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 error, petitioner argues that the city misconstrued EC 9.8320(3) in determining that the <br />2 proposal "will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties * * In its second <br />3 assignment of error, petitioner argues that the city's findings are inadequate and there is not <br />4 substantial evidence in the record to support the city's conclusion that EC 9.8320(13) is <br />5 satisfied. The city's decision addresses EC 9.8320(3) and EC 9.8320(13) together, and we <br />6 therefore address petitioner's assignments of error challenging those parts of the decision <br />7 together. <br />8 A. EC 9.8320(3) <br />9 In determining whether the proposal provided "adequate screening" as required by <br />10 EC 9.8320(3) the hearings officer first reviewed the EC definition of "screening" quoted <br />11 above at n 3, and reviewed the dictionary definitions of "shield" and "obscure .,,4 He <br />12 concluded that the bottom approximately 50 feet of the tower could be adequately screened <br />13 through landscaping, that the top approximately 25 feet of the tower could not practically be <br />14 screened from view with any landscaping, and that even if it could be screened with <br />15 landscaping the tower would not function in the way that intervenor requires with that <br />16 screening. He concluded that the use of the word "adequate" in EC 9.8320(3) means that the <br />17 entire tower is not required to be screened, but rather that the tower must be screened "to a <br />18 reasonable extent" considering the proposed use. Record 223-226. He imposed a condition <br />19 of approval that requires intervenor to work with owners of adjoining properties to design <br />20 screening that meets their needs. The planning commission agreed with the hearings <br />21 officer's interpretation of the phrase "adequate screening." Record 13. <br />22 In its fourth assignment of error, we understand petitioner to argue that the city <br />23 misconstrued EC 9.8320(3) when it concluded that requiring screening of the bottom two <br />4 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged 1981) defines "shield" as "l.b: to cutoff from <br />observation: conceal, hide * * Id. at 2094. "Obsure" is defined as "Lb: to conceal or hide from view as by <br />or as if by covering wholly or in part: make difficult to discern." Id. at 1557. <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.