Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Financial and/or ResOurce Considerations Rei, iew of the City's provisions for cell toW& facilities is not °nthe FY03 Planning CommiSsion work program and is not included 8n 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 lengthy. 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. OtherBackground 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's status report'on telecommunication facility siting since the February 1997 adoption of those regulations. since enactment of the telecommunication 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 thc.enactment of the code ' amenaments (two in !999, 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 Of those received, three were approved, three were withdrawn, one was denied, and one is pendiog at the Court of Appeals (initially approved by the Planning Director and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals). The relatively large nUmber of building permits issued compared to the nUmber of land use applications inclicates that the tiered approach established in the code has served as m 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 reView applications received by the Planning Division has not increaSed . since the December 13,200i status report. 'The three applications noted at that ~me 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 Appears. Verizon Wireless (SR 01-5), involving an 80-foot monopole.located at 1859 Franklin Boulevard and zoned C-2 Community Commercial, was'ori~nally denied by the Planning Director. This application was appealed by the applicant to the Hearings Official who. overturned the Planning Director's decision 'and approved the proposed m0nopole. 'Neighbors appealed that decision to the Laud 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 zoning and characterized by mixed.uses, the Sprint site was on the edge of commercial zoning, with an exclusively residential area be~nuing · . immediately adjacent to the south. In general, the Planning Director found that the cell tower Would be incOmPatible with the Surrounding property and that it violated the requirement of a 2,000 foot separation from other towers (the approved Verizon tower was within~2,000 feet of the proposed Sprint tower). 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 standar&. The applicant appealed P:~CMO~2002 Council Agendas~1021014~S021014C.wpd Eugene City Counci[ Agenda pagel8 iV_27