Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FiUancial and/or ResOurce Considerations Review of the City's provisions for cell toW~ facilities i.s not on'the FY03 Planning CommiSsion work ' program and is not included On the list of post-LUCU work prOgram items.- Adding this item to the work program in FY03 would require delay in the LUBA remand work program. The post-LUCU work program is already len .gthy. If the council is interested in adding this review to the list, it would compete with the other post-LUCU work program items for Priority during the development of the Planning Commission work program for FY04 and beyond. Other Background Information An overview of the City's regulations for telecommunication facilities can be found on the attached memorandUm to Mayor Torrey and City Council from Jan Childs, dated December 13, 2001. The following paragraph updates that memorandum status report'on telecommunication facility siting since the February 1997 adoption of those regulations. since' enactment of the telecomm~nication facility code amendments, 33 building,permits have been issued (one in .1998, four in 1999, seven in 2000, 18 in 2001, and three thus far in 2002) for telecommunication facilities. Of the 33 building permits issued, only three involved the Site Review process. A total of eight site review applications have been received since the.enactment of the code 'amendments (two in 1999, two in 2000, and four in 2001), .all involving commercially zoned land. Of those received, three were approved, three were withdrawn, one was denied, and one is pending at the Court of Appeals (initially approved by the Planning Director and upheld by the Laud Use Board of Appeals). The relatively large number of building permits issued compared to the number of land use applications indicates that the tiered approach established in the code has served as an incentive to locate facilities where the process is much simpler; that is, in preferred locations. There have been no land use applications submitted at any time for cell towers in residential Zones. The number of contrOversial site r'eview applications received by the Planning Division has not increased Since the December 13,200i status report. The three applications noted at that time as controversial and pending (SR 01-5 - Verizon WirelesS, SR 01-32 - Sprint PCS, and SR 01'33 - Masters Towers LLC) have all been decided, except for Masters TowerS LLC which is currently Pending before the Court of Appeals. Verizon Wkeless (SR 01-5), involving an 80-foot monopole.located at 1859 Franldin Boulevard and zoned C-2 Community Commercial, was' originally denied by the Planning Director. This application was appealed by the applicant to the Hearings Official who overturned the piimning Director's decision 'and apProved the proposed monopole. 'Neighbors appealed that decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) which upheld the Hearings Official's approval. Sprint PCS (SR 01-32) was an application for a 120-foot monopole to be located at 1404 Villard Street adjacent to Williams Bakery on property zoned C-2 Community Commercial. The Planning Director denied the application, based on non-compliance with many of the approval'criteria. Unlike the VeriZon application which was in a area surrounded by commercial zo_n_ing and characterized by mixed.uses, the Sprint site was on the edge of commercial zoning, with an exclusively residential ares beginning ~. immediately adjacent to the south. In general, the Planning Director found that the cell tower Would be incompatible with the Surrounding property and that itviolated the requirement of a 2,000 foot separation from other towers (the approved Verizon tower was within 2,000 feet of the proposed Sprint ~ower). The findings of the Planning Director pointed out 13 sections of the code where the application failed to meet apprOval criteria, application requirements, or siting standards. The applicant appealed p:~CMO~2002 Council AgendssWl021014~S021014C.wpd Eugene City Council Agenda page18 1V_27