compatible another person might believe is very incompatible. The hearing official will not <br />address noise or the tower equipment in this analysis-those factors were addressed above in <br />response to EC 9.5750(7)(f). The equipment will be below ground and not visible. <br />The City Council has already determined that telecommunications towers are permissible in the <br />R-1 zone and there is no restriction in other zones against locating a cell tower any distance <br />from the R-1 zone or other residential uses. The telecommunications standards in EC 9.5750 <br />have standards for height, setbacks, color, lighting, and use of the tower for display of signs. <br />These telecommunications standards were established to create clear criteria to for providers <br />to meet, but also provide a discretionary process to provide for public input on a case-by-case <br />basis. The proposed tower complies with the height, setbacks, color, and lighting (there will no <br />aviation lighting) standards. <br />Basically, what is left for the hearing official to consider is visual impact of this tower at this <br />location-not towers in general, because as explained in the above paragraph, the City Council <br />has already concluded that towers may be located in close proximity to residences. The <br />findings and conclusions in response to EC 9.8320(3) are incorporated here. <br />The proposed development will comply with this criterion. <br />EC 9.8320(14): If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in <br />the approval of the tentative application exempts future land divisions from <br />compliance with state or local surveying requirements. <br />The applicant is not proposing a land division. This criterion is not applicable. <br />EC 9.8320(15): If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the applicant <br />shall demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the special <br />area zone. <br />The subject property is not located within a special area zone. As such, this criterion is not <br />applicable. <br />Evaluation of the Conditional Use Permit Criteria: <br />EC 9.8090(1): The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan <br />and applicable refinement plans. <br />The findings above in regards to the PUD criteria at EC 9.8320(1) and (2) which address <br />applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP), are incorporated <br />herein by reference as demonstration of compliance with this criterion. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 44 <br />