Heber City officials will discuss a new site for a 65-foot-tall cell tower on Tuesday after nearly 40 community members expressed their disapproval about the proposed location during a Heber City Planning Commission meeting on May 12.

The original site was located on East Center Street near the Wasatch County Health Department. It would have needed to be rezoned to permit the height of the cell tower, which will accommodate up to three telecommunications carriers, and ultimately result in fewer cell towers throughout the city, explained Helmundt Strumpher, chief operating officer at Atlas Tower Group.

Neighbors expressed a variety of concerns, the foremost being a potential decline in their property values if such a tall cell tower were erected near their homes. Representatives from Atlas Tower Group insisted such impacts would not occur.

A potential solution arose when several public commenters pointed to the agenda materials, which stated the Heber City Cemetery had not been considered as a potential site solely “out of reverence for the deceased.” 

A slew of comments and off-color jokes by residents, public officials and representatives from Atlas Tower Group made it clear that placing the cell tower in the cemetery may be the best location, as it would provide a larger buffer between the tower and surrounding residences.

During the Planning Commission meeting, Community Development Director Tony Kohler confirmed that Atlas Tower Group is now dead set on placing the cell tower in the cemetery. It would likely be a cell tower tree rather than a monopole, he said.

Atlas Tower Group has been looking for an appropriate location for this cell tower for nearly two years. It has attempted nearly 50 sites, 12 of them on city-owned property.

One of those 12 was the city cemetery. While Atlas Tower Group may view it as the perfect site, planning commissioners agreed that it would still garner backlash.

“Someone’s already reached out to me and is very vocal about things about the cemetery,” Planning Commissioner Joshua Knight said. 

Kohler suggested the cemetery may be the final option.

“If the cemetery site doesn’t work, we probably ought to cut off our relationship with Atlas and say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” he said.

The deliberation over this specific cell tower has bloomed into a larger discussion about developing a master plan to determine where future cell towers should be placed. This master plan would hopefully prevent drawn-out negotiations like the one currently occurring with Atlas Tower Group.

Resident Eve Christensen, a structural engineer who designed cell phone towers for six months, suggested taking a creative approach to adding the infrastructure.

“There are an infinite variety of ways to put cell phone hardware on things. … Obviously, you see ones that look like trees. There are flag poles that are fatter than normal, church steeples. Everywhere, we’re plastering things,” she said. “Let’s expand the creativity in what’s possible, maintaining the character of our neighborhoods, but also, … I do think the future is here. The future is coming. We need to plan for it.”

The Planning Commission unanimously voted against rezoning the original site on East Center Street and suggested the City Council explore alternative sites. The Planning Commission did not recommend the cemetery specifically, but that is the site the City Council will discuss on Tuesday. There will be opportunities for public comment.

The Planning Commission also requested that city staff explore the possibility of making cell towers a conditional use across all zones, meaning each cell tower would require approval, instead of being automatically permitted.

The post Atlas Tower Group is dead set on placing a 65-foot-tall cell tower in Heber City Cemetery appeared first on Park Record.

Heber City resident Jared Jones compared a 65-foot-tall cell tower planned to be built in his neighborhood to a wasp buzzing around the city Planning Commission’s meeting room on Tuesday. 

To those near the front, the insect in the back rows was barely perceptible. But from where Jones was sitting, “that sucker was huge.”

“When you’re close to it, you feel the impact,” he said. “With me being 300 feet away, that (cell tower) is going to look pretty big.”

Over 20 of Jones’ neighbors shared that sentiment during a public hearing about the cell tower. The Planning Commission is considering a rezone on East Center Street near the Wasatch County Health Department to accommodate the height of the cell tower. Current zoning would permit a height of 35 feet.

The Planning Commission did not vote Tuesday and will at its next meeting.

The reason for the height is to ultimately build fewer cell towers in Heber City, explained Helmundt Strumpher, chief operating officer at Atlas Tower Group, the company that entered into a conditional lease agreement with the city to build the tower three months ago.

At 35 feet, the cell tower could accommodate only one telecommunications provider, also called a carrier (for example, Verizon). At 65 feet, the cell tower could accommodate up to three. 

The cell tower under discussion targets the surrounding area where cell phone service is unreliable indoors, according to Atlas Tower Group’s coverage map.

Some residents raised concerns that the tower would change their neighborhood.

“A key consideration when we purchase our homes is, ‘What is the zoning near us?’” said Lindy Reioux. “Changing zoning like that, it really changes how people feel about their homes, financially, mentally, and it’s just not fair to the citizens.”

