If a provider fails or refuses to permit colocation on a facility owned or otherwise controlled by the provider, where colocation is feasible, the result will be that a new and unnecessary additional structure will be compelled, in direct violation of and in direct contradiction to the basic policy, intent and purpose of the city. The provisions of this section are designed to carry out and encourage conformity with the policy of the city.
(A) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication support structures shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's attached wireless telecommunication facility and comparable attached wireless telecommunication facilities of additional users. Wireless telecommunication support structures must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of attached wireless telecommunication facilities upon the wireless telecommunication support structure and to accept attached wireless telecommunication facilities mounted at varying heights.
(B) A proposal for a new wireless telecommunication support structure shall not be approved unless and until it can be documented by the applicant that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed wireless telecommunication support structure cannot be feasibly colocated and accommodated on an existing or approved wireless telecommunication support structure or other existing structure due to one or more of the following reasons.
(1) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved wireless telecommunication support structure or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved wireless telecommunication support structure cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
(2) The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment on the wireless telecommunication support structure or other existing structure as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost.
(3) Existing or approved wireless telecommunication support structures and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary for the coverage area and capacity needs to reasonably function as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer.
(4) Other unforseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing wireless telecommunication support structure or building.
(C) Colocation shall be deemed to be feasible for purposes of this section where all of the following are met.
(1) The provider entity being considered for colocation will undertake to pay market rent or other market compensation for colocation.
(2) The site on which colocation is being considered, taking into consideration reasonable modification or replacement of a facility, is able to provide structural support.
(3) The colocation being considered is technologically reasonable, e.g., the colocation will not result in unreasonable interference, given appropriate physical and other adjustment in relation to the structure, antennas, and the like.
(4) The height of the structure necessary for colocation will not be increased beyond a point deemed to be permissible by the city, taking into consideration the several standards contained within this section.
(D) If a party who owns or otherwise controls a wireless telecommunication support structure shall fail or refuse to alter a structure so as to accommodate a proposed and otherwise feasible colocation, the facility shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed to be a nonconforming structure and use, and shall not be altered, expanded or extended in any respect.
(E) If a party who owns or otherwise controls a facility shall fail or refuse to permit a feasible colocation, and this requires the construction and/or use of a new wireless telecommunication support structure, the party failing or refusing to permit a feasible colocation shall be deemed to be in direct violation and contradiction of the policy, intent and purpose of this subchapter, and, consequently that party shall take responsibility for the violation, and shall be prohibited from receiving approval for a new wireless telecommunication support structure within the city for a period of five years from the date of the failure or refusal to permit the colocation.
(Ord. 97-002, passed 6-16-97) Penalty, see § 154.999