review. If FAA approval requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then this <br />initial approval shall be void. <br />Per the findings and condition above, this criterion is meta <br />(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application <br />requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or <br />conditional use permits also shall incfude the following information: <br />1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the <br />appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at <br />least,5 points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the <br />provider with'review and approval by the planning director to ensure that <br />various potential views are represented. <br />The applicant has provided a photo simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower from 9 <br />different views. These points were evaluated during application completeness review and were found <br />to represent various potential views as required. <br />2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 feet have <br />been considered and have been determined to be technologically unfeasible or <br />unavailable. For site reviews, alternative sites zoned C-4,11-1,11-2, and 1-3 must <br />be considered. For conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned Pi., C-2, C-3, <br />C-4,11-1,11-2,11-3 and S-WS must be considered. <br />The applicant notes that several other spaces were considered but were unfeasible or not available <br />(see pages 16 and 17'of the applicant's written statement). There are no sites zoned C-2, C-3, C-4, 1-1, <br />1-2, 1-3 or S-WS within 2000 feet. There is one PL zoned parcel within that distance owned by the. <br />School District (Sheldon High School). The written statement notes the school district was not <br />interested in leasing to AT&T. The written statement addresses other alternative sites (even outside <br />2000 feet) and confirms that they are either unfeasible or unavailable. Testimony from Bill Kloos on <br />behalf of the Oakway !Neighbors asserts that this requirement is not limited to the 2000 foot radius <br />and that the applicant must look further out. While the applicant addresses sites outside of 2000 feet, <br />the requirement is clearly for documentation within a radius of at least 2000 feet. <br />3: Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light <br />or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower <br />facility sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available <br />space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs. <br />The applicant notes that potential sites were evaluated on buildings, utility poles and water tanks. The <br />written statement generally notes that potential pole locations were evaluated along Gilham Road, <br />Norkenzie Road and Cal.Young Road and that ground space was not available at these locations <br />(making collocation impractical). While the level of evidence supporting this assertion provided by the <br />applicant is minimal, .the City does require vaulting in the right of way or on private property which <br />requires vacant area to support this. The areas surrounding Gilham Road, Norkenzie Road and Cal <br />Young Road are developed areas with little vacant land along the rights of ways. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 21 <br />" HO Agenda - Page 1 <br />