The purpose of this Article is to ensure that utility service and wireless communications facilities are located and designed to minimize visual impacts to the City under the terms of this Article and the City's franchise agreement.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

An application for a utility service or wireless communications facility shall address each of the following site selection elements:

(1)

Screening potential of existing vegetation, structures and topographic features.

(2)

Compatibility with adjacent land uses.

(3)

Opportunities to mitigate visual impact, including construction of stealth structures such as architectural towers, as well as light and landscaping standards in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(4)

Availability of suitable existing structures for antenna mounting.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

All utility service and wireless communications facilities shall comply with the following design standards:

(1)

Facilities shall be designed to be compatible and blend in with surrounding buildings and existing or planned uses in the area. This may be accomplished through the use of compatible architectural elements such as color, texture, scale and character.

(2)

Facilities shall preserve or enhance the existing character of the topography and vegetation. Existing vegetation, if any, and if suitable with natural features, should be preserved or improved.

(3)

A variety of screening techniques should be considered, depending on site conditions. Such techniques may include, but not be limited to, landscaping, berming screening and fencing, where appropriate.

(4)

Construction of new towers may only be permitted upon demonstration that other alternatives are infeasible and in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Towers may be allowed when:

a.

Designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses and not a dominate feature of the landscape;

b.

The structure is not a dominant silhouette on a ridgeline;

c.

The existing topography and vegetation provide the greatest amount of screening/backdrop possible on the site; and

d.

The existing vegetation has been preserved or enhanced and disturbance of the existing topography of the site has been minimized, unless such disturbances result in visual enhancement of the surrounding area.

(5)

Antennas, panels, arrays and dishes may be allowed when:

a.

Placed on or within a building or structure, such as on the side of a building or parapet wall, architectural tower or cupola, in an architecturally sensitive manner. Rooftop antennas shall not project above the parapet unless mounted on a penthouse or totally screened by materials that are compatible with the existing building or structure;

b.

Mounted on, or incorporated with, an existing tower;

c.

Disguised as an architectural feature or element of an existing or proposed building or structure, provided that it is compatible in terms of architectural style, height, mass, scale and color;

d.

Disguised or camouflaged in an architecturally appropriate manner as a flagpole or similar structure, provided that it is compatible with surrounding landscape features, buildings or uses; and

e.

Mounted on a light standard or an existing public utility structure; however, on light standards and single-pole structures less than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter, the antenna must be mounted directly to the pole without standoff brackets or sectorized platforms.

(6)

Whip-type antennas may be allowed:

a.

On structures, existing towers or utility facilities;

b.

To project above the roofline of structures, except pitched roofs unless on the ridge of the roof; and

c.

To exceed the height limitation of the district.

(7)

Proposed antennas shall be located on existing towers where feasible and where visual impacts are minimal. Otherwise, wireless telecommunications facilities may be allowed when:

a.

Such facilities are sited to result in minimal impact to the environment and to wildlife in the region;

b.

Such facilities are sited to fade into the predominant backdrop of the vicinity by complementing other features and forms in the backdrop landscape;

c.

All elements are designed and constructed to result in minimal visual impact. Elements shall be constructed of nonreflective or low-reflective materials that are typical in style and color to buildings, structures or backdrop landscape;

d.

Elements of the facility, including but not limited to the accessory equipment, are camouflaged or screened from major views. Where proposed, fencing and lighting shall be designed to result in minimal visual impacts; and

e.

The access to the facility is designed to require minimal land disturbance, including cut and fill, and results in minimal visual impacts.

(8)

All accessory equipment shall be concealed below grade, within an approved structure or screened by a berm, vegetation, topographic feature or in another manner approved by staff. Setback and height limitations of the zone district shall apply, unless otherwise approved by City.

(9)

An alternative design may be considered for approval when determined by the Director to be clearly superior and better in meeting the intent of this Article.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

(a)

The height of any freestanding facility shall conform to the height limit of the subject zone district unless a height waiver is granted by the Director.

(b)

Wherever an antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. If the building is constructed to the height limit of the applicable zone district, an additional fifteen (15) feet of antenna height is permissible.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

Editor's note— Ord. No. 25-05, Art. 5(C), adopted Nov. 18, 2025, amended the title of § 16-17-40 to read as herein set out. The former § 16-17-40 title pertained to maximum height for utility service and telecommunication facilities.

(a)

The minimum setback for a freestanding facility located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of any property zoned for residential use is one (1) foot for every foot of tower height.

(b)

The minimum setback for a freestanding facility located more than two hundred fifty (250) feet from property zoned for residential use is the minimum setback in the underlying zone district for buildings or structures.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4)

Utility service and wireless communication facilities may be permitted as provided herein:

(1)

Site improvement plan. An application for freestanding utility service or wireless communications facilities shall be submitted in conformance with the provisions of this Article and processed in accordance with the requirements of Article XXVII of this Chapter. The Director shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed plan before the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval, approval with conditions or denial.

(2)

Administrative approval. An application for a roof- or building-mounted facility shall be submitted in conformance with the provisions of this Article and the submittal requirements outlined in Article XXVII of this Chapter. Such applications may be approved administratively, as determined by the Director. A decision of the Director may be appealed by the applicant by filing a letter of appeal with the City within five (5) business days of the Director's decision. The City shall then hold a public hearing and shall review the application for conformity with the criteria in this Article. The decision of the City shall be considered final.