The most common concern from homeowners was that the cell tower would drag down their property values.

In its presentation, Atlas Tower Group argued that such a decline would not occur, backing up its claim with Zillow valuation histories of four Heber City homes near existing cell towers. The homes the company showed had increased in value over the past decade.

Cameron Boyd, a Realtor from Midway, disagreed with Atlas Tower Group’s conclusions. While he acknowledged he is not a certified appraiser, he pulled from his 25-year career and conversations he’d had with local appraisers to form a counter-argument. He said every person he’d spoken to in his field agreed that a decline in property values would occur.

“If I drive 10 qualified buyers to a home immediately adjacent to a 65-foot cell tower, especially when visible from a backyard or any primary living spaces, in my opinion, most of those buyers are going to tell me to just keep driving. They won’t even want to see inside the home,” Boyd said. “That leaves us with a much smaller group that remains interested in the property, but those buyers are going to expect a heavy discount.”

He estimated that the impact on a single home near the cell tower would be “well into the six figures on day one” and argued that the overall impact to neighbors far outweighed the nearly $600,000 in revenue the city would generate from a 20-year lease to Atlas Tower Group.

He also pointed out that the city’s staff report on the cell tower states, “Because of the height and appearance of some wireless services facilities, surrounding properties bear a disproportionate share of the negative impacts of a telecommunications tower.”

The city and Atlas Tower Group have been in negotiations about the location of the tower for nearly two years. In October 2024, the City Council approved a conditional lease agreement to build the tower in the Valley Hills area, which garnered resident pushback. The city did not deny the site, but Atlas Tower Group ultimately decided against the site due to legal and functional constraints related to site access, said city Community Development Director Tony Kohler.

Atlas Tower Group has attempted nearly 50 sites for the cell tower, 12 of which were on city-owned property. The current site under discussion was one of those 12. 

City staff, not Atlus Tower Group, decided the location of the cell tower. Atlus Tower Group is on board to consider other city-owned sites.

“We do feel there are more locations we can explore,” Strumpher said. “If we can explore alternative locations with the city, we will definitely do that.”

The most viable location may be the Heber City Cemetery, which “was not considered out of reverence for the deceased,” according to agenda materials. That decision was challenged by residents and planning commissioners.

“I’m sure my parents won’t mind,” joked Commissioner Joshua Knight, whose parents are buried there.

City Councilor Yvonne Barney also made a public comment in support of considering the cemetery as a location.

“I doubt the dead will be able to collect 95 signatures,” she said in reference to a petition against the current site.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Tori Broughton pointed out that the buffer between the cell tower and residences would be larger if it were built in the cemetery.

Strumpher agreed that such a location would be viable.

“It (wouldn’t be) a dead zone,” he joked.

Planning Commission Chair Phil Jordan asked city staff and Atlus Tower Group to gather information about potential alternate locations before the next meeting, when commissioners will approve or deny the zone change for the current site. 

Commissioner Robert McKinley suggested also developing a master plan determining where cell towers should be built in the future as demand increases.

The post Neighbors oppose 65-foot-tall cell tower in Heber City appeared first on Park Record.

After nearly two months’ delay, the Heber City Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a preliminary site plan for The Slope, a mixed-use luxury development featuring retail, housing and a hotel, set alongside the Provo River. Construction on The Slope is expected to begin this spring.

The site plan was initially brought to the Planning Commission for approval on Oct. 14, but was delayed after Dan Simmons, who owns farmland next to The Slope, expressed skepticism around the findings of Angstrom Development Group’s groundwater study. 

In an email to city engineer Russ Funk before the October Planning Commission meeting, Simmons wrote, “As the immediately adjacent landowner, I know that groundwater can be at times only a foot beneath the surface in the areas, and indeed can even sometimes sub up above ground, depending on the water year conditions.”

Groundwater is any water found underneath the Earth’s surface, which can gather in layers called aquifers. A groundwater study not only ensures protection of the water supply, but it is also intended to ensure a development’s foundations are stable and will not cause flooding.

The city requires a minimum of 4 feet of dirt above historic groundwater levels for potential stormwater infiltration.

On Aug. 4, third-party GSH Geotechnical Consultants measured groundwater levels on the 40-acre site by excavating 12 test pits. The study found that groundwater depth ranged from 4.5 to 10.2 feet below the surface that day. 

The consultants also estimated that the maximum historic groundwater depth was 3 to 8.7 feet across the test pits. This was done by studying mottling, rust streaks and spots in the soil that form during fluctuating water conditions. 

