Northgreen Proper#y Appeal Issue 12 <br />Compatibilityand H~rmonywith theAdjacentand Nearby Uses <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 43-44 of the decision pages 83-84 of the <br />record} in relation to EC 9.832013}.The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official wrongly _ <br />concluded this criterion was met because it met many of the measurable standards. <br />The Hearings Official noted that compatibilityisaverysubjectivestandard andwhatone <br />person believes is compatible another person might believe is very incompatible. Further, he <br />notes that City Council has already determined that telecommunications towers are permissible <br />under the applicable R-1 zoning and therefore in close proximity to residences. What is <br />essentially left for the Hearings Official to decide is the impact of the tower at this location, in <br />contextwith the applicable approval criteria, nottowers in general. The Hearings Official then <br />incorporates the findingsand conclusionsfrom EC9.8320~3} in determiningthatthe approval <br />criterion was met. <br />As such, staff recommends thatthe Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official's decision <br />with regard to Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 12. <br />Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 13 <br />Livability - EC 9,8090~2~ <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 45-46 of the decision pages 85-86 of the <br />record}.The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that a portion of the <br />criterion did not appl~yto the proposal. <br />The Hearings Official correctly notes that subsection ~a}ensures buildings are appropriately <br />sized for their use. The use in this case is a cell tower, not a building, and subsection ~a} is not <br />applicable. Whiiethe appellantassertsthattheequipmentmaybe buildings,theuse is acell <br />tower which is not a building. <br />Under subsection ~b},the Hearings Official also provides findings that address noise, glare and <br />radio frequency emissions. The Hearings official incorporated EC 9.57507}~f} by reference in <br />regardsto noise, and part of the Hearings Official'sspproach was to require undergroundingof <br />the ancillary facilities. As discussed above, undergrounding the ancillary facilities may alter the <br />current application so substantially that a new application is needed, and the feasibility of the <br />related approval condition may not be based on adequate evidence in the record, <br />As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission's determination under this issue <br />should alsofollowthe related outcome upon deliberations, regarding Northgreen Property <br />Appeal Issue 3. <br />REC~MMENDATIaN <br />Based on the available evidence and findings above as to why the decision may have erred, staff <br />recommends thatthe Planning Commission closelyconsider and deliberate possible reversal of the ~ <br />Hearing's Official's approval ofthe applications, in responseto Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 3. <br />9 <br />PC Agenda -Page 9 <br />