My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-11/22/04Mtg
>
Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:42:10 PM
Creation date
11/17/2004 12:20:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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).
View images
View plain text
FiUancial and/or ResOurce Considerations <br />Review of the City's provisions for cell toW~ facilities i.s not on'the FY03 Planning CommiSsion work ' <br />program and is not included On the list of post-LUCU work prOgram items.- Adding this item to the <br />work program in FY03 would require delay in the LUBA remand work program. The post-LUCU work <br />program is already len .gthy. If the council is interested in adding this review to the list, it would compete <br />with the other post-LUCU work program items for Priority during the development of the Planning <br />Commission work program for FY04 and beyond. <br /> <br /> Other Background Information <br /> An overview of the City's regulations for telecommunication facilities can be found on the attached <br /> memorandUm to Mayor Torrey and City Council from Jan Childs, dated December 13, 2001. The <br /> following paragraph updates that memorandum status report'on telecommunication facility siting since <br /> the February 1997 adoption of those regulations. <br /> <br /> since' enactment of the telecomm~nication facility code amendments, 33 building,permits have been <br /> issued (one in .1998, four in 1999, seven in 2000, 18 in 2001, and three thus far in 2002) for <br /> telecommunication facilities. Of the 33 building permits issued, only three involved the Site Review <br /> process. A total of eight site review applications have been received since the.enactment of the code <br /> 'amendments (two in 1999, two in 2000, and four in 2001), .all involving commercially zoned land. Of <br /> those received, three were approved, three were withdrawn, one was denied, and one is pending at the <br /> Court of Appeals (initially approved by the Planning Director and upheld by the Laud Use Board of <br /> Appeals). The relatively large number of building permits issued compared to the number of land use <br /> applications indicates that the tiered approach established in the code has served as an incentive to locate <br /> facilities where the process is much simpler; that is, in preferred locations. There have been no land use <br /> applications submitted at any time for cell towers in residential Zones. <br /> The number of contrOversial site r'eview applications received by the Planning Division has not increased <br /> Since the December 13,200i status report. The three applications noted at that time as controversial and <br /> pending (SR 01-5 - Verizon WirelesS, SR 01-32 - Sprint PCS, and SR 01'33 - Masters Towers LLC) <br /> have all been decided, except for Masters TowerS LLC which is currently Pending before the Court of <br /> Appeals. <br /> Verizon Wkeless (SR 01-5), involving an 80-foot monopole.located at 1859 Franldin Boulevard and <br /> zoned C-2 Community Commercial, was' originally denied by the Planning Director. This application <br /> was appealed by the applicant to the Hearings Official who overturned the piimning Director's decision <br /> 'and apProved the proposed monopole. 'Neighbors appealed that decision to the Land Use Board of <br /> Appeals (LUBA) which upheld the Hearings Official's approval. <br /> Sprint PCS (SR 01-32) was an application for a 120-foot monopole to be located at 1404 Villard Street <br /> adjacent to Williams Bakery on property zoned C-2 Community Commercial. The Planning Director <br /> denied the application, based on non-compliance with many of the approval'criteria. Unlike the VeriZon <br /> application which was in a area surrounded by commercial zo_n_ing and characterized by mixed.uses, the <br /> Sprint site was on the edge of commercial zoning, with an exclusively residential ares beginning <br /> ~. immediately adjacent to the south. In general, the Planning Director found that the cell tower Would be <br /> incompatible with the Surrounding property and that itviolated the requirement of a 2,000 foot <br /> separation from other towers (the approved Verizon tower was within 2,000 feet of the proposed Sprint <br /> ~ower). The findings of the Planning Director pointed out 13 sections of the code where the application <br /> failed to meet apprOval criteria, application requirements, or siting standards. The applicant appealed <br /> p:~CMO~2002 Council AgendssWl021014~S021014C.wpd <br /> Eugene City Council Agenda page18 1V_27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.