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

Home Browse Search

viewshed requirements.. Oral argumentS.before LUBAare schedUl~.'for this.week ..The LUBA ... decision, and subsequent challenges beyond LUBA if filed, Will define the scope of:'surrouuding area' in which compatibility is to evaluated and the extent of the collocation'requirement. "~' ""' SR 01-33, Master Towers LLC is an application for a 100-foot monopole on property local~l at '103 Oakleigh.Lane. The property iszoned C-2 General Commercial. The primary Concerns raised in public testimony include incompatibilitY with the. adjacent residential areas and nearby school, decreased property values, a perceived laCk of need for additional telecomm_unications __m.'_c_e in the..vicini.ty .and po, t.en. fi.a}..heal, th a~..d safe~ risks associated with exposure to . ecuomagneuc ennsslons, r~elghborsspeclfically objected to. the proposal for a "stealth" designed flagpole with an American flag at the top. A Plmming'Director decisionis pending. SR 01--32, Sprint PCS is an application for a'120-foot mon0polelOcatedat 1404 Viltard Street'on property owned by W'ffiiams Bakery. The property is zoned C-2 General Commercial. The tower is proposed.to be a "stealth' design, a tall slender columu that contains the antenna arms within thc column. The Site. Review application includes a variance to EC 9.5750'because the tower is proposed within 2,000 feet of the already.approved,-but currently litigated, VerizOn Wireless telecommunications tower between Franklin Boulevard and Garden Avenue. This application was incomplete as originally Submitted; staff expects the additiohal material to be submitted within the next few weeks.- A decision will be issued within 45-' days after the reViSed application is deemed complete[ Although'a complete application has not been accepted,. publicity of the proposed site in a Register-Cruard article has'generated.many.letters and - petitions, largelyin opposition to the proposed tower.'. Visual impact, decreased property values and health concerns are the primary issues raised in public-testimony received so far. Citizen concern'about applications Submitted outside the urban growth boundary has resulted in work by Lane County to update the County code'to adopt specific requirements for telecommunications, faCilities. County staff reviewed code provisions from eight Oregon cities and counties 'and borrowed .liberally from the Eugene and Polk County codes in developing draft COde amendments. The Lane County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendments in November 2001 and is scheduled to forward a recommendation to the Board on December 18, 2001. Public hearing and actiOn by the Board will be scheduled for early 2002. If you have any questions, please Call me'at 682-5208. IV-33 Eugene City Council Agenda page24