(3)

Public safety permits for eligible facilities requests. Any work conducted within the City, that is not work within a public right-of-way—including work conducted within the City pursuant to an eligible facilities request as defined in Article XXXVI of this Code—may impact public safety including without limitation ensuring the structural stability of facilities and associated infrastructure. Consistent with Section 29-27-405(2), C.R.S, and at the discretion of the Community Development Director or their designee, the City may ensure that all work conducted within the City is done under an applicable permit and completed in accordance with any generally-applicable and nondiscriminatory building, electrical, fire, or other safety requirements including without limitation the City's Building Codes, and Fire Code.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

(a)

In addition to the requirements contained in this Article and Article XXVII of this Chapter, a narrative report describing the wireless communications facility shall be included with the application. All information pertaining to the structural integrity of the facility shall be certified by a licensed professional structural engineer. Information required pertaining to the function and capacity of the wireless communications facility shall be certified by a licensed, professional radio frequency engineer. The report shall include the following, unless otherwise waived by the Director:

(1)

Description of the height, design and elevation of the proposed tower with a cross-section view and description, and a statement as to whether the tower will be structurally designed to accommodate future antennas.

(2)

Description of height for all proposed mounting positions for potential antennas and minimum separation distances.

(3)

Discussion of proposed number, height and types of antennas to be accommodated.

(4)

Description of output frequency, number of channels and power output per channel for each proposed antenna (if applicable).

(5)

Description of the steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with any established public safety telecommunications verified by an intermodulation study that predicts no likely interference problems, as reviewed and approved by public safety entities potentially impacted by the facility.

(6)

A five-year plan for use and estimated life of the proposed wireless communications facility. The plan should address additional development and coverage anticipated to meet projected service needs.

(7)

A copy of the study or similar document identifying and justifying technologically feasible locations (search ring or rings) for the proposed service, and demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed service cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower located within a five-mile radius.

(8)

The results of the RF drive test (certified as currently in calibration and traceable to National Institute Standards and Technology) if undertaken to verify technologically feasible locations.

(9)

Documentation that the proposed facility will be in compliance with applicable federal requirements, including without limitation those associated with the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA).

(b)

The City may require additional submittal information in order to evaluate the visual impacts of the proposal, including but not limited to a visual inventory of site conditions, visual analysis and simulations with the proposed facility, cross-sections or other materials as deemed necessary by the Director to identify and assess the impacts of the proposal.

(c)

The City may require that an independent, outside consultant be retained, at the app'icant's expense, to perform evaluations pertaining to compliance with regulations, standards and requirements stipulated.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

Editor's note— Ord. No. 25-05, Art. 5(C), adopted Nov. 18, 2025, amended the title of § 16-17-70 to read as herein set out. The former § 16-17-70 title pertained to application submittal requirements for telecommunications facilities.

Applications which meet the definition of an eligible facilities request in Article XXXVI are subject to the following requirements and review procedures:

(1)

Application. The Director shall prepare, and from time to time revise and make publicly available, an application form which shall be limited to the information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an eligible facilities request. Such information may include, without limitation, whether the project:

a.

Would result in a substantial change; or

b.

Violates a generally applicable law, regulations, or other rule codifying objective standards reasonably related to public health and safety.

The application may not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case for the proposed modification or collocation.

(2)

Type of review. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible facilities request pursuant to this Section, the Director shall review such application to determine whether the application so qualifies.

(3)

Timeframe for review. Subject to the tolling provisions of Subsection (4) below, within sixty (60) days of the date on which an applicant submits an application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall act on the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this Section.

(4)

Tolling of the timeframe for review. The 60-day review period begins to run when the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the City and the applicant, or in cases where the Director determines that the application is incomplete:

a.

To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written notice to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the application;

b.

The timeframe for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness; and

c.

Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the Applicant within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedure identified in Subsection (4)a of this Section. In the case of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.

(5)

Failure to act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking approval for an eligible facilities request under this Section within the timeframe for review (accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The "deemed granted" approval becomes effective when the applicant notifies the City in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.

(6)

Application of Telecommunications Act 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). If the City determines that the applicant's request is not an eligible facilities request, it shall notify the applicant in writing of such determination and the applicable procedure under this Chapter to process the application, including any additional information to be submitted in order for the request to be considered complete. The presumptively reasonable timeframe under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), as set forth in applicable federal and state law, will begin to run upon the applicant's submittal of the required information under the applicable provisions of this Chapter.

(Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

Except for eligible facilities requests which are subject to the process in Section 16-17-75, any decision concerning the placement, construction, or modifications of a WCF shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. Decisions shall be issued by the City by the following applicable deadline following the application:

(1)

Sixty (60) days for small cell wireless facilities installed on an existing tower or base station;

(2)

Ninety (90) days for small cell wireless facilities being installed on a new tower or base station and any request for the collocation or modification of an existing WCF; or

(3)

One hundred fifty (150) days for all other WCFs.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

No facility owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other provider from the same location. A facility owner or lessee or employee thereof shall cooperate in good faith to achieve collocation of antennae with other providers.

(Ord. 22-02 Art. 4; Ord. 25-05 Art. 5(C))

Editor's note— Ord. No. 25-05, Art. 5(C), adopted Nov. 18, 2025, amended the title of § 16-17-90 to read as herein set out. The former § 16-17-90 title pertained to co-location.