Herriman City Planning Commissioners continued consideration of a conditional use permit for a proposed 80-foot wireless monopole at a commercial site and asked the applicant to bring more detailed stealth design options and an updated off-street parking calculation. The commission voted 4–2 to continue the item so staff and the applicant can resolve visual-stealth concerns and confirm whether the tower would displace a required parking stall.

The commission heard staff, community-development director Blake Thomas, explain that city code now allows wireless facilities on certain nonpublic commercial sites following a recent amendment; the code requires co-location where feasible and calls for stealthing unless the applicant demonstrates technical infeibility or that stealth would prohibit service. Thomas said the proposal is in a C-2 commercial zone and can be up to 80 feet tall, and he advised the commission that any condition of approval or denial must be based on the standards in the packet.

Applicant representatives said the location fills an existing coverage gap and that colocation and stealth sometimes conflict. Mark (applicant representative) and Rakshuicher (representing Skyway Towers) explained site constraints: the leased footprint occupies an existing parking stall, which may require the applicant to provide replacement parking if the final calculation shows noncompliance. Rakshuicher said prior efforts to colocate on other nearby stealth structures (for example at Providence Hall and the high school) did not permit additional carriers to mount there, and that some stealth forms—such as faux water towers or larger-footprint stealth structures—require more ground area than this parcel provides.

Commission discussion centered on visual impact and the definition of “stealth.” Commissioners suggested options ranging from a full stealth treatment (examples cited: water-tank-style or architecturally masked structures) to an art-painted monopole; several commissioners said paint alone would not meet their definition of stealth. Commissioners also raised concerns about whether a stealth structure could accommodate future colocation by multiple carriers and asked the applicant to return with feasible stealth alternatives that would still allow necessary antenna mounting.

A motion to continue the item passed 4–2 on a roll call vote (Jackson, Heather, Adam and Preston voting to continue; Bridal and Daryl voting no). The commission directed the applicant to provide: (1) an updated off‑street parking calculation showing whether replacing the displaced stall will be necessary; and (2) specific stealth-design alternatives demonstrating technical feasibility and whether those alternatives would permit future colocation. The commission noted that any subsequent approval must be grounded in the code standards in the staff packet.

Next steps: the applicant will revise their submittal to respond to the parking and stealth questions and return for further review; the planning commission did not take a final approval or denial tonight.