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

Home Browse Search

...... Telecommunications Facility Siting Prior to and Since~the February. 1997 adoption of the ci _ty'.s : ._d~. T~iecommunications Facility Rec, ulations FOurteen applications were received prior to establishment of the moratorium preceding enactment of the City's telecgmmunications facility regulations. Two were .for antennas on existing facilities and required building permit review only. Of the-remaining twelve applications' eleven were approved with conditions and one was withdrawn. SinCe enactment of the teleCOmmunications facility COde amendments, 30 building p~'aits have been issued for facilities allowed'as a Permitted.use and eight Site Review applications have' b~en .submitted. No Conditional Use applications have been submitted. Of the eight Site Review applications, three were .approved, two are pending and three were withdrawn. One of the applications withdrawn, by Verizon Wireless. for'a 100-foot monopole, .was resubmitted by Verizon for an 80-foot monOpole as SR 01-5. This application, approved on appeal by the Hearings Official, is on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The relatively large number of building permit applications compared to the number of land use applications indicates that the tiered approach established in the code has served as an incentive to submission of' applications for preferred locations Issue~ in Recent Telecommunications Facili' _ty Applications Telecommunication facility siting has returned to the forefront recently due to opposition to · ' ~ applications submitted Outside the urban growth boundary in Lane County, near the University of "-,i ) Oregon and in River Road. In all three instances, issues raises have included both aesthetic and health concerns. Since local governments were pre-empted by the federal government from consid~ health concerns in teleCOmmunication facility siting decisions, health issues are not addressed by our current code and cannot be addressed by future code amendments. Three Eugene Site Review apPlications have proven controversial: SR 01-5, Verizon Wireless; · SR 01-32, SprintPCS and SR 01-33, Master Towers LLC. SR 01-5, Verizon Wireless is an application for an gO-foot monopole located at 1859 Franklin Avenue, between Franklin Boulevard and Garden Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 General CommerCial. A great deal of public testi_'_mony was submitted in opposition to the Site Review application~ Opponents in the immediate vicinity of fife.site indicated concern about visual · impacts on the residential character of Garden Avenue. Noise, P°tential'health risks, poor siting · and inadequate doc6mentafion of need at the proposed.location were of equal concern to opponenLs. Most opponents identified visual impacts on viewsheds and the general area (as an entrance to the City and University) as a secondary COncern. The Planning Director denied the application based on two Criteria: 'Compatibility with the surroundings...~ and ~Evidence demonstrating collocation is'impractical...' The Hearings Officialreversed the Planning Director and granted approval with a COndition requiring documentation of FAA approval prior to building permit approval, a standardCOndition in Site Review approvals of telecommunications facilities. The Hearings Official approval is on appeal to LUBA, with the appellants arguing that the Hearings Official erred in her decision with respect to compatibility, noise standards and Eugene City Council Agenda page23