistent with this policy. <br />Minimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility between residential and <br />nonresidential land uses (General Policy 6): <br />The context of this policy could be interpreted as broad direction to the city to promote <br />compatibility. Both the CUP and PUD criteria require compliance with criteria that address <br />compatibility, consistent with this policy (See EC 9.8090(2), EC 9.8090(3), 9.8320(3), 9.8320(12), <br />and 9.8320(13)). <br />As well, the text of this policy could be interpreted as applicable to specific development <br />proposals. The applicant's written statement refers to several elements that promote <br />compatibility. These include the use of a monopole instead of a lattice tower, tree preservation <br />and new planting, and the tower is to have a matte, non-glare finish and there will be no tower <br />lighting. The findings and conclusions in response to EC 9.8090(2), EC 9.8090(3), 9.8320(3), <br />9.8320(12), and 9.8320(13) are incorporated here. <br />Conclusion <br />The proposed development is consistent with the Willakenzie Area Plan. <br />EC 9.8320(3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties <br />including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height. <br />Findings <br />The applicant proposes to develop a 75-foot tall telecommunications pole within an existing 58- <br />acre golf course development. The adjacent parcels to the north and west are zoned R-1/13D <br />and were developed as part of the Oakway Golf Course PUD with an apartment complex (City <br />File PD 74-3). Adjacent parcels to the east are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family <br />residences. To the south and separated by the golf course, the nearest parcels are also zoned R- <br />1/PD and developed with single-family residential uses. <br />The applicant notes that the tower height is the minimal size necessary to comply with <br />applicant's coverage requirements. It is also the maximum height (75-feet) allowed in the R-1 <br />Low Density Residential zone for new telecommunications facilities. The applicant notes the <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.