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
At this point, the hearing official has two choices. First, the hearing official could deny the <br />application as not in compliance with this criterion. Second, the hearing official could deny the <br />applicant's request for a variance pursuant to EC 9.5750(9)(c) to allow placement of the <br />facilities above ground. Placing the equipment for the tower underground will almost certainly <br />resolve the noise issue; however, there is nothing in the record that supports this seemingly <br />obvious conclusion. For this reason, the applicant must still demonstrate that a revised <br />proposal must comply with this noise criterion. Thus, it is appropriate to impose a condition of <br />approval requiring the applicant to provide a new noise study. Because this is an application <br />requirement, it will be necessary for the noise study to be reviewed in the same manner as a <br />PDT application. The final PUD application process subject to type II process with notice and <br />comment period is still required, at which time compliance can be confirmed. <br />Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall provide a revised noise study <br />demonstrating compliance with EC 9.5750(7)(f). The noise study shall be for a proposal <br />that does not include a variance pursuant to EC 9.5750(9)(c). <br />The hearing official believes the applicant can comply with this standard. <br />(g) Status of Location. No permit may be issued for the location of a new <br />telecommunications facility within an R-1 or C-1 zone unless the lot on <br />which it is to be placed is vacant or developed with a non-residential <br />use at the time the permit application is submitted. This restriction <br />does not apply within other zones. <br />The lot on which the telecommunications facility is to be placed is zoned R-1 and developed <br />with the non-residential use of a privately owned golf course. <br />(h) Lighting. No lighting shall be permitted on transmission towers except <br />that required by the Federal Aviation Administration. No high intensity <br />white lights may be located on transmission towers in an R-1, C-1, or <br />PRO zone. <br />Per the applicant's written statement and site plans, no lighting attached to the tower is <br />proposed, and neither the FAA nor Oregon Department of Aviation requires lighting. <br />(i) Color. The transmission tower and attached antennas shall be <br />unpainted galvanized steel or painted neutral colors or such shades as <br />are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding environment, as <br />approved by the city. <br />The applicant's written statement notes that the transmission tower will be unpainted <br />galvanized finish and can be painted to be more compatible. To ensure compliance with this <br />criterion the following condition of approval is warranted: <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.