Laserfiche WebLink
of the facility, to allow an extension of this time period to allow for the use of the site <br /> by another utility or communications service provider. <br /> Findings: The wireless communication facility will be required to be removed if it is <br /> unused for a period of at least 120 days. <br /> Conclusion: This standard shall apply. <br /> (9) Maintenance, repair, or replacement of existing utility or communications facilities or <br /> appurtenant structures and the installation of minor above ground utility and <br /> communications facilities are exempt from this section. This exemption includes <br /> replacement or increased heights of not more than twenty feet to accommodate <br /> wireless telecommunications antennas. Utility and communications service providers <br /> are encouraged to locate such facilities of a minor nature and small scale on existing <br /> or replacement structures, where technically feasible, in preference to erecting new <br /> towers or structures for such purposes. <br /> Findings: The proposal is classified as a major above-ground communication facility and <br /> does not qualify as maintenance, repair, or replacement of an existing communications <br /> facility. <br /> Conclusion: The proposal is not exempt. • <br /> (10) To the extent provided by law, the city may require utility or communications service <br /> provider to allow up to two additional service providers to be located on shared <br /> facilities to discourage the proliferation of tower structures, consistent with <br /> technological feasibility. The review authority may allow an additional twenty feet in <br /> tower height per additional provider to accommodate co-location. <br /> Findings: No additional wireless communication service providers are proposed at this <br /> time. <br /> Conclusion: This will be a condition of approval. <br /> (11) Utility or communications facilities which require towers for which safety Iights are <br /> • required by the FAA shall not be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates that <br /> such a facility in the proposed location and at such a height is necessary to adequately <br /> serve the needs of the public for the proposed utility or communications service. <br /> Findings: The proposal will not be utilizing a tower. <br /> Conclusion: This standard does not apply. <br /> (12) The planning director may require review by an expert third party who is approved <br /> by the city and the applicant, to be paid for by the applicant,when needed for review <br /> of site-specific data submitted by the applicant concerning technical aspects related to <br /> specific facilities and locations. <br /> Findings: A third party review was not required for this proposal. <br /> Conclusion: A third party review was not required to address technical aspects of this <br /> proposal. <br /> SPU 16-ora <br /> Fage 6 of 7 <br />