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
pole will be visible against and contrast with the sky, but that a landscape architect could assist <br />with how to try to achieve screening or masking of the upper portion of the tower. So, while the <br />top of the pole may not be completely screened from all angles, with the condition, the Hearings <br />Official found that the pole would be "adequately screened. <br />The Planning Commission concludes that while the Hearings Official erred with respect to the condition <br />of approval to ensure adequate screening under assignment of error six, the Hearings Official did not <br />err in-his interpretation what is meant by "adequate.screening" as provided at EC 9.8320(3). <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies'Northgreen Property's fifth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Sixth Assignment of Error <br />PUD Standards for Screening - EC 9.8320(3) - Requirement for New Landscape Plan <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 12-15 of his decision, finding <br />that a condition of approval was required to ensure adequate screening. He found that "it is <br />appropriate for the applicant to have the landscape architect work with those owners as well to <br />determine how to best screen (or mask) the base of the tower. The recommendation in the staff <br />report for the applicant to plant up to two trees on the property lines of the adjoining homes correctly <br />places the burden of screening on the applicant, but does not ensure effective screening. What is <br />needed is individual attention to each property owner and the unique visual challenges from each <br />home and yard." The appellant asserts the application. should be denied instead of the Hearings <br />Official "repairing" the application through a condition, and because the condition does not state the <br />final plan will be subject to future review in the final PUD process. . <br />The Hearings Official provided the following under Condition of Approval #2: <br />The applicant shall engage a local (mid-Willamette Valley) landscape architect (no other <br />professional will be acceptable) to develop a comprehensive screening plan for the <br />proposed'tower to be incorporated into the final tree preservation/landscape plan (Sheet L- <br />1). The landscape architect must consider views of the tower from the homes and yards . <br />that adjoin the subject property in the vicinity of the tower, including the Northgreen <br />Apartments. The landscape architect shall mork directly with the landowners of the <br />adjoining properties to design screening that meets those owners' needs. The screening <br />may be located on the subject property, the property of the adjoining owners (with their <br />consent), or both. The final tree preservation/landscape plan (Sheet L-1) shall show the <br />location and species of existing trees and new screening vegetation to be planted on the <br />development site and adjoining properties and shall list the following requirements: <br />New trees to be planted on the development site shall be a minimum caliper <br />of 2" for deciduous trees and a minimum height of 6-feet for coniferous or, <br />evergreen trees at time of planting. <br />The proposed trees shall be planted a minimum of ten feet from structures <br />and must be located outside any easements. <br />The plantings must be inspected and approved prior to the City granting final <br />approval of the building permit. <br />Final Order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.