Commission reviews stealth wireless “tree” designs for T‑Mobile site at Payne Middle School
Loading...
Summary
Planning staff and the applicant sought feedback on two artificial-tree camouflage designs for a proposed 75‑foot wireless communications facility on school property; commissioners expressed design preferences and asked about lease and site selection.
Planning staff and the applicant presented proposed concealment designs for a 75‑foot Category 3 wireless communications facility (WCF) at Payne Middle School and asked the Gilbert Planning Commission for feedback on possible refinements.
The request before the commission was described by planning staff as a request "for the T Mobile, Payne Middle School, WCF Broadleaf Tree," and the applicant proposed two faux‑tree options — a broad leaf (broadleaf) design and a eucalyptus‑style design — plus a 900‑square‑foot equipment enclosure on roughly 0.5 acres of a 27‑acre parcel zoned Public Facility and Institutional and surrounded by single‑family residential zoning. Planning staff said the site was selected to fill an existing coverage gap in the area.
Commissioners focused on concealment and context. Commissioner Simon asked whether the applicant intended to build one or the other tree design; staff replied the eucalyptus option had been provided as an alternate. Multiple commissioners said the eucalyptus design appeared less conspicuous than the broadleaf version, with one commissioner summing up that the eucalyptus “looks a little bit better.” Staff reiterated that the commission’s authority is limited to the structure’s design and concealment and asked for guidance on whether a faux‑tree approach or another stealth option would be preferred.
Commissioner Anderson confirmed the site is on Gilbert Unified School District property and asked about the lease arrangement; staff said the school would lease the small parcel to the wireless provider. Commissioners discussed how the design might fit better when surrounding development and planting occur over time and asked staff to follow up with the applicant on why the two options were chosen.
No formal action or vote was taken; staff said they would follow up with the applicant on clarifications requested by commissioners.

