(A) Applications. Applications requiring architectural review for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board as required by § 99.05 subject to the procedures and requirements of §§ 153.066(F)(6) of this Code of Ordinances as applicable, except as modified in this section.
(B) General review considerations. The Board shall determine whether the request will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the District or of the historic property pursuant to the criteria specified in this section. Every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that the use of the property will involve minimal alteration of existing buildings, structures, or sites and its environment.
(C) Architectural review criteria. In addition to any standards for consideration of applications to the Architectural Review Board pursuant to §§ 153.066(F)(6) and 153.170 et seq. of this Code of Ordinances, the Board shall consider the following factors in determining whether the wireless communications facility application should be approved:
(1) Compliance with the requirements of § 99.05(C);
(2) Height of the proposed tower and its proximity to residential structures and residential districts within their jurisdiction;
(3) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
(4) Design of the wireless communications facility, with particular regard to design characteristics that have the effect of eliminating visual obtrusiveness while demonstrating substantial consistency with the historical and architectural character of the area;
(5) Proposed ingress and egress;
(6) Ability to screen or eliminate from view all associated equipment and service structures from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
(7) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternative technologies not requiring the use of towers or structures. New facilities shall be approved only when other preferable alternatives are not available. No new facilities shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board that no existing tower, structure, or alternative technology is reasonably available to fill the communication requirements.
(a) An applicant shall submit information to the Architectural Review Board related to the availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternative technology. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower, structure or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:
1. No existing towers or other suitable structures are located within the specific geographic limits which meet the applicant's engineering requirements.
2. Existing towers or structures either do not have sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements, or have insufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment.
3. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause frequency interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna.
4. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share or to adapt for sharing an existing tower or structure are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
5. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
6. The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structures, such as a distributed antenna system or cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable, but may be considered as a factor in the decision.
7. The applicant provides documentation that other tower owners were contacted in writing demonstrating the above considerations.
(D) The Architectural Review Board may impose conditions to the extent that it concludes that conditions are necessary to substantially camouflage the proposed structure and/or minimize any adverse effect of the tower on the historical nature of the site and/or adjoining properties, and/or to meet the review considerations of §§ 99.01 through 99.11.
(E) The findings and decision of the Architectural Review Board shall be based on and supported by substantial evidence contained in a Board Order which shall be forwarded to the applicant within ten days following the decision. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Board may appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the provisions of this Code of Ordinances.
(Ord. 19-13, passed 3-25-13; Am. Ord. 41-18, passed 6-25-18)