Planning commission recommends special‑use permit for communication tower at Walmart site despite staff opposition

The Laredo Planning and Zoning Commission on a motion recommended approval of a special‑use permit to allow a communication tower at 2320 Balboa Street, a commercial property occupied by Walmart, despite a staff recommendation against the permit.

The application was presented by Bill Francis, an attorney for SBA Communications and SBA Towers 10 LLC. Francis said the site would address coverage and capacity gaps identified by Verizon and argued the city's tower‑setback standard, adopted in the 1990s, prevents carriers from deploying needed infrastructure. "We're respectfully requesting your approval of this special use permit application for the 150 foot monopole tower," Francis said during his presentation, later describing the proposed compund and mounting heights as a 50‑by‑50 compound and a 50‑foot tower with a 45‑foot mount height for carrier equipment.

Commission staff's recommendation was denial, citing a provision of the city's code that requires a tower site to be the greater of 300 percent of the higher tower or 200 feet from a residential district line (a 450‑foot setback under current code). Staff told commissioners the subject property sits in a B‑3 commercial zone but is immediately adjacent to parcels mapped R‑1; staff concluded the proposed tower did not meet the ordinance's separation requirement and recommended denial on that basis.

Francis and the applicant's team submitted Verizon propagation and radio‑frequency maps to staff and commissioners showing areas of poor signal strength and low signal quality in the area around Bob Bullock and Clark avenues. Francis said the maps and carrier analyses show that nearby sites were at capacity and that the Walmart parcel contains an underused staging area away from truck traffic that can accommodate a 50‑by‑50 compound and equipment cabinets. He also said the Federal Aviation Administration has issued the required air‑safety determination for the project and that the site would not be lit.

Commission discussion ranged from the technical need for capacity and 911 reliability to whether the adjacent R‑1 parcel is legally nonconforming. Staff told the commission the adjacent property was zoned R‑1 at annexation and has legal nonconforming uses (stables and livestock) that predate zoning; rezoning would have to be initiated by the landowner. Commissioners asked whether redevelopment, flood‑plain restrictions, or the city's overlay ordinances would make residential development there feasible. Staff said flood‑plain and other overlays create design constraints and that any residential development would require additional engineering and permitting.

After public comment (including a resident who said certain intersections have persistent coverage problems), a motion to close the public hearing and support the special‑use permit carried. The commission's recommendation now goes to city council for final action.

Clarifying details: the applicant's presentation included inconsistent references to tower height (a 150‑foot monopole was mentioned in one slide and a 50‑foot monopole was described elsewhere); the applicant described a 50‑by‑50 compound that would allow up to four carriers to collocate; the FAA clearance was reported as received; Verizon's submitted materials were described by the applicant as showing over 85% of Verizon signal strength in portions of the search ring below target levels and roughly 15% good signal quality in the carrier's analysis. The staff recommendation against the permit was limited to the city's separation standard; staff did not cite FAA or RF health standards as a basis for denial.

The commission's action advances the permit to city council, which will take the final vote on the requested special‑use permit.