Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends ordinance to allow cell towers in some commercial zones after debate over spacing and proximity to school
Summary
The commission voted to recommend a draft ordinance that would permit transmission towers in community commercial (CC) zones with a conditional use permit, subject to screening, 400‑foot residential separation and a one‑mile tower‑to‑tower spacing provision; Vertex/Verizon presented technical coverage maps and the city’s independent Omnicom report confirmed a central coverage gap.
The Planning & Zoning Commission on July 8 recommended that the City Council consider a text amendment to the land‑development code allowing transmission towers in Community Commercial (CC) zoning districts by conditional use permit.
Staff explained the draft ordinance would add CC to the list of districts in which transmission towers are allowed with a CUP and would include several performance standards: a one‑mile minimum separation between towers, a minimum 400‑foot separation from residential buildings, opaque fencing and evergreen screening around equipment enclosures (vegetation to reach 6–8 feet within one year). Staff noted the proposed change arises from an applicant’s identification of a wireless coverage gap in the center of the city where industrial‑zoned properties (the city’s existing permitted tower locations) are not available.
Mary Solik, attorney for Vertex Development, said Vertex had a Verizon 'build‑to‑suit' request to place one tower in the central coverage gap. Solik told commissioners the city hired Omnicom Consulting Group to independently review the applicant’s technical submittal and that Omnicom’s report confirmed a coverage deficiency. Solik said Vertex had secured a lease on a 5.9‑acre commercial parcel near Knox McRae but reminded the commission that the ordinance is a text amendment; any tower would still require a CUP with a separate public hearing.
Commissioners and staff discussed compatibility strategies (stealthing, landscaping and equipment screening), distance limits, and the possible practical effect of allowing towers in CC zones citywide versus approving a site‑specific approach. Several commissioners asked whether the one‑mile spacing would effectively prevent proliferation; staff and the applicant said the spacing and CUP criteria are intended to limit frequency of new towers and that collocation by additional carriers is expected after an initial site is built.
Concerns were raised about a proposed site’s proximity to a school parcel; the applicant said the proposed tower would be tucked behind an outparcel and estimated the distance to the school building at roughly 500–600 feet, and said the proposed monopole would be engineered to fall within the leased parcel. The applicant also noted towers are designed to hurricane wind‑load standards and that Omnicom anticipates other carriers would collocate on the new structure.
After discussion Member Garrod moved and Member Faison seconded a recommendation to approve the draft ordinance; the commission voted in favor by roll call and will forward the recommendation to City Council for consideration and final action.
