1. Applicants for telecommunications towers shall locate, site and erect said wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with the following priorities, in the following order:
a. On existing city-owned wireless telecommunications facilities without increasing the height of the tower or structure.
b. On existing wireless telecommunications facilities without increasing the height of the tower or structure.
c. On city-owned properties or facilities.
d. On properties in areas zoned M-1 Manufacturing.
e. On properties in areas zoned B-3 Highway Business.
2. Applicants for all other wireless telecommunications facilities (e.g. distributed antenna systems or buildings) shall locate, site and construct said wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with the following priorities, in order:
a. On existing city-owned wireless telecommunications facilities without increasing the height of the structure.
b. On existing wireless telecommunications facilities without increasing the height of the structure.
c. On city-owned properties or facilities.
d. On properties in areas zoned M-1 Manufacturing.
e. On properties in areas zoned B-3 Highway Business.
f. On properties in areas zoned R-2 Residential Agriculture.
3. If the proposed site is not proposed for the highest priority listed above, then a detailed explanation and justification must be provided as to why a site of all higher priority designations was not selected. The person seeking such an exception must satisfactorily demonstrate the reason or reasons why such a permit should be granted for the proposed site, and the hardship that would be incurred by the applicant if the permit were not granted for the wireless telecommunications facility as proposed.
4. An applicant may not by-pass sites of higher priority by stating the site proposed is the only site leased or selected or because there is an existing lease with a landowner. An application shall address co-location as an option. If such option is not proposed, the applicant must explain to the reasonable satisfaction of the city why co-location is technically or commercially impracticable. Agreements between wireless telecommunications facility owners limiting or prohibiting co-location shall not be a valid basis for any claim of commercial impracticability or hardship.
5. Notwithstanding the above, the city may approve any site located within an area in the above list of priorities, provided that the city finds that the proposed site is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the city and its inhabitants and will not have a deleterious effect on the nature and character of the community and neighborhood. Conversely, the city may direct that the proposed location be changed to another location that is more in keeping with the goals of this article and the public interest as determined by the city.
6. Notwithstanding that a potential site may be situated in an area of highest priority or highest available priority, the city may disapprove an application for any of the following reasons:
a. Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and requirements;
b. Conflict with the historic nature or character of a neighborhood or district;
c. The use or construction of wireless telecommunications facilities which is contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific zoning or land use designation;
d. The placement and location of wireless telecommunications facilities which would create an unacceptable risk, or the reasonable probability of such, to residents, the public, employees and agents of the city, or employees of the service provider or other service providers;
e. The placement and location of a wireless telecommunications facility would result in a conflict with or compromise in or change the nature or character of the surrounding area;
f. Conflicts with the provisions of this article; and
g. Failure to submit a complete application as required under this article.
7. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this article, for good cause shown, such as the ability to utilize a shorter or less intrusive facility elsewhere and still accomplish the primary service objective, the city may require the relocation of a proposed site, including allowing for the fact that relocating the site chosen by the applicant may require the use of more than one (1) site to provide substantially the same service if the relocation could result in a less intrusive facility or facilities, singly or in combination. The existence of a lease entered into prior to the approval of an application shall not be deemed justification for the requested location. (Ord. of 3/1/10)