(A) Applicants for wireless telecommunications facilities shall locate, site and erect said wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with the following priorities, one being the highest priority of selection and ten being the lowest priority:
(1) On existing towers or other structures on city-owned properties, including the right-of-way;
(2) On existing towers or other structures on other property in the city;
(3) A new tower on city-owned properties, including the right-of-way;
(4) A new tower on property in areas zoned MH, “General Industrial District”;
(5) A new tower on property in areas zoned ML/C-1, “Light Industrial District”;
(6) A new tower on property in areas zoned AG, “Agricultural District”;
(7) A new tower on property in areas zoned B-2, “General Commercial District”;
(8) A new tower on property in areas zoned B-1, “Central Business District”;
(9) A new tower on property in areas zoned O, “Office District,” LC, “Limited Commercial District,” UC, “Urban Commercial District”; and
(10) A new tower on property in areas zoned RR, “Rural Residential District,” R-1, “Single-Family Residential District,” R-2, “Urban-Family Residential District,” R-3, “Multiple-Family Residential District,” and NTR, “Non-Traditional Residential District.”
(B) If the proposed site is not proposed for the highest priority listed above, then a detailed explanation must be provided as to why a site of a higher priority 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 proposed site.
(C) (1) An applicant may not by-pass sites of higher priority by stating the site proposed is the only site leased or selected. 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 commercially or otherwise impracticable.
(2) Agreements between providers limiting or prohibiting co-location shall not be a valid basis for any claim of commercial impracticability or hardship.
(D) 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.
(E) The applicant shall submit a written report demonstrating the applicant’s review of the above locations in order of priority, demonstrating the technological reason for the site selection. if appropriate, based on selecting a site of lower priority, a detailed written explanation as to why sites of a higher priority were not selected shall be included with the application.
(F) 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:
(1) Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and requirements;
(2) Conflict with the historic nature or character of a neighborhood or historical district;
(3) The use or construction of wireless telecommunications facilities which is contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific zoning or land use designation;
(4) 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; and
(5) Conflicts with the provisions of this subchapter.
(Ord. 23-09, passed 8-21-2023)