Planning commission recommends council adopt limited zoning changes to allow cellular towers on large single‑family parcels

Forest Lake — The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt staff‑recommended changes to the city's zoning code that would allow wireless communication towers to be considered in single‑family zoning districts through a conditional use permit (CUP), while keeping the code’s existing safety and spacing protections.

Staff told the commission the proposal before them came from Buell Consulting on behalf of Hosanna Lutheran Church and AT&T and would revise citywide tower rules to give institutional properties a path to host towers. “Staff support adding the single family district to the list of zoning districts where towers can be considered through a CUP,” the staff presenter said.

Why it matters: the applicant asked the city to reduce the minimum lot size for institutional sites from 10 acres to 2.5 acres for some parcels, introduce engineered fall‑zone setbacks in place of the current blanket setback standards, increase residential height limits toward 125 feet, and remove the one‑mile spacing requirement between towers. Staff recommended adding single‑family to the list of zones eligible for a CUP but urged retaining the 10‑acre minimum, the current 2× tower height setback to dwellings, the one‑mile separation and the 100‑foot residential height limit (with the 15‑foot apparatus allowance already in code).

Applicant Blair Ransom of Buell Consulting said the design for the Hosanna site would use a tripod steeple integrated into the church rather than a freestanding monopole, and defended engineered fall‑zone engineering as a practical tool for siting taller equipment in constrained sites. “It’s a real utility and can be a lifesaver,” Ransom said, arguing the change would improve coverage on the lake’s south side.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on safety and neighborhood impacts. One commissioner said wind‑related damage, not just a straight collapse, was a primary concern: “Wind damage and sending material much more than a vertical collapse zone is something that I am concerned about.” Staff answered that the fall‑zone approach exists in other jurisdictions but cautioned that it moves some safety judgments to case‑by‑case engineering analyses.

On process and notice, staff explained that because this is a citywide code amendment neighbors within 350 feet of a specific parcel were not individually mailed notices for the text amendment; if a future CUP were filed for a tower, a separate site‑specific notice and hearing would be required.

The commission’s motion to recommend the amendment as presented included direction that staff refine the definition of “residential dwelling” to clarify whether accessory structures (sheds, barns, garages) count for setback calculations. Commissioner Susan moved the recommendation with that clarification request; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. Staff said the item will go to the City Council in early January (staff noted a likely Jan. 14 meeting date, subject to council scheduling).

Next steps: If the council approves the text amendment, any individual tower proposal would still need to apply for a CUP and undergo site‑specific review and neighborhood notification before a final decision.

Sources: staff presentation and recommendation; applicant testimony (Blair Ransom, Buell Consulting); commission discussion and vote.