Planning commission weighs changing tower rules: proposes 1.1× height setback and adding institutional zone

The Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting discussing a proposed cell‑tower zoning approach that would expand where new towers are allowed and change how separation from residences is measured.

Staff presented a map of zoning where towers are currently permitted (mostly LI/HI and central business) and noted that the site a developer proposed sits in NRC zoning, where new towers are not allowed. The current code requires new facilities to be set back at least 300 feet from a residentially zoned or used property, measured from the base of the facility including accessory equipment.

A tower developer and the commission discussed alternative locations that Verizon had reviewed and rejected for propagation or distance reasons. The developer said Verizon’s ideal coverage requires fitting sites within quarter‑ to half‑mile propagation rings and that prior attempts found limited options. He said the team has invested about $15,000 for RF studies and engineering and would prefer to avoid repeated redesigns.

Commission members debated whether separation should be measured from the residential property line or from a habitable structure. Several commissioners said most setback rules in other ordinances are measured to the property line and that restricting what owners may do on their property because of another parcel’s use is undesirable. Commissioner Brian proposed measuring setback as 1.1 times the height of the tower to the adjacent residentially zoned lot line (for example, a 100‑foot tower would require a 110‑foot separation from a residential lot line). Several commissioners indicated that change would be less restrictive than the current 300‑foot requirement.

Members also discussed whether to add institutional zoning to the list of districts where towers would be allowed and how to protect neighborhood parks. Staff noted the city has decided not to place towers on city‑owned properties, but institutional parcels can include a range of uses (schools, retention ponds, HOAs parks), and commissioners considered drafting language to exempt certain parks or limit towers by park size or type. Staff said they would also revisit minimum institutional lot size language because many neighborhood parks are smaller than an acre.

Commissioners and staff discussed options to meet Verizon’s needs while protecting residential areas: lowering separation by tying it to tower height, limiting permitted districts (add institutional and possibly general business), and keeping a property‑line measurement so future homeowners retain the ability to build on their lots. The group also noted potential legal risk if the city effectively prohibited towers; the developer said telecoms could seek FCC review or legal action if they considered placement effectively prohibited.

The commission asked staff to draft ordinance language reflecting direction: add 'institutional' to the zones where new towers may be allowed (in addition to existing districts), set separation distance at 1.1 times tower height measured to residentially zoned lot lines, include protections for city parks or neighborhood parks (for example by size or classification), and revisit institutional minimum lot size. Staff said a draft would be ready for review at the Feb. 6 meeting.