Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'viewshed requirements. Oi~ arguments before LUBA are. schedUled.'~or this.week~' ..The LUBA decision, and subseqUent challenges beyond LUBA if filed, Will define the scoPe o£,"surround~og area" in which compatibility is to evaluated and the extent of the collocation'requirement. 8R 01-33, Master Towers LLC is an application for a 100-foot monOP01e on property located at '103 Oakleigh.Lane. The property is'zoned C-2 General Commercial. The primary Concerns raised in public te .s~nony include incompatibilitY with the. adjacent residential areas and nearby school, decreased property values, a perceived lack of need for additional telecommunications service in the vicinity and pOtential.heal, th and safety risks associated with exposure to . electromagnetic emissions. Neighbors.specifiCally ObjeCted to the proposal for a 'stealth" designed flagpole with an American flag at the top. A Planning Director deciSionis pending. SR 01.-32, Sprint PCS is an application for ai20-foot mon0pole lOcated at 140~ Viilard Street'on property owned by Wi!!~ams Bakery. The property is zoned C-2 General Commercial. The tower is proposed.to be a 'stealth. design, a tall slender column that contains the antenna arms within the column. The Site. Review application includes'a variance to EC 9.5750'becanse 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 additional 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-Guard article has generatedmany' letters and - petitions, largetyin opposition to the proposed tower,'. Visual impact, decreased property values and health concerns are the pfirnary issues raised in public.testimony received so far. Citizen concem'.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 Pl~mning 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