Herriman City Planning Commission on a 4–2 vote continued consideration of a conditional-use permit for a proposed 80-foot wireless communications tower, directing the applicant to provide more detailed stealth design options and an updated off-street parking calculation. The commission’s action left open the question of whether the pole will be treated as a plain monopole with paint or be designed as a larger stealth feature such as a water-tower-like element or other screening.

Commissioners said the proposal matters because it addresses a documented gap in cellular coverage in a commercial area near existing and planned development, while residents and commissioners raised concerns about visual impacts and the technical feasibility of stealth designs. Staff told commissioners that any conditions for approval or denial must be based on the municipal code standards provided in the packet and that parking displacement from the proposed ground footprint must be addressed before final approval.

Community Development staff summarized the application and code constraints and told the commission the site is in a C-2 commercial zone and that 80 feet is the maximum allowed height under a conditional use. The report noted the applicant had submitted evidence of a coverage gap and that code requires provision for co-location where feasible. Staff also warned that third‑party studies about property-value impacts cannot substitute for a site‑specific finding if the commission wished to rely on potential economic harm to justify denial. The staff recommendation included a condition requiring an updated off‑street parking calculation and mitigation if the new installation would cause the lot to fall out of compliance.

The applicant, identified in the hearing as Mark, argued the site is needed to fill a significant service gap and described modern communications as integral to emergency services, telehealth, remote work and routine use. Mark said, “the essential elements of communications in life are used with wireless in these days,” and asked the commission to approve the location to improve service in the area. A representative from Skyway Towers explained why certain stealth structures that succeed for one carrier are sometimes impractical for colocations, noting a prior multi‑carrier stealth structure could not accommodate other carriers because of antenna orientation and footprint constraints.

Commission debate focused on what the code calls for — stealth unless an applicant demonstrates technical infeasibility — and on what “stealth” should require in practice. Commissioners suggested alternatives to simple painted poles, including artist wraps, feature treatments or a water‑tower style screening; several commissioners said paint alone is not adequate stealth. One commissioner noted law and the city code require that stealth techniques be used unless they would “prohibit the provision of wireless services,” and suggested the commission could approve the location now only if the applicant provides a stealth design that is more than just paint, or the commission could continue the item to let the applicant return with a more complete stealth proposal. Staff also advised that the proposed facility displaces a parking stall on a site that was permitted with either 50 or 53 stalls and that the applicant must provide documentation.

The commission’s motion to continue the matter so the applicant could return with refined stealth options and updated parking information carried on a roll call of: Bridal — no; Jackson — yes; Heather — yes; Adam — yes; Daryl — no; Preston — yes. That vote was 4 in favor, 2 opposed. The item remains pending and will return to a future agenda for final action once the applicant provides the requested materials.