2301 COLBY AVE VOICESTREAM ANTENNA 2018-01-02 MF Import

• � �- SPU SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA: The following findings and conclusions are based on the criteria established in Section 41.150.D.1.b. of the Zoning Code-Special Property Use Permits-Evaluation Criteria for Above Ground Utility and l:ommunication Facilities: Findines• (1) Please refer to findings under Criteria No's 5 and 7 above regarding landscaping and screening of the proposed facility. The antennas and cabling shall be painted to match the color or thc power polc; (2) T'he proposed antennas would be located on a replacement power pole and would not require the construction of a new support tower. The Zoning Code encourages use of existing or replacement swctures,as opposed to installation of new support swctures; (3) The project site is located in an R-4 zone. As part of the original SPU, when tl�e antennas were proposed to be located on the roof of the adjacent apartment building,the Ciry required the applicant to conduct an analysis of alternative sites to deterniine whether there may be any other sites that could be used that could result in fewer impacts on residential uses. This study examined thrce different locations im�olving existing buildings. The three sites are located in the same general vicinity as the subject site: two are in residential zones and one is in a commercial zone. The study concluded that all of these sites would be sufficient to meet the applicant's technical objectives,but were unavailable due to high cost or other reasons. (4) This cdterion is applicable to new tow•er swctures. The instant proposal is to use an existing building. (5) This criterion is applicable to ground-mounted uUlity structures. The proposed equipment cabinet would be located within a garage and would not be visible from outside the building. (6) The proposed antennas and 60 feet in height. The maximum building hcight in the R-4 zone is 80 feet. The zoning code allow replacement utility structures to be 20 fcet higher than the exist;ng structure. The proposed power pole replacement is consistent with these requirements. (7) Not applicable--this criterion applies to tower structures. (8) The provider will be required to notify the City in the eveni that thc facility is abandoned for a period of more than 120 days. (9) The proposal is classified as a major above-ground utility swcture and is therefore not exempt from the Speciai Properly Use permit review process. (10) This criterion allows the�::;ty to require that tacilities be designed to accommodate more than one wireless service vrr,vider at a given site. Due to space and height limitations of the power polc, it may not be.feasible to allow additional WCFs on the site. (11) Not applicable--these types of facilities r,otmally do not require safety lights for the FAA. (12) The City commissioned an independent third party consultant to review the application docoments submitted by VoiceStream as part of the original SPU pe�mit. The scope of work for tl�is study included thc Collowing: � �-