Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs development agreement to add 20 feet to existing monopole near residential area
Summary
AT&T asked the council to approve a development agreement to allow a 20‑foot height extension at an existing monopole at 8585 West Magna Main Street to enable co‑location; legal staff said federal rules were cited as a potential preemption of local separation requirements, planning recommended approval, but staff acknowledged no mailed notice to nearby residents and at least one council member declined to approve the item that night.
The council reviewed a proposed development agreement that would authorize a 20‑foot extension to an existing communications monopole at 8585 West Magna Main Street so another carrier could co‑locate equipment.
Jay Springer, the MSD’s land use counsel, described the request as an unusual application that does not fit neatly within existing code because the monopole’s proposed location is within the 300‑foot separation the Magna municipal code generally requires from residential zones. Counsel said the applicant asserted federal regulation could preempt the municipal separation requirement; staff drafted a narrowly tailored development agreement to provide legislative discretion in this specific circumstance rather than establishing a general exception.
Planning staff said the item was heard as a class A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and that the commission recommended approval; however, staff confirmed that mailed notice to property owners within a 300‑foot radius was not sent. Council members asked whether the taller monopole would affect police radio communications and whether the monopole could be disguised (for example, as a faux pine tree); counsel and staff said the proposal is limited to tacking on 20 feet to the existing monopole and does not include tearing down or replacing the structure and that questions about radio interference fall under FCC/technical review.
One council member said they would not approve the item the same night without notice to nearby residents; staff said the nearest residential structure is approximately 70–75 feet from the pole and reiterated that the development agreement is presented as a narrow, one‑time legislative solution. The council did not vote on the development agreement at the Aug. 26 meeting.
Staff said the exhibit in the development agreement is a single paragraph defining the legislative discretion and that all other technical review items had already cleared staff review.
Because the council did not take action, no permit was approved and staff said they will return with additional notice and any outstanding technical responses.
