Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Tower Park Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to neighborhood outreach after tower company proposes 80‑foot cell monopole at Mitchell Hollow Park
Summary
A telecom company proposed leasing a small parcel in Mitchell Hollow Park for an 80‑foot cell tower; council members asked staff to hold a neighborhood meeting and seek resident feedback before conditional‑use and lease decisions.
City staff presented a lease and conditional‑use concept from a tower company proposing an 80‑foot monopole and fenced equipment compound near Mitchell Hollow Park, north of the trail intersection. The company said the site would host Verizon as a primary carrier and could accommodate additional carriers in future.
Rob, the city attorney, described the site plan, an approximately 952‑square‑foot lease area, an 80‑foot tower with an antenna array and a ground equipment pad, and the company’s proposed lease terms (a multi‑decade initial term with rent escalation and revenue share for additional carriers). The tower would be located on city property near a trail junction; staff said the nearest residence would be about 350 feet from the planned tower location.
Several council members and residents spoke to visual impacts and park use. Council member Smith disclosed a personal financial relationship — he owns Verizon stock and uses Verizon service — and said he planned to participate in deliberations after that announcement. Nearby resident Kim (who said her property backs the park) said she expected opposition from neighbors because the tower would be visible from backyards and argued the park is not an ideal location.
Council members asked the applicant and staff to seek alternatives — including federally owned land on the north side of the road and other potential sites — and asked the applicant to return with additional stealth or camouflage options and neighborhood outreach. The council agreed to schedule a neighborhood meeting and an open house to collect resident input in early February and to present the conditional‑use permit to the planning commission later for a public hearing. Council members emphasized the discretionary nature of placing infrastructure on city property and said community feedback should inform any lease decision.
No lease or permit was approved at the meeting; the council’s action was to proceed with neighborhood outreach and further review.
