Laserfiche WebLink
TelecommUnications Facilitv Sitine Prior to and Since'the Februaxy 1997 Mouflon of the city',~ <br /> Telecommunications Facility Remdat~ons ' <br /> <br /> FOurteen applications were received prior to establishment of the moratorium'pr~eding <br /> enactment of the City's telecpmmunications facility regulations. Two were for antennas on <br /> existing facilities and required building permit review only. Of the. remaining twelve <br /> applications' eleven were approved with conditions and one was withdrawn~ <br /> <br /> Since enactment of the telecommunications facility code amendments, 30 building permits have <br /> been issued for facilities allowed, as a Permitted use and eight Site Review applications have' been <br /> .submitted. No Conditional Use applications have been submitted. Of the eight Site Review <br /> applications' three were ,approved, two are pending and three were withdrawn. One of the <br /> applications withdrawn, by Verizon Wireless fora 100-foot monopole, .was resubmitted by <br /> Verizon for an 80-foot monopole as SR 01-5. This application, approved on appeal by the <br /> Hearings Official, is on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The relatively large number <br /> of buildiqg permit applications compared to the number of land use applications indicates that <br /> the tiered approach established in the code has served as an incentive W submission of <br /> applications for preferred locations <br /> <br /> Issues in Recent Telecommunications Facility Applications <br /> <br /> Telecommunication facility siting has returned to the forefront recently due to opposition to <br /> applications submitted outside the urban growth boundary in Lane County, near the University of <br /> Oregon and in River Road. In all three instances, issues raises have included both aesthetic and <br />· health concerns. Since local governments were pre-empted by the federal government from <br /> consid~:health concerns in telecommunication facility siting decisions, health issues are not <br /> addreised by our current code and cannot be addressed by future code amendments. <br /> <br /> Three Eugene Site Review applications have proven controversial: SR 01-5, Verizon Wireless; <br />· SR 01-32, Sprint PCS and SR 01-33, Master Towers LLC. <br /> <br />SR 01'5, Vedzon Wireless is an application for an 80-foot monopole located at 1859 Franklin <br />Avenue, between Franklin Boulevard and C-arden Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 General <br />CommerCial. A great deal of public testimony was submitted in opposition to the Site Review <br />application. Opponents in the immediate vicinity of the.site indicated concern about visual · <br />impacts on the'residential character of Garden Avenue. Noise, Potential'bealth risks, poor siting <br />· and inadequate doctimentation of need at the proposed.location were of equal concern to <br />opponents. Most opponents identified visual impacts on viewsheds and the general area (as an <br />entrance to the City and University) as a secondary concern. The Planning Director denied the <br />application based on two Criteria: 'Compatibility with the surroundings...' and 'Evidence <br />demonstrating collocation is 'impractical..." The Hearings Official reversed the Planning Director <br />and granted approval with a condition requiring documentation ofFAA approval prior to <br />building permit approval, a standard condition in Site Review approvals of telecommunications <br />facilities. The Hearings Official approval is on appeal to LUBA, with the appellants arguing that <br />the Hearings Official erred in her decision with respect to compatibility, noise standards and <br /> <br /> IV-32 <br /> Eugene City Council Agenda page23 <br /> <br /> <br />