Heber City planning staff and an APC Towers representative returned to the planning commission on April 22 to continue a public discussion about a proposed text amendment that would increase allowable monopole heights in selected nonresidential zones.

Staff summarized the applicant’s original request and described an updated, narrower proposal focused on commercial, industrial and mixed-use zones. The staff report cited federal guidance and the National Cancer Institute in responding to health concerns and noted the state health agency had not recommended any additional regulation beyond federal (FCC) standards.

APC/RAGE Development representative Larson Quick described the coverage benefits of taller poles, including maps the applicant provided showing in‑building and outdoor coverage improvements at greater heights. Staff reminded the audience that small wireless facilities (often mounted on streetlight poles) are regulated elsewhere and that this amendment concerns monopoles and certain stealth designs.

Members of the public asked about radiofrequency health research, the potential for additional equipment to be attached to taller poles, and alternatives such as disguised designs. City staff said the ordinance as proposed would require stealth designs in commercial zones and would prohibit monopoles in the downtown historic core (roughly 500 North to 600 South and 600 West to 600 East) while increasing required separation between towers from 2,000 feet to 5,280 feet (one mile).

After questions and discussion about setbacks, public notice and administrative versus legislative review, a commissioner moved to amend the proposed text to reduce the maximum height to 80 feet in the affected commercial and industrial zones, retain a one‑mile minimum separation between monopoles, and keep a minimum setback equal to 15% of pole height from adjoining residential uses. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

Action details: The commission’s recommendation would go to the city council for final legislative action; the commission also directed staff to incorporate clarifying language on colocation requirements and to ensure that any provision encouraging multiple carriers on one monopole does not force height increases beyond zone limits.

Ending: The commission heard several public comments and questions, then voted to recommend the narrower text amendment. The ordinance remains a legislative matter for the city council; administrative permits and site plans will still be required for specific monopoles if the council adopts the change.