accomplish by a condition, amending the application so substantially that it results in a different <br />use than what was originally applied for. <br />The Planning Commission finds that Hearings Official did not err in deferring a determination of <br />compliance with the applicable noise standard with this condition of approval, because a Type II <br />final PUD application will be required at a later time with public notice and opportunity for hearing. <br />Like the PUD, a CUP approval also requires the applicant to demonstrate consistency with the noise <br />standard at EC 9.5750(7)(f). As noted above, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that <br />the noise standard at EC 9.5750(7)(f) has been met. Unlike the PUD process, the.CUP process is not <br />a.two-stage approval process, so, independently there would be no later opportunity to which the <br />Planning Commission could defer the determination for purposes of approving the CUP. As such, <br />and because these are-concurrent applications, the Planning Commission adds a condition of <br />approval below (see Condition #10) to clarify that the effectiveness of CUP approval is contingent <br />upon final PUD approval. Through that Type II final PUD application process, the noise standard <br />(and compliance with other conditions of approval) will be addressed with public notic'and <br />opportunity for hearing, consistent local code and statutory requirements. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official correctly denied the applicant's variance, <br />thereby requiring the ancillary equipment underground; because it did not,meet.the 45dBa noise <br />standard and thus failed to meet the requirement to "obviate".the need for compliance. Based on <br />the available information in the record, the Planning Commission also concludes that the applicant <br />failed to demonstrate that undergrounding the ancillary equipment would not be possible based. <br />on available technology. While the applicant's statement about possible relocation as a result of <br />underground ing,the ancillary equipment is not entirely clear, it appears to be in made in reference <br />to the equipment location, not the tower. To address the concern about tower relocation, the <br />Planning Commission modifies the approval condition below to clarify that relocation of the <br />proposed tower is not allowed as a result of the requirement to install underground ancillary <br />facilities. <br />Condition of Approval #1 (as modified): <br />The applicant shall submit a new site plan with the ancillary equipment for'the tower <br />placed underground. The tower shall remain in exactly the same location as initially <br />proposed in the tentative PUD and CUP applications.. <br />Condition of Approval #6 (as modified): <br />For review as part of the final PUD approval process, the applicant shall provide a <br />revised noise study demonstrating compliance with EC 9.5750(7)(f). The noise study <br />shall be for a proposal that does not include a variance pursuant to EC 9.5750(9)(c). <br />Condition of Approval #10 (added): <br />The CUP approval shall,only be effective upon final. PUD approval, with a determination <br />of compliance-with approval conditions as part of the required Type II review process <br />for final, PUD approval. <br />Final Order -AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2,& CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 6 <br />