(A) No tower or other new support structure shall be permitted in any existing or planned (i.e., platted) residential neighborhood.
(B) If a new telecommunications support structure is proposed to be located within one-half mile of an existing or planned residential neighborhood, irrespective of the type of zoning, the support structure shall not be taller than ten feet above the tallest obstruction between the proposed support structure and a residential neighborhood.
(C) Applicants shall locate, site and erect all facilities and associated equipment in accordance with the following priorities, in the following order: more than ten feet taller than existing surrounding structures:
(1) On existing structures without increasing the height or size of the profile of the tower or structure;
(2) On existing structures without increasing the height of the structure by more than can be proven by clear and convincing technical evidence is needed;
(3) On properties in areas zoned for commercial use;
(4) On properties in areas zoned for rural use;
(5) On properties in designated Renaissance or Historic Districts without increasing the height or size of the profile of the support structure and only if camouflaged or stealthed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; and
(6) On properties in areas zoned for residential use without increasing the height of the support structure or size of the profile and only if camouflaged or stealthed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
(D) If the applicant proposes and commits to locate on city-owned property or structures, the city expressly reserves to right to waive the application fee that would otherwise be paid to the city.
(E) If the proposed site is not proposed for the highest priority listed above, then a detailed narrative and technical explanation shall be provided as regards why a site from all higher priority designations was not selected. The person seeking such an exception must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Council the reason or reasons why a conditional use permit or administrative approval should be granted for the proposed site.
(F) Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary, 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. The city may also direct that the proposed location be changed to another location that is more in keeping with the goals of this section and the public interest as determined by the Council and that serves the intent of the applicant.
(G) 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, including, but not limited to, setback and fall zone requirements;
(2) Noncompliance with zoning or land use regulations;
(3) The placement and location of a facility or complex would create an unacceptable risk, or the reasonable possibility of such, to any person or entity for physical or financial damage, or of trespass on private property;
(4) The placement and location of a facility or complex would result in a conflict with, compromise in or change in the nature or character of the adjacent and surrounding area, and expressly including, but not limited to, loss in value as measured over the 12 months preceding the application having been filed;
(5) Conflicts with the provisions of zoning or land use regulations; and
(6) Failure to submit a complete application as required under this section within 60 days after proper notice and opportunity to make the application complete shall be deemed to have been abandoned and require no action.
(H) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, for good cause shown such as the ability to utilize a shorter, smaller or less intrusive facility or complex elsewhere and still accomplish the primary service objective, if relocation could result in a less intrusive facility or complex singly or in combination with other locations, the city may require the relocation of a proposed site, including allowing for the fact that relocating the site chosen by the applicant may require the use of more than one site to provide substantially the same service.
(Ord. 2016-4-26-38, passed 4-26-2016)