(A) Applications. Applications of special use permits shall be filed and processed subject to the requirements of and in the manner and time frame as established in §§ 158.240 through 158.242, 158.255 through 158.257 and 158.270 through 158.282 of this chapter. A decision by the Planning Commission shall be accompanied by substantial evidence supporting the decision, which shall be made a part of the written record of the meeting at which a final decision on the application is rendered. Evidence shall be under oath and may be submitted with the application or thereafter or presented during the public hearing by the applicant or others.
(B) Additional minimum requirements. No special use permit shall be issued unless the applicant has clearly demonstrated by substantial evidence that placement of an antenna or support structure pursuant to §§ 158.209 and 158.210 of this chapter is not technologically or economically feasible. The Planning Commission may consider current or emerging industry standards and practices, among other information, in determining feasibility.
(C) Findings required. In addition to the determinations or limitations specified herein and by §§ 158.095 through 158.102 of this chapter for the consideration of special use permits, the Planning Commission shall also base its decision upon, and shall make findings as to, the existence of the following conditions:
(1) The proposed tower is not and cannot be located within a communications tower multi-use interest area as designated by such map, or if so located, meets the co-location requirements of this section;
(2) No existing towers, structures or buildings within the necessary geographic area for the applicant’s tower meet the applicant’s necessary engineering requirements considering:
(a) Height;
(b) Structural strength;
(c) Resulting signal interference;
(d) Feasibility of retrofitting;
(e) Feasibility of redesigning the applicant’s tower network; or
(f) Other limiting conditions that render towers, structures or buildings within the applicant’s required geographic area unsuitable.
(3) Applications for a new tower structure shall be considered only after a letter, certified by a radio frequency engineer, clearly demonstrates that the planned telecommunication equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved transmission tower and clearly demonstrates one or more of the following conditions:
(a) Planned telecommunications equipment would exceed the structural capacity of an existing or approved transmission tower, and the transmission tower cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned telecommunication equipment at a reasonable cost;
(b) Planned telecommunications equipment will cause radio frequency interference with other existing or planned telecommunications equipment for that transmission tower and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;
(c) Existing or approved towers do not have space on which the planned telecommunications equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and at least in parity with other similar telecommunications equipment in place or approved by the city and or the county.
(d) Addition of planned equipment to an existing or approved transmission tower would result in NIER levels in excess or those permitted under division (C)(5) below; or
(e) Other reasons that make it impractical to place the telecommunications equipment planned by the applicant on an existing and approved transmission tower.
(4) No application for a new tower structure shall be considered unless the applicant is unable to lease or otherwise secure space on an existing or planned telecommunication tower.
(a) Shared use of an existing or approved tower shall be conditioned upon the applicant’s agreement to pay reasonable fees and costs associated with adapting existing facilities to the proposed use, including, but not limited to, reasonable costs for reinforcing or modifying a tower or structure, for preventing radio frequency interferences and other changes reasonably required to accommodate shared use.
(b) The city may consider expert testimony to determine whether the fees and costs are reasonable.
(c) Once the city finds that the telecommunications equipment proposed by the applicant cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower, each tower so found is presumed unable to accommodate similar equipment that may be proposed in the future, unless evidence is introduced to demonstrate otherwise.
(5) The design of the tower or structure, including the antennas, shelter and ground layout maximally reduces visual degradation and otherwise complies with provisions and intent of this section. New towers shall be of a monopole design, unless it is shown that an alternative design would equally or better satisfy this division (C)(5);
(6) The proposal minimizes the number and/or size of towers or structures that will be required in the area. Where alternate technology or design exists or is reasonably available that would satisfy the general need for the proposal, this factor is ordinarily not satisfied;
(7) The applicant has not previously failed to take advantage of reasonably available shared use opportunities or procedures provided by this subchapter or otherwise;
(8) No land owned by any agency of the federal or state government, or by any political subdivision of the state, is available for locating the structure or tower;
(9) The city may require, at the expense of the petitioner, any additional studies or the hiring of an external consultant to review exhibits and/or other requirements in accordance with this section; and
(10) If any one, but not more than one, of the first six determinations is not satisfied, approval may be granted only on a finding of unique circumstances otherwise necessitating approval to satisfy the purposes of this section.
(D) Additional height limitations. No tower shall be approved at a height exceeding 150 feet AGL unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that such height is required for the proper function of the applicant’s system or that of a public safety communications system of a governmental entity sharing the tower. Such showing must also be supported by the opinion of a telecommunications consultant hired by the city at the expense of the applicant. The opinion of the consultant shall include a statement that no available alternatives exist to exceeding the height limit or the reason why such alternatives are not viable.
(E) Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation standards. All transmission facilities shall conform to the relevant sections of the American National Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 kHz. This standard as identified by as ANSI- C95.1-1982 and is published by the American National Standards Institute, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference and is maintained on file in the office of the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. 3399, passed 12-5-2005)