Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Towers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rexburg staff pitch major cell-tower code rewrite amid broader development-code updates
Summary
City staff presented a widespread rewrite of Rexburg’s cell-tower rules and other development-code amendments at a May 6 work session, focusing on safety, siting, and design standards; council and the planning commission debated setbacks, fall zones, and whether parcel-boundary language should supplement building-based separation rules.
Rexburg planning staff on May 6 walked council and the Planning & Zoning Commission through a near-complete rewrite of the city’s cell-tower regulations as part of a broader package of development-code changes. The rewrite aims to streamline permitting, encourage collocation on existing structures, and set clear safety and visual standards for new towers and antennas.
Planner Alan Parkinson and staff framed the goals as protecting “public health, safety, and welfare,” minimizing visual impacts through design and screening, and promoting collocation to reduce the overall number of towers. Staff described a tiered height approach tied to the number of providers ("users") the tower is built to accommodate: one provider at roughly 90 feet, two at 120 feet, and three at 150 feet, with a separate 70-foot threshold intended to cover many rooftop or smaller ground-mounted installations.
The bulk of the discussion centered on technical safeguards: FAA and FCC compliance, engineering-stamped structural drawings, building permits for associated equipment cabinets, noise limits for standby generators, and a six-month notice-and-removal requirement for abandoned installations. Council members and commissioners pressed staff to clarify two related topics: the definition of separation and how fall zones are measured, and the use of restrictive covenants or easements when a tower’s fall zone could cross a parcel boundary.
Staff recommended a default setback equal to 100% of the tower’s height from the nearest structure and proposed allowing reductions for towers in commercial or industrial districts if a licensed engineer certifies structural safety. During discussion, council members urged adding explicit language to make the 100%-of-height measure reference the parcel boundary (or “parcel/partial boundary”) in addition to the nearest building; staff agreed to add clarifying wording and return with revised text.
Visual and security standards were also debated. Staff proposed a minimum six-foot privacy fence around tower compounds, a four-foot-perimeter landscape/pervious buffer outside the compound, and allowing barbed wire only where safety concerns or risk of trespass justified it. Councilmembers raised maintenance and fire-risk concerns for irrigation-dependent landscaping; staff said secondary irrigation requirements or low-water plantings could be specified in the final code.
The draft also clarifies permitting steps: new towers would require building permits, stamped engineer drawings, and conditional-use review so neighbors can comment on siting and aesthetics. Staff said existing towers should be assessed and that the city can require removal or remediation when a tower is truly abandoned and not being maintained. For certain applications (e.g., rooftop arrays or small ground-mounted antennas used by ham operators, police, or school districts), staff proposed separate, smaller height limits and permit processes.
What happens next: staff will incorporate the council’s drafting requests (parcel-boundary wording, clearer compound/perimeter language, and maintenance/landscaping guidance) and return the revised text to Planning & Zoning and council. Staff emphasized the rewrite will also need cross-checking against new state housing and land-use bills anticipated this year, and that additional work sessions are likely before final ordinance adoption.