The findings around historic groundwater depth led to additional development costs. Angstrom Development Group partner Andy Dorobek said “almost the entire civil engineering” had to be redesigned on the site. Funk added that the development group will have to pay to import “a significant amount of fill” at its expense.

However, Simmons still had concerns, particularly because the groundwater levels were measured only once, on “a date late in the summer of a hot, dry year,” instead being monitored continually to evaluate seasonal fluctuations. 

He also worried about potential groundwater contamination and impacts on the Provo River. The Wasatch County Health Department classified the area where The Slope will be built as highly sensitive to groundwater contamination in its 2020 report on groundwater quality in the county.

Simmons’ concerns were shared by Greg Poole, civil engineer with Hansen, Allen & Luce, who had been hired by Simmons in the past to evaluate groundwater purity on his property, though not the groundwater level. Simmons and Poole’s concerns were based on eyewitness accounts of what they had observed on Simmons’ property.

Funk called Poole a “very reputable hydrologic engineer,” which was why the city chose to look further into the groundwater levels.

“We certainly don’t want to get every layman, neighbor, citizen coming in and thinking they can make an allegation and delay a project,” Funk said during the Oct. 14 meeting. “(But) we certainly can’t just say, ‘No, we’re not gonna listen to that.’ It definitely needs some attention.”

Funk then hired another third party, engineer Patrick R. Emery from Gordon Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., to review GSH Geotechnical Consultants’ groundwater study. 

Emery submitted his review on Dec. 3. He confirmed that soil mottling is “standard practice for determining the maximum historical groundwater depth at a site with the understanding that there are some limitations.” He also wrote that the number of test pit explorations was appropriate given the site’s size. Essentially, Emery found no issue with the methods GSH Geotechnical Consultants had used in its study. 

Since groundwater was the primary remaining concern about the development, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan unanimously during the meeting.

“Heber City’s stormwater design standards are more stringent than most municipalities. … We have done our due diligence … to enforce our code,” Funk said. “There hasn’t been pushback. The developer has come forward and, from my perspective, tried to meet all those requirements without trying to argue against them.”

The post The Slope goes forward in Planning Commission appeared first on Park Record.

Heber City Council on Tuesday night removed Jami Hewlett, a Wasatch County Council candidate and Heber City Planning Commission alternate member, from the Planning Commission.

Earlier this week, Mayor Heidi Franco sent Hewlett a letter asking her to resign. If she did not, Franco wrote that the City Council would be forced to take a public vote.  

This vote follows a month-long debate surrounding Hewlett’s actions where she publicly distributed a letter she wrote falsely attributing Winston Lee of Lee Music. In the letter, Hewlett raised concerns about Heber City’s downtown plans. Lee did not share those concerns. 

“My opinion is that she used my building and my name to push her own agenda,” Lee wrote in a letter to Councilor Yvonne Barney. “I think in her mind, she thought she was doing what was best for the community without thinking about how it would hurt me.”

Heber City Council released a statement this morning on the matter.

“As public servants, we hold ourselves to the highest codes of conduct to behave in a manner befitting the community and citizens that we represent,” the statement reads. “Public trust and integrity are mandatory for elected and appointed officers recommending City policy. Accountability regarding policy or ethical conduct violations must be observed to preserve the sanctity of the institution.”

Barney said in the meeting that the City Council was hoping for a “reasonable outcome from all of this.” But, when she received Lee’s letter, Barney realized this was a matter she could not set aside. 

The decision was brought to the table last night after it was delayed earlier this week by City Councilor Aaron Cheatwood, with support from Franco. 

“I did not want anything to interfere with an election that could either cause confusion or momentum in either direction,” Cheatwood said. “I made it clear that I did not want to have to remove this person. I hoped that she would resign instead. I am somewhat disappointed to be handling this on November 5.”

Of the five council members, Cheatwood was the only city councilor to vote against the motion.

Hewlett entered the City Council chambers ahead of the vote alongside her husband, Michael. Both were hoping for a chance to comment on the matter before the decision was made. They were not given the opportunity. 

“I just would have liked to share a letter myself,” Hewlett said after the meeting. “I just would have liked the chance to voice my side of the story and share my own letter that would be read in council.”

At the start of the meeting, Franco said that she hopes the City Council will shift their focus going forward to serve the public “instead of attacking each other.”

“We need to personally try to set the example that personal attacks or personal grievances are not needed here. We need to be better than that.”

The post Heber City Council votes to remove Planning Commission alternate  appeared first on Park Record.