1111.09   CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
   (a)   Jurisdictional Study of Potential Public Sites. In order to encourage the location of a wireless telecommunication facility on publicly-owned property, the City shall undertake an identification of publicly-owned properties that the City determines are suitable for such use. The City shall regularly update such identification and make the results of such available to the public.
   (b)   Exemption of Proof of Co-location Availability. Persons locating a wireless telecommunication facility upon a publicly owned property identified in the study mentioned above shall be exempted from the requirements herein regarding presentation of proof that co-location is not available. However, persons locating a wireless telecommunication facility on publicly-owned property shall continue to be subject to the requirements (co-location design required) below.
   (c)   Exemption from Certain Requirements. Persons locating a wireless telecommunication facility on publicly owned property identified by the City to be suitable for such purposes shall be exempt from the requirements herein.
   (d)   Co-location Design Required. No new tower shall be constructed in the City unless such tower is capable of accommodating at least one additional wireless telecommunication facility owned by another person.
   (e)   Technically Suitable Space. Authorization for a tower shall be issued only if there is not technically suitable space reasonably available on an existing tower or structure within the geographic area to be served.
   (f)   Application Requirements. With the permit application, the applicant shall list the location of every tower, building, or structure within a reasonable proximity that could support the proposed antenna. The applicant must demonstrate that a technically suitable location is not reasonably available on an existing tower, building, or structure within such area. If another tower owned by another person within such area is technically suitable, applicant must show that an offer was made to the owner of such tower to co-locate an antenna on a tower owned by the applicant or reciprocal terms within the City, and the offer was not accepted. If such co-location offer has not been attempted by the applicant, then such other tower is presumed to be reasonably available.
(Ord. A-3075. Passed 1-24-22.)