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
I telecommunications tower "be designed and located" to "preserve[] and enhance" desirable <br />2 features of the area. The context provided in the preamble to the Environmental Resources <br />3 Design element provides additional support in referring to "daily decisions" being guided by <br />4 "site planning." Additionally, we are not directed to any language in any of the cited <br />5 provisions of the EC or any other provision of the EC that indicates that the cited provisions <br />6 were adopted to implement Policy E-4 fully and make independent application of Policy E-4 <br />7 unnecessary. Absent any citation by the city or intervenor to language in the EC that <br />8 indicates that the cited provisions governing PUD and CUP applications implement Policy E- <br />9 4 fully, or citation to any language in the cited provisions that is sufficiently similar to the <br />10 language in Policy E-4 that requires the city to ensure that public facilities are "designed and <br />11 located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood <br />12 areas and promotes their sense of identity," we disagree with the city that the cited provisions <br />13 of the EC implement Policy E-4 fully. <br />14 Finally, we agree with petitioner that to the extent the planning commission findings <br />15 quoted above are intended to constitute alternative findings that the applications are <br />16 consistent with Policy E-4, those findings are inadequate to explain the basis for so <br />17 concluding. <br />18 The first assignment of error is sustained, in part. <br />19 SECOND AND FOURTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />20 EC 9.8320(3) requires that "the PUD will provide adequate screening from <br />21 surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and <br />22 height. ,3 EC 9.8320(13) requires that "[t]he proposed development shall be reasonably <br />23 compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses." In its fourth assignment of <br />3 EC 9.0500 defines "screening" as "[a] method of visually shielding or obscuring an area through the use <br />of fencing, walls, berms, or densely-planted vegetation." <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.