Commission discusses wireless tower rules, third‑party review and setbacks

Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed revisions to the city's wireless telecommunications ordinance, focusing on how to evaluate cell tower siting, the potential role of third‑party engineering reviews and whether towers should be treated differently from other structures for setback and height rules.

The discussion matters because the commission must craft ordinance language that complies with federal rules while giving the city tools to evaluate applicants' claims of coverage gaps and to ensure safe, compatible siting of new towers and antennas.

Patrick, a staff member, told commissioners the packet splits the proposal into two ordinances to comply with a state rule that an ordinance address a single subject and to separate institutional‑district provisions from the self‑power section. He said the draft includes a provision allowing the city to hire a third‑party engineering firm, with costs charged to the applicant, to evaluate whether an applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in coverage or that no feasible alternative sites exist. Patrick noted the language is preliminary and that staff would need to confirm legal limits on ongoing testing or monitoring tied to FCC standards.

Jonas Snyder, who identified himself with an address and described technical aspects of radio propagation studies, said RF propagation studies and industry methodologies exist and can be performed by independent firms. He told the commission those studies show where coverage gaps are but said capacity or user density is harder to model; a propagation study might show coverage but not peak‑demand congestion during events. Snyder offered to provide the list of property locations he and his firm had considered and said some parcels are limited by cultural and historic preservation constraints.

Commissioners and other speakers discussed practical siting details for a proposed tower near the Alliance Building. Commissioners noted the lot is narrow (about 60–65 feet wide), that typical telecommunications compounds run roughly 25 by 25 feet and that ground equipment cabinets can be about 8 by 8 feet. Patrick reported the applicant's lease area measures roughly 30 by 50 feet. Commissioners said those footprints and the institutional setback table could make siting difficult on the existing parcel and prompted discussion of rezoning the parcel to general business to gain rear‑setback relief.

On compliance and enforcement, participants noted two federal agencies that affect tower permitting: the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. Speakers said the FCC restricts municipal consideration of RF emissions and aesthetics when deciding tower siting, and the FAA evaluates potential aviation impacts and lighting for tall towers. Patrick cautioned that the commission must check whether it can lawfully require periodic RF testing or certifications that a tower continues to meet FCC rules.

Board members debated whether to require applicants to submit a standardized methodology for propagation analysis so the city and applicant would not pay for duplicate, incompatible studies. One speaker suggested the city specify the methodology and accept applicant reports produced to that standard so a hired reviewer could do a targeted confirmation instead of a full alternate analysis.

On setbacks and heights, commissioners reviewed the packet's graduated table: for example, a 65–75 foot structure level showed a 40‑foot front setback, 25‑foot side setbacks and a 35‑foot rear setback in the institutional table. Commissioners discussed treating towers differently from buildings, noting towers are narrow vertical elements and that required fencing (typically a 6‑foot security fence) effectively creates the protected compound; several commissioners said they were reluctant to impose additional on‑lot setbacks beyond requiring the tower and fenced compound be inside the property and behind the fence.

Commissioners also raised co‑location and height caps in the draft: a provision in the packet limited single‑provider towers to 100 feet and allowed up to 200 feet if multiple providers co‑locate. Speakers observed that if a tower is not tall enough to accommodate additional carriers, another applicant may later seek permission for a separate tower.

Several speakers flagged terminology problems in the draft: it mixes terms such as 'telecommunications facility,' 'tower,' 'base station' and 'support structure.' Staff and members said the ordinance should either define FCC terms or substitute clearer local language such as 'attached to an existing structure' and avoid internal contradictions (for example, permitting a use while also requiring conditional use processes elsewhere).

The commission reached informal agreement on next steps rather than a final vote. Patrick said he would prepare a revised draft that: (1) cleans up terminology and definitions; (2) clarifies whether towers are exempt from building height limits and how setbacks apply; (3) incorporates a process for third‑party review paid by applicants with a recommended methodology or format for propagation studies; and (4) considers allowing wireless towers in general business as well as in institutional districts as a conditional use. Patrick and the group discussed public hearing timing; staff described the statutory public‑notice timeline (city publishes notice in a newspaper and the 10‑day clock begins on the publication date) and estimated that, if scheduled, a public hearing could be set roughly a month after publication, with a best‑case vote in late March and a more likely vote in April.

The discussion closed with staff agreeing to return with a draft reflecting the commission's direction, cleaner definitions, and recommended submission standards for technical studies. Commissioners did not take a formal vote on ordinance language during this meeting